R.G.Menzies above

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

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

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



30 June, 2019

No forgiveness for Folau’s sins against the PC church

The take-home message of the Israel Folau scandal is as clear as it is terrifying: Christians are no longer welcome in public life.

If you adhere to core Christian beliefs about sin, hell and damnation, you will be purged from polite society.

If you think St Paul was right to argue in his Epistle to the Romans that it is sinful for men to neglect “the natural use of the female” and instead to become “inflamed by their lust for one another”, you will be cast out of the community. If you agree with the word of God — that man “shall not lie with mankind as with womankind”, as Leviticus puts it — you will be branded a moral transgressor.

The irony is almost too much to bear: critics of Christianity now use the tactics Christianity itself once used in its darker moments in history. They demonise certain ideas as heretical, rage against those who holds these ideas and subject these sinful creatures to a PC inquisition.

“Are you now or have you ever been an adherent to the Bible’s beliefs on homosexuality…?”

Answer yes and you’re out, packed off to the moral wilderness, with a metaphorical placard saying “homophobe” — a modern word for evil — hanging around your neck.

Folau’s crime, his sin against political correctness, is to believe that people who have gay sex are destined for hell.

He expressed this belief in a meme he shared on his Instagram page, which said “hell awaits” certain wicked people, including drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters and homosexuals.

As an atheist who has engaged in boozing, fornication and idolatry at various times in his life, I guess I’d better prep for an eternity of fire and torture. I don’t share Folau’s beliefs. I was brought up a Catholic, so I know there are many people who genuinely believe homosexuality is a sin. But I’m a lapsed Catholic now, and godless too, and it bothers me not one iota who people choose to have sexual intercourse with. Knock yourselves out. Wear a condom!

Yet I find the persecution of Folau repulsive and an alarming sign of the times.

It demonstrates how far PC intolerance has gone and how thoroughly anyone who doesn’t slavishly subscribe to contemporary orthodoxy can expect to be punished.

It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or an atheist, straight or gay, uptight about sex or a cheerleader for sexual debauchery — you should still be deeply concerned that a man can be persecuted simply for what he believes, for the convictions that reside in his head and his heart.

Persecution is not too strong a word for it. The dictionary definition of persecution is “hostility or ill-treatment” especially because of one’s “race or political or religious beliefs”.

This aptly describes what Folau has faced. He has had hostility heaped upon him because of his religious beliefs. He has been ill-treated because of his faith.

First, in April, he was dumped by the rugby world. Rugby Australia and NSW Rugby — which oversees the team Folau played for, the Waratahs — issued a joint statement announcing the termination of his contract.

The statement was perverse. It will surely be studied by future generations who want to understand the moral contortionism of the early years of the 21st century.

It claimed Rugby Australia is keen to create an environment in which everyone can feel “safe and welcome” and in which there is “no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality”. And so, because of his Instagram post, Folau had to be cast out.

It is testament to the blinkered arrogance of political correctness, and of those who do its bidding, that these people could not see the profound moral contradiction at the heart of their chilling statement. In the name of preventing “vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality”, they vilified Folau on the basis of his religion. In the name of creating a safe environment where everyone can feel “welcome”, they made it clear that Folau — because of his religion — is not welcome.

This Orwellian statement translates as follows: “We will not tolerate vilification on the basis of religion — unless your religion is traditional Christianity, in which case we will vilify you. And we are welcoming of everyone — except people who believe the words of the Bible, whom we will sack and shame.”

This repugnant statement summed up what is the first and last commandment of the ideology of political correctness: “We love and accept everyone. Except anyone we disagree with. We hate those people and we will destroy them.”

Authoritarianism dressed up as acceptance. Intolerance under the guise of tolerance. This is the Newspeak of the PC era, and it is horrifying.

Even worse, Folau’s opponents then sought to make it more difficult for him to defend himself. The sports world effectively made him a moral reprobate; then the capitalist class decided he should not be allowed to raise money for his own defence in his case of unlawful termination against Rugby Australia.

GoFundMe Australia shut down his fundraising page. It did so because we do not “tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion”, it said.

Again with the Orwellianism. We do not tolerate discrimination or exclusion, so we will discriminate against a biblical Christian and exclude him from our services — that is essentially what GoFundMe is saying. Shameless self-contradiction.

Thankfully, the Australian Christian Lobby stepped in, keeping open the possibility of charity for Folau after others almost closed that possibility down. It is testament to the strength of feeling around this issue that the ACL raised $2 million in the first day. Huge numbers of ordinary Aussies clearly want to take a stand for religious freedom and freedom of speech — good on ’em.

This terrible spectacle, this hounding of one man over his beliefs, reveals so much about the culture wars of the early 21st century.

First, it confirms that PC is the new religion. Political correctness now does what pointy-hatted priests used to do: seeks out thought criminals and moral transgressors and punishes them for their wicked beliefs.

No, nobody has been burned at the stake. Folau’s life is not at risk. But there is nonetheless an inquisitorial feeling to the witch-hunting of this rugby player whose only offence is that he thinks differently from the PC crowd.

The second thing revealed by this hounding is that the left will turn a blind eye to the use and abuse of capitalist power if it serves their purposes. So, just as leftists have cheered Silicon Valley oligarchs as they have expelled from social media anyone who has an anti-PC point of view, so they have applauded GoFundMe’s shunning of Folau. It’s a private company, they say, and private companies can decide for themselves who to host and who to ban.

Let’s break this down: what they’re really saying is that the speech rights of a “horrible” Christian come a poor second to the property rights of corporations. So, all their anti-capitalist bluster is stuff and nonsense. When push comes to shove, they will back the internet elites and online Big Business over those who they deem to be morally wicked.

This is a celebration of corporate power over individual speech rights. That’s the kind of thing you would expect from the libertarian right, but not from the supposedly socially conscious left.

And the third thing confirmed by this dispiriting affair is that Christianity is one religion it is acceptable to mock and persecute these days.

If you were to criticise Islam, you would be branded an “Islamophobe”. You would be accused of stirring up racist sentiment. You would be denounced and harassed and censured.

Yet the Koran also attacks homosexuality. It says any man who “practises your lusts on men” deserves to be driven “out of your city”. They should be visited by a “shower of brimstone” — that is, kill them.

I find these views of homosexuals as dreadful as the Leviticus view. But I support the right of Muslims and Christians alike to hold these views and to think that men who lie with men will be punished in the afterlife.

When did we forget this key principle of civilised, enlightened, democratic society — that people should be free to hold even difficult and disagreeable views, and should never be punished for what they think?

Folau should be free to think and say whatever he likes, and he should face no sanction whatsoever.

SOURCE  






The Australian constitution is on Folau's side

Section 116 of The Australian Constitution states: “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth”.

Where there is reference to industrial law, it relates only to the public service and it must be said the ultimate phrase of Section 116 was honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

In the bad old days of sectarian Australia, no Catholic could get a job working for Treasury. Likewise, Protestants looking to get a gig in the Tax Office.

But at least religious freedoms get a mention. All other freedoms are merely implied and that means they are open to being trampled regularly by government.

If dealt with in isolation, the question of religious freedom will be pushed into the murk of a politico-legal world grappling awkwardly with black letter diktats on the nature of religion. It rarely ends well.

In 1983, the High Court had to determine the basic question of what constitutes a religion in Australia. It was a vexed business and once handed down, the judgment revealed the discomfiture of the Full Bench in dealing with such a slippery issue.

The Victorian Supreme Court had labelled Scientology a sham religion, a mockery of established religious observance and determined the State of Victoria was within its rights to claim payroll tax from the group.

When the scientologists took the matter to the High Court, the Supreme Court ruling was overturned. The High Court determined that an organisation that believes it is a religion is a religion, or more properly, if a group of people who associate with a particular organisation believe it is a religion then that is what it is. Thus, Scientology became the Church of Scientology in Australia and got to enjoy all the tax-free goodies.

Far be it for me to say, but the Victoria Supreme Court probably got it right in respect of Scientology but the High Court’s prevailing judgment was one driven by the sensible view that despite their considerable legal expertise, men and women in horsehair wigs, had no business providing a legal checklist for matters of faith and religious belief.

It was the right call, but it led to poor results where a cult like Scientology enjoyed tax free status and further emboldened more cults and sects in Australia to do likewise.

We should be thankful to Folau and to Rugby Australia, too. It is an unpleasant business for him, and others directly involved but in the greater public forum it can lead to very healthy discussions, a renewed focus on our rights and our freedoms, why so many have gone missing and how to get them back.

We need to broaden the argument that sprang from the great sense that Folau has been dealt with disgracefully.

The best and fairest response is to enshrine freedoms of expression, movement and association equally across the board as the foundations for the way people work and live in Australia.

We need to establish where we stand in this country. A bill of rights would make the Australia even noisier and a good deal messier than it is today but I’d suggest in a complex modern society that is no bad thing.

SOURCE  






Another man victimized by false allegations

Bettina Arndt

We are fast reaching the point where men won't dare work with children. The vigilantism and community hysteria surrounding sexual abuse accusations combined with our anti-male culture means all men are vulnerable to false accusations which can end their careers.

Over the decades I've been writing about these issues I have talked to so many men in this situation. In this week's video I interview a respected music teacher and school band conductor who is currently banned from teaching in NSW schools. He was subject to false accusations by a number of students which were properly investigated by police and the Department of Community Services and found to have no substance.

It's over a year since the accusations first surfaced and were then investigated, yet the Education Department's secretive investigation unit refuses to remove him from the list banning him from teaching in schools. His career is ruined, his reputation trashed by malicious social media campaigns labelling him as a pederast.

Please watch my video and help me circulate it. People need to know what's happening to some of our most experienced and trusted male teachers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on0vK284wbU

Via email from Bettina






The plight of boys in a misandrist world

The poison of revenge feminism

I worry more for my 19-year-old son than for my daughters, both in their early 20s. At a dinner party recently, a young woman told me that my son’s school was teeming with rape culture. That’s not true. I tried to explain why — that one bad boy, even a few, does not make a rape culture. But she didn’t seem to be interested in listening to this.

My son’s school has swallowed the fabrication hook, line and sinker. That is the wretched power of misguided accusations and outright lies. Repeat them enough and people believe them.

The confected panic became so ridiculous that at one assembly senior boys were told not to use the word moist as it might offend girls. The boys responded rationally. They muttered for the rest of the day about moist sandwiches, moist weather and so on. Some teachers joined in because, as a rule, overreach is rarely taken seriously.

Now I read that if my son, or one of his gorgeous and clever friends, studies medicine and becomes an obstetrician and gynaecologist, motives need to be checked. Are they in it for power? To enjoy watching women in pain? To perve at women’s private parts?

This is serious. Seriously wrong. I wouldn’t normally respond to another writer in this newspaper. We are a broad church, despite the claims of some ideologically blind critics that we all lean one way. Live and let write, I say. Sometimes their arguments sharpen mine.

Nikki Gemmell’s piece two weeks back needs addressing, not to sharpen opposing views given her claims are so easily sliced and diced. They need to be positioned as part and parcel of a wicked movement that seeks to punish men en masse, even smearing boys for the past deeds of some men.

Gemmell may not have meant to join this miserable movement. Maybe she was naive. But her claim that we should question the motives of why a man would want to be an obstetrician gives cover to others who choose gender as a determination of good or bad motives. Think of the obsessions about the white patriarchy and toxic masculinity. Rather than ­encourage more of these mindless accusations, can’t we agree that this genre of revenge feminism deserves no helpers? And that men should not have to defend themselves against inchoate claims about bad motives?

Revenge feminism is one part of a larger body of grievance politics, each offshoot with its own misguided postmodernist pursuit.

Post-Marxists assert power imbalances, regard objective knowledge as a construct of power, assume bad motives from those who have power, and then they prop up those deemed to be oppressed and punish those assumed to be oppressors. Many are so consumed with finding power imbalances, they do not stop to check whether they have found a real one, or whether they are making sense even when they have found the locus of power.

The redeeming feature of the postmodernist movement is that it is increasingly incoherent. Hence, it will not likely enjoy the same longevity of past, more comprehensible political movements. ­Rational people simply cannot, and will not, abide by the increasingly outlandish claims that emanate from the many parts of postmodernism.

From identity politics more broadly to narrower agendas of intersectional feminism and queer theory, along with their absolutist claims about cultural appropriation, unconscious bias, toxic masculinity, cisgender privilege, heteronormativity, and so on, more people recognise these as ­regressive, not progressive. All are aimed at judging people, not as individuals but as members of assumed oppressed and oppressor classes according to race, sexuality, culture and more.

Revenge feminism that reflexively impugns the motives of men is just another incoherent part of the mother ship of 1960s postmodernism that reworked itself in the 80s. But before each bit is ­finally dumped as part of modernity’s biggest political con, clumsy assumptions about power and gender are exceedingly unfair to men and do nothing good for women either.

My own experience points to the pointlessness of using gender to judge doctors. Three children. Two obstetricians. The first, a woman, was dreadful. Rough, rude, dismissive, she had many complaints against her I learned later. My second obstetrician was gentle and caring and he listened too. I judged both of them not by gender but by their individual skills, or lack of them.

My former father-in-law, a more decent man you could not find, was a GP in country NSW for many years in an era when the local doctor did all manner of things. He delivered so many ­babies that his family frequently bumps into those babies or the mothers and fathers, all much older now. This gentle man does not deserve to have his motives questioned for bringing babies into the world.

Gender stereotypes can blow back on women, too. Working as a young lawyer at a large law firm in Sydney more than two decades ago, I noticed that a higher proportion of senior female lawyers, partners in particular, were rude and dismissive. Kind of like that ­female obstetrician I would encounter some years later.

What was their beef? Maybe some thought young female lawyers had slid too easily into our chosen profession compared with their harder road. But why punish us for their trials and tribulations? Others didn’t discriminate on the basis of sex; they were equally awful to young men and women. The point is that some of us grew wary of older female lawyers and preferred to work for men. The men weren’t necessarily caring or gentle but they were fair.

Today, the pendulum has swung even further. In our biggest companies, in government bureaucracies and at universities too, gender is more prominent than ever. The way it is panning out, with quotas and special privileges for women, we are focusing less on people as individuals.

Today, if you want a genuine equal opportunity employer, your best bet may be a small business that is mercifully free of gender rules, and HR departments that enforce them.

Postmodern quests by social justice warriors have made us more sexist, and more racist, too.

Think of frequent accusations about toxic masculinity, not to mention bogus claims against white privilege. It is not corrective justice to smear all men with bad motives or to claim all white people are privileged. It is not justice of any kind. And it is not good for any of us.

There have always been sporadic contests over the core idea of the West that we treat people equally, as individuals who should be neither punished nor promoted by reason of their race, creed, ­gender or sexuality.

But today there is an escalating drive, under the auspices of identity politics, to divide people into smaller and smaller groups, starting from clumsy assumptions about power, replacing objective knowledge with unverified claims, ascribing bad motives to one class and good motives to another, punishing some, promoting others. It is driving people apart, creating default settings of distrust. Intersectional feminism, for example, is at war with itself, different groups of women laying claim to be the biggest victims.

In the victimhood sweepstakes, a woman of colour beats a white woman hands down, a lesbian woman of colour beats a lesbian white woman, and a trans woman beats a lesbian woman of colour. And a trans woman of colour? That is intersectional bingo. Meanwhile, trans activists in general are at war with biological women, and none of these groups is listening to the other. It is a shouting race to the top of a wonky ladder of victimhood.

It is no wonder then that identity politics is more morose and divisive, infantilising and illiberal now compared with, say, a decade ago. Given that we do not know where this ends or what the point of no return looks like, each of us should surely commit to being living, breathing examples of the great liberal mission.

Respecting and judging people as individuals is the road to genuine and enduring equality. If we start from this first principle, real empowerment and human flourishing will follow too. And a new social justice movement can better judge who holds power, who abuses it and how best to protect those at the mercy of real oppression.

We have to start somewhere. Not impugning the motives of male obstetricians is as good a place as any.

SOURCE  






EcoFascists:  The new totalitarians

Melbourne University’s new vice-chancellor, Duncan Maskell, wants to “reach out” and “build partnerships” with the business sector. It may be harder than he thinks. Potential donors might catch up with what the university’s Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) is advocating. MSSI Director, Professor Brendan Gleeson, has just co-authored with staffer Dr Sam Alexander a book Degrowth in the Suburbs: A Radical Urban Imaginary.[1]

The book calls for the overthrow of capitalism en route to a mightily shrunken non–consumerist “eco-socialism”. MSSI cites reviews of the book as a “beacon of hope” for a “a tantalizing and realistic suburban future”, as the authors guide us “through the calamities of the Anthropocene”. MSSI last March also published an update by the Gleeson/Alexander duo, “showcasing new and exciting sustainability knowledge”.[2] The authors respectfully quote Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto of 1848. But they argue for a decarbonised Australia which for radicalism makes Marx and Engels seem mild as maiden aunts:

Attempting to take control of the state may not necessarily be the best way to initiate the transition to a just and sustainable degrowth economy, for even a socialist state may find itself locked into unsustainable growth just as capitalism is.

and

A revolutionary consciousness must precede the revolution. If governments will not lead this process, it arguably follows that social movements might have to change the world without (at first) taking state power… [3]

The authors note that Australian householders to the 1950s did a lot of backyard food-growing, dress-making and furniture-making, and DIY building:

This ‘urban peasantry’ declined however in the Post-War Boom, as the rise of mass consumer capitalism enabled households to purchase goods previously produced within the household. We contend that any degrowth or post-capitalist transition may well see the re-emergence of an ‘urban peasantry’ in this sense, albeit one shaped by different times and concerns.

The more pain for citizens the better, apparently, to “shake people awake”:

In our view, it is better that citizens are not in fact protected from every disruptive situation, given that encounter with crisis can play an essential consciousness-raising role. (175).

They say,

Ultimately, the solution to crisis is crisis: a massive suspension of capitalism as prelude to a new economic and social dispensation…To liberate human prospect, we must cast down not defend the burning barricades of a dying modernity. (15-16)

They extol Cubans for food production in backyards, turning “crisis into opportunity”. The post-2007 Greek debt crisis also furnishes them insights “into ways of dealing positively with challenging and turbulent times”. I’m surprised they haven‘t also cited socialist Venezuela’s shining example of degrowth. They say that living standards, despite degrowth, can be propped up by voluntary sharing and gifting. But they caution the middle classes that “access to expensive handbags through sharing schemes is not progressive if it merely entrenches consumer culture.”

Richard di Natale’s Green’s Party, they say, “has begun to recognize the need for a post-growth economy, even though it treads very carefully knowing that it must not alienate a voting constituency that is still developing a post-growth consciousness” (180). I don’t think di Natale will thank them for that insight.

In one of the sickening clichés of the Gleeson/Alexander academic style – dating back eight years to Alexander’s Ph.D. thesis — the authors time-travel to 2038 and discover what a success their policies have been (145).[4] Large fossil-fuel companies are nationalized in a near “war time mobilization” and their workers handed a job guarantee in renewables (167).

Graffiti daubers in 2038 instead write inspirational slogans: “Graffiti art sprayed all over Melbourne captured the spirit best: ‘I have a little; you have nothing; therefore, we have a little’” (154). Suburbanites share food from their vegie plots, eschew distant holidays (local trips show “hidden delights” within reach of a borrowed electric car), mend their own clothes, eat vegetarian and fertilise their backyard plots with nutrients from their composting toilets. “As old attitudes die, it is now broadly accepted that a civilized society in an era of water scarcity should not defecate into potable water…” they write (158).

“Tiny houses” on wheels proliferate on idle driveways and spare rooms are opened to boarders. Homesteaders enjoy sewing, baking bread and brewing beer. (Home-brewed cider and port feature in Alexander’s previous yurts-and-jam-jar imaginings). People spend their leisure on “low-impact creative activity like music or art, home-based production, or sport. (164)”. But many sport fields get converted to cropping, which is tough on the likes of AFL fans who initially create “instances of social conflict” until won over by Gleeson and Alexander’s insights (159).

The elderly purr along on electric bikes, and neighborhoods share ‘electric cargo bikes” capable of dropping multiple kids at school. The ‘vast majority’ of city people do some food-growing and bee-keeping in their welcome new roles as “urban peasantry”. They convert train-line verges to chicken and goat farms and former car parks to aquaculture. With so much  physical work, people need less public health care, “freeing up more of the public purse for the energy transition” (160).

The ambience at MSSI hasn’t changed much since I last checked them out four years ago. Those earlier pieces — The joy of yurts and jam-jar glassware, Melbourne Uni’s watermelon patch, and A book without peer — can be read by following the links.

MSSI is now running a whole project on eco-socialism’s “Great Resettlement” of the suburbs after we cut loose from our “fatal addiction” to oil, gas and coal. Just for starters, Gleeson/Alexander are now agitating for a top marginal tax rate of “90 per cent or more”,[5] wealth taxes “to systematically transfer 3 per cent of private wealth [do they mean per annum?] from the richest to the poorest” and estate taxes of 90 per cent or more “to ensure the laws of inheritance and bequest do not create a class system of entrenched wealth and entrenched poverty.” In their view, Australia should give a guaranteed living wage to every permanent resident and a “job guarantee” involving the state as employer of last resort (193-4).

The book says the “working class struggle” (91) should involve, of course, a giant increase in State control for a “wholesale eco-socialist transition” (174). There would be “vastly increased democratic planning and perhaps even some rationing of key resources to ensure distributive equity” (195). State and community banks would monopolise most mortgages and use the profits to fund a guaranteed right to public housing (191), with socialization of property per se likely later down the track (190).

To prepare the masses for this Gleesonian world of degrowth, grassroots education campaigns would get special importance and the arts sector would weave “emotionally convincing” narratives about anti-consumerism (195) – — except maybe for climate tragic Cate Blanchett; her portfolio includes a $6m Sussex mansion.

In the book’s sole flash of common sense, the authors say, “Electric cars are still on the rise, but progress is slow as few households can afford them, and their ecological credentials remain dubious in many respects” (164-65).

You may be wondering about this Sustainable Society Institute. It’s not some rogue element of the campus in a reefer-strewn Carlton hideaway but an interdisciplinary Melbourne University standard-bearer. It has a “diverse and vibrant  Advisory Board of experts, leaders and champions of sustainability.” They include Nobelist Peter Doherty and the president, no less, of the university’s professorial board, Rachel Webster.

Housed in the architecture faculty , it has a staff of 21 including four professors, 6-7 PhDs and 10 administrators. There goes about $3m salaries a year in tax and fees, let alone costs of MSSI delegations to annual UN climate gabfests. MSSI purports to produce high impact publications, post-grad research and public debate – although the only debates there are among green-leftists. MSSI has staff exchanges with Germany’s far-left Potsdam Climate Impact Institute, which has helped lure Germany into a crippling energy shortage.

Check out MSSI’s “diverse and vibrant advisory board of experts, leaders and champions of sustainability.” Chair is Melbourne’s deputy mayor Arron Wood, a graduate of the Climate Leadership program run by globe-trotting, CO2-belching Al Gore. Other members include John Bradley, State Environment Department head and previously CEO of power distributor Energy Networks; and various green group leaders like Katerina Gaita, CEO of “Climate for Change”. She’s a fellow Al Gore graduate and daughter of Romulus My Father author Raimond Gaita with whom she shared the jolliest green family chinwags at the Wheeler Centre (below).


The MSSI board, apart from some vested interests, also bulges with corporate high-flyers of the capitalist imperium targeted for destruction by MSSI. These barons and duchesses of a dying order include Rosemary Bissett, sustainability head of National Australia Bank; Gerard Brown, corporate affairs head of ANZ Bank; and Victoria McKenzie-McHarg, strategy manager at Bank Australia. She boasts of leading the campaign to replace Hazelwood power station and stopping another Victorian coal-fired power project going ahead, plus there was her role in the women-in-climate change seminar. Then there’s Adam Fennessy, EY consultancies’ government strategy partner and ex-head of Victoria’s Environment Department. No green lobby would be replete without big emitter Qantas, and MSSI has Megan Flynn, listed as Qantas group environment and carbon strategy manager.[3] Sadly for Qantas, Gleeson’s post-capitalist and climate-friendly world will be a no-fly zone.

Last week Melbourne University’s council and its academics combined to put out an improved free speech policy, not before time as the Institute of Public Affairs audit last year cited some nasty incidents:

Conservative students launched a membership drive and a posse of Melbourne University academics cried ‘Racists!’ and had the conservative students thrown off campus. Former Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella was shouted down and physically confronted during a guest lecture at the University of Melbourne.

The Gleeson-Alexander “array of revolutionary reforms” includes a scenario “to create (or re-create) a ‘free press’” (p194-5). I hope they don’t have a tax or fee-financed bunyip version of Pravda in mind.

Associate Professor (climate politics) Peter Christoff is a long-time MSSI executive committee member. He’s publicly called for legislation imposing “substantial fines” and “bans” to silence conservative commentators of the Andrew Bolt/Alan Jones ilk. This was a contrast to last week’s university policy to promote “critical and free enquiry, informed intellectual discourse and public debate within the University and in the wider society”. Christoff was addressing a 2012 university seminar aptly titled Law vs Desire: Will Force or Obedience Save the Planet? His draconian sanctions were, as per my transcribing from 20 minutes in,

based on the fact that unchecked climate denialism over time would cause loss of freedom and rights, the death of thousands of humans, the loss of entire cultures, effectively genocide , extinctions…

The legislation to be contemplated might be roughly framed around things like Holocaust Denial legislation which already exists in 17 countries, focused on the criminalisation of those who public condone, deny or trivialise crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity…

“The [fifth] objection [to his proposal] is that this is simply unworkable, inquisitorial, having the perverse effect of increased attraction to banned ideas and their martyrs. It will depend on the application of such law. If it is selective and well focused, with substantial fines and perhaps bans on certain broadcasters and individuals whom I will not name, who stray from the dominant science without any defensible cause, it would have a disciplinary effect on public debate. There still would be plenty of room for peer reviewed scientific revisionism and public debate around it, but the trivial confusion that is being deliberately generated would be done away with, and that is a very important thing at the moment.

His proposal was heard with equanimity by the panel comprising Professor Helen Sullivan, Director of the University’s Centre for Public Policy (introducer); MSSI’s Professor Robyn Eckersley; activist Dave Kerin and Professor of Rhetoric Marianne Constable (University California, Berkeley). The young audience showed no negative reaction. Compere was the university’s Dr Juliet Rogers, now a Senior Lecturer in Criminology. (Her Melbourne Law School PhD was on ‘Fantasies of Female Circumcision: Flesh, Law and Freedom Through Psychoanalysis’).

Professor Sullivan, summing up at 1.54.20, says Christoff’s contribution is useful

“just about how you might start to use the law and possibility of the law, to generate a sense of resistance and generate people out of a passivity. I would not want to think Peter’s contribution was off the point; it is ‘in there’ and may be part of the mix and something we need to be thinking about.”

One of three comments on the youtube seminar page reads: “A highly distinguished, diverse group of intelligent human beings openly discussing hard topics to help humanity navigate our way through these hard times with a sense of justice, democracy and reason.” Another begs to differ: “Just listened here to a group of academic Eco-[authoritarians] who all are embracing the biggest scientific swindle of all time. Fascinating insight into lunatics.”

Christoff and Eckersley in 2014 co-wrote a chapter in the Christoff-edited book “Four Degrees of Global Warming, Australia in a Hot World”.[6] They reached the following “Conclusion” (p201):

 The American political scientist Chalmers Johnston called 9/11 and the continuing War on Terror ‘blowback’, caused by United States’ imperial foreign and defence policies from the 1950s to the start of the century. If we do realise a Four Degree World…we will have cause to call the results for Australia ‘climate’ blowback or ‘carbon’ blowback.

It seems disrespectful to 3000 murdered Americans to suggest that the attack was America’s fault, or “blowback”.

Here’s more Gleeson/Alexander book extracts, free speech indeed (Trigger warning for snowflakes):

# “A massive, disruptive adjustment to the human world is inevitable. The next world is already dawning. Humanity will surely survive to see it…capitalism will not…it will collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. (15)

# Their recipe for suburban reform is for “radicals and progressives – indeed all who experience a sense of care and responsibility for viable human futures – to loudly indict a dying but still lethal capitalism for its crimes against human and natural prospects.” (204)

# Eco-warrior David Holmgren, writing in the book’s Foreword: “The global economy is a Ponzi scheme of fake wealth that will inevitably follow the trajectory of previous bubbles in the history of capitalism – but this time, the tightening grip of resource depletion and other limits will make this boom cycle the final one for global capitalism.’ Holmgren says he found the Mad Max movie the “primary intellectual reference point” about the energy-scarce future. (vi)

The co-authors argue that we should not “callously close borders”, as we need to take in not just (so far mythical) climate refugees but invite the world’s poor in general for reasons of “solidarity and compassion”.

“We must oppose the tide of scapegoat racism that seems to be driving the wave of populist nationalism that today calls for the closing of borders at a time when we must be opening our hearts” (18-19).

Concurrently, somehow, the state should enforce constantly reducing resource availability, such as 3 per cent a year, to ensure degrowth plus justice and sustainability (184).

They quote Slavoj Zizek, their oft-cited Slovenian philosopher, describing the capitalist economy as “a beast that can not be controlled”. It must, however, be brought to heel before it propels humanity, and all we presume to govern, into the abyss, they add (9). Zizek is a particularly odd fish.[7]

Their war-cry: “We should raise an infernal racket about the narcosis that has settled in the dying hours of capitalism. Sleepers awake! We have the right to imagine and create a more enlightened world. To work…in the suburbs, now.” (205-6)

Back in the real world, bike and vegetable-friendly co-author Alexander, who lives gas-free, says he has draped his home with solar panels to  produce six times more electricity than he draws from the grid (1kWh per person per day). His annual bill is zero. “None of this has required wearing hairshirts of living in a cave without lights,” he says (120), overlooking how much his free electricity is subsidized by taxpayers, renters and non-solar householders.

Maybe the authors will win the 2020 economics Nobel with their proposal for suburban currencies.[8] Puckle Street forex traders ought to give my Flemington dollars a good rate against their Moonee Ponds buck.

I’ve visited some nice universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Chicago, Bologna and Padua. But maybe tourists should give Melbourne University’s Sustainability Institute a miss — unless, like visitors to Hogarth’s Bedlam, they enjoy observing lunatics going about their strange business.

SOURCE  

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







28 June, 2019

Some Leftist bile over free speech


The angry Jacqueline Maley, complete with forced smile

Jacqueline Maley of the SMH exhibits the angry, abusive Leftist mind very clearly.  Below are some excerpts of what she wrote about Bettina Arndt.  It would be called hate speech if a conservative had written it. It reeks of hate.  A comment about it received from Bettina Arndt below:

" Signs of desperation from journalist Jacqueline Maley in her extremely nasty, personal attack on me last week in the Sydney Morning Herald. The feminists are clearly worried that I am winning a few rounds."

Maley starts out on an hilarious note.  She seems to think free speech was alive and well when the Riot Squad had to be called to enable Bettina's talk to go ahead.  She is clearly just a Leftist bigot determined to think that the coercive Left can do no wrong

And, most ironically,  after her explosion of bile directed at Bettina she ends advocating "civility, and the will, to listen to each other respectfully".   She clearly is in deep denial about her own behaviour.  Freud would find her mental defences fascinating


It is largely because of publicity around a talk Arndt gave at Sydney University last year that federal Education Minister Dan Tehan called a review into free speech in universities.

The Arndt talk was part of what she called her "Fake Rape Crisis Tour". She was invited by the university's Liberal Club. About 40 students, led by the women's group on campus, protested against the event. Police were called when some tried to block the entrance and disrupt the talk. They were unsuccessful - it went ahead. Arndt was free to spread her views.

Somewhat awkwardly, the independent review into campus free speech, conducted by former High Court chief justice Robert French, found that "claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated".

Not having got what they wanted - confirmation of a crisis they asserted existed - the usual voices in the conservative media, and Dan Tehan, have focused instead on French's recommendation that universities adopt a Model Code to promote free speech on campuses.

In the conclusions of his report, French mentions the idea of "intellectual rubbish", and notes, rather drily, that "there certainly is an abundance of it".

As French puts it: "The question may be asked whether a higher-education provider should be obliged to host any intellectual rubbish that wants to cross its threshold."

The answer is probably yes, as long as the content of the speech is not unlawful.

For my money, Arndt's views fall into that category. They are laughable, as Bolt demonstrated, but also dangerous because they promote misogynistic and incorrect claims about women.

But probably the best antidote to Bettina Arndt's ideas being promulgated is Bettina Arndt.

The more she speaks the more it becomes clear she is floating, weightless, in some sort of fact-free space-void, hoping for a Mark Latham or a Milo Yiannopolis to come and lend her some true notoriety of the kind that might help her sell a few books.

Perhaps Arndt could join with union boss John Setka for a speaking tour - the ultimate intellectual odd-couple, they seem to share some views on men's rights. Call it "Betts and Sets" and watch the tickets sell themselves.

As Sydney University Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence has pointed out, our entire culture is becoming more polarised and tribal in its views, and we are losing the civility, and the will, to listen to each other respectfully, or admit when we have it wrong.

SOURCE  







Two prominent conservative commentators defend Folau's right to advocate Bible values

Israel Folau continues to divide the nation in his fight against Rugby Australia, but it hasn't stopped the donations from flooding in.

Shortly after 8pm (AEST) on Wednesday evening the donations to Folau surged past $2 million on the Australian Christian Lobby fundraising page. He is now less than $1 million away from his goal.

Speaking on his 2GB show this morning, radio host Alan Jones said "we should all be doing our little bit because Israel Folau is fighting the battle for all of us".

Jones described Folau's fight as "one of the defining cases of our time" and called for people to donate.

"These are essential freedoms...it's a bit like the Mabo case, these are significant changes that must be made to the way we run our society if we are free and democratic," Jones said.

But despite calling for Australians to donate to Folau, Jones admitted he found the debate "utterly self-defeating".

"Why can't we simply say that as a world we treat people as we find them. The business of marginalising people because they're gay is appalling," Jones said.

"All we need to do here is to teach young people to respect people for who they are and what they are. We need to teach them to obey the law but beyond that we should obey our own sense of decency."

`BRAINLESS': HUGE FOLAU MISCALCULATION

Fellow conservative commentator Andrew Bolt offered a similar opinion this morning, admitting that while he doesn't agree with what Folau said, he does not agree with the way the rugby player was punished. And the big mistake was to turn on Folau's wife Maria.

He said Folau's comments were "vile", but the bullying he and his wife had received "should alarm us all".

"Just when I was feeling bad about defending gay-damning Israel Folau, some idiot at the ANZ bank decides to bully Folau's wife," Bolt wrote in his Herald Sun column.

"Seriously? How brainless are these bankers to so misread the public mood?"

Bolt touched on ANZ's involvement in last year's banking royal commission. "I doubt a bank would recognise an ethical line if it was tied around its fat neck, but ANZ apparently believes it now knows ethics better than does the Bible," Bolt said.

The Herald Sun columnist sarcastically called Folau's Instagram post "charming" but said it still qualified as free speech. "Is this really what free speech means? The right to say things that hurt some people, including, in this case, people I love? Er, yes. That's indeed what it means," he said.

"If I defended only free speech I liked, I would not be arguing for a principle. I'd be arguing for my own convenience."

Folau states he is in the "fight of his life" after Rugby Australia terminated his multimillion-dollar contract in May after he posted a controversial social media message.

The post said "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" would go to hell unless they repented.

As the saga continues to roll on, the pressure has only amplified on Folau with his wife, Maria, now facing the heat after two major netball partners issued negative statements about the New Zealand and Adelaide Thunderbirds star.

But it hasn't stopped the donations, in fact it may have only amplified the matter. Folau's original GoFundMe campaign reached $750,000 over four days.

The alternative fundraising site was established after Folau's original campaign on GoFundMe, asking for donations to help fight his legal battle, was taken down.

After his page was pulled down on Monday morning, the ACL had set up the new fundraising page by Monday evening and in less than 24 hours it had surged past the seven figure mark.

The raised funds are to go towards Folau's legal fight against RA over unfair dismissal which he believes could go all the way to the High Court.

After days of remaining silent, Folau responded to the astonishing generosity with a message on his Instagram account. He also stated he held no "ill will" towards people who have criticised him.

In a video released on Tuesday night, ACL Managing Director Martyn Iles called for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to make a stand.

"It's time for our politicians to lead. It's time for Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese to outline in detail how they will protect people of faith and the important principles of freedoms that are raised by Israel's case," he said.

"This sort of public lynching is unacceptable in a supposedly tolerant and ethnically and religiously diverse country like Australia and our politicians cannot simply wash their hands like Pontius Pilate."

At the rate the donations are rolling in, the goal of $3 million could be reached by Thursday evening. Of course the website won't close once the target has been hit.

Mr Iles said he could "not go into detail" about where any money above the $3 million mark would go.

Asked by the Today Show host Deborah Knight about the potential excess donations, Mr Iles said: "It will be distributed in a way that is consistent with ."

Knight interrupted: "Distributed where though?"

"It will go to different causes that are completely consistent with the intentions of the original donors," Mr Iles replied.

Pressed for where that will be exactly, Mr Iles said: "I am not able to go into the detail at this stage."

SOURCE  






Gender reassignment surgery could soon be ILLEGAL in Tasmania under sweeping changes to protect intersex children

The Tasmanians get something right at last

Tasmania could become the first state in Australia to make sex-assignment surgery on intersex children illegal.

The Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) seeks community feedback on a controversial proposal to criminalise gender normalisation surgery without the consent of the child.

Doctors only need parental consent to conduct the surgery on children, babies and children born with intersex variations under current laws.

The institute is particularly keen to hear from medical professionals and the broader community on the 'complex' issue of sex-assignment surgery.

The bold proposal is part of a TLRI Issues Paper examining the Justice and Related Legislation (Marriage and Gender Amendments) Act 2019, ('the JRL Act') passed by the Tasmanian Parliament in April.

Making gender optional on birth certificates was among the landmark laws passed.

While legal amendments relating to recording sex and gender information on birth certificates were consistent with international trends and human rights obligations, the issue of consent to invasive medical procedures on children remains unresolved for the TLRI.

Paper co-author Dylan Richards said many concerns raised in earlier debate were addressed in the final Act or can be resolved through minor amendments or administrative procedures.

'However, non-consensual medical procedures performed on intersex children, often with long-term adverse physical and psychological impacts, remain a concern to the intersex community,' Mr Richards said.

'There are increasing calls from international bodies for legislation to protect the rights and dignities of intersex children.'

The institute has also called for a specialist tribunal be set up to oversee all operation performed on an intersex child with the exception of emergency surgery.

 Mr Richards said Tasmanians are still confused about the recent amendments.

'We hope that the clear explanation in the Issues Paper will provide a basis for an informed community conversation about the issues the JRL Act was designed to address,' he said.

Community feedback is open until August 20.

The Institute hopes to deliver its final report to Attorney-General by the end of September, which is due to be publicly released by the end of October.

SOURCE  






How to Create a Country with no Heart

By Viv Forbes

What happened to Australia's once-bipartisan policies favouring decentralisation? Why is every proposal to develop an outback mine, dam, irrigation scheme or a real power station now labelled "controversial" by the ABC and opposed by the ALP/Greens?

This coastal-city focus and the hostility to new outback industry (except for wind/solar toys) has surely reached its zenith with the recent state budget for Queensland.

The population of coastal and metropolitan Queensland is surging with baby-boom retirees, welfare recipients, grey nomads, tourists, overseas students, migrants and winter refugees. But the outback is dying with lagging industry and many aging farmers retiring to the coast. We are creating a country with no heart.

The growing urban and seaside population needs power, water and food.

However two critical power-water-food infrastructure projects that have been on the drawing boards for decades did not even rate a mention in the state budget - an expansion of coal-fired power at Kogan Creek and a water supply dam at Nathan Gorge.

The current policy of all major parties is cluttering the countryside with piddling subsidised intermittent power producers like solar panels and wind turbines plus their expensive network of roads and transmission lines. This is inflating electricity prices, and future generations will see this bi-partisan energy policy as a disastrous blunder. It is also a mistake to encourage or subsidise private electricity cartels and put politicians, not engineers, in charge of power generation.

The Kogan Creek power station with its adjacent coal mine was opened in 2007. It is connected to the National Grid and integrated with local gas-fired and solar supplies. It was always planned to add another generating unit at Kogan Creek, but twelve long years have passed with no action.

Kogan Creek is crucial to maintaining a stable power supply to eastern Australia. This was demonstrated recently when a fault temporarily shut down Kogan Creek. The National Grid was barely maintained for about 30 minutes by the battery in SA until other base load generators could be started. With the likely 7 month closure of one damaged generating unit at Loy Yang power station, East Australian electricity supplies are now even more precarious.

Moreover, with the complete failure of the $105M Kogan solar booster and delays to other solar plants in this area which were to be connected to the grid, the duplication of Kogan Creek is urgently needed.

Coal produces reliable low-cost electricity from a concentrated area with less real environmental damage than gas, wind or solar. These low density energy sources need much more land to collect equivalent continuous energy from a wide area of bores, pipelines, turbines and solar collectors plus their backup generators, connecting roads and transmission lines.

Most CSG wells also need to pump salt water from each bore before the gas will flow. Even if costly processes are used to extract fresh water from this salt water, brines are left behind and must be stored safely. This evil-genie of salt should be left in its underground lair and disturbed as little as possible.

It is becoming clear that that CO2 does NOT drive global warming. Even if it did, when careful life-of-project studies are done for all of Qld energy sources, coal and hydro look likely to have the lowest carbon footprint with the least environmental harm (and they do not slice, dice or fry birds and bats).

The surface disruption from an open cut coal mine is 100% and it shocks the senses. However, it recovers 100% of concentrated energy from a small area of land - far less than is permanently sterilised by roads and schools, and there is no intention of restoring them. Even if the open cut was abandoned at the end of mine life, slow but relentless natural healing would immediately start. However, instead of treating the final void as an expensive liability to be refilled with overburden, it should be seen as an asset to be contoured as a pleasant lake or used for burial of the growing mountains of urban waste.

The need to conserve more water is also urgent. Nathan Gorge has been known as an ideal dam site for 50 years, but still nothing is done. The site and catchment make it likely to be a high-yielding, cost-efficient dam. It is vital to the continuing development of the Surat and southern Bowen Basins and its water could be used for irrigation, power generation or fed into the Condamine/Darling River in droughts.

Kogan and Nathan are decentralising projects that could provide community insurance for blackouts, floods and droughts.

It is the outback that produces most of Australia's food, minerals, energy, water, exports and jobs. And it produces serious income for state governments addicted to ever-rising taxes and royalties.

Anti-development policies, land-use sterilisation, climate alarmism and green law-fare are destroying the future for our kids and grandkids. Current policies will stack-and-pack the coasts and major cities leaving a depopulated outback to uncontrolled floods and droughts, lantana and woody-weeds, wild cats and dogs, wild fires, feral pigs and the occasional park ranger or tourist bus.

SOURCE  






Bernardi pays price for staying on right track

Cory Bernardi and his now -defunct Australian Conservatives have been both a symptom and a cause of the drift and correction on the conservative side of politics through the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison period.

The former Liberal senator can claim credit for helping to redirect the Coalition from outside, while simultaneously moderating other right-wing breakaway parties, in a way that has essentially done him out of a constituency.

If Scott Morrison and the -Coalition had suffered a heavy election defeat it would have precipitated a bitter falling out between the moderate and conservative wings of the Liberal Party, as well as within the Nationals and between the Nationals and Liberals. This fracturing would have enlivened the Australian Conservatives, sending some members their way, as right-of-centre politics went through another period of recrimination and realignment.

Instead - partly because of the policy influence from Bernardi from outside - the Coalition under Morrison began a reset to the right, to the mainstream of national affairs, which was enough to win another term. And this has rendered the Australian Conservatives redundant. The party won barely more than 100,000 votes nationally in the Senate election, far less even than the first preferences won just in NSW by Liberal senator Jim Molan in his solo, below-the-line campaign. With all the advertising from Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, all the star power and controversy around One Nation, and the Coalition's return to the mainstream, Bernardi's "common sense" conservatism was completely overlooked.

One Nation and UAP between them won 10 times more votes than Australian Conservatives, the lion's share of them electing another One Nation Queensland senator. Australian Conservatives are left on the sidelines electorally, and even in the Senate, where One Nation and Centre Alliance are likely to hold a pivotal balance-of-power alliance.

Bernardi, to be sure, has cooked his own goose. He was elected under the Liberal banner in 2016 as a disgruntled conservative backbencher, ditched the party to start his own breakaway organisation and wasn't up for re-election this year. So he sits in the Senate courtesy of Liberal Party votes and -remains, therefore, a rat to the party - even if he has been its most reliable crossbench vote.

And he faces a choice between political mortality or asking the party to accept back its prodigal son.

Yet Bernardi is anything but disappointed or needy. He is satisfied with what he has been able to achieve, phlegmatic about whether the Liberals want him back and torn between a thirst for the staying involved in the crucial policy debates that will shape the future of the nation and his long-held belief that he would be ready to move on from politics by the time of his 50th birthday. He turns 50 in November.

If Bernardi retires from politics before the election his place goes to a Liberal Party nominee. So the government will do just as well on the Senate floor to see the rogue senator retire as return. And even if he stays in the Senate as an independent, his vote can be counted on for anything other than the most unexpected Coalition intervention.

His future matters more when it comes to the shaping of -Coalition policy and the national debate. His contribution has been more influential than most would give him credit for and his departure would see the loss - at least from parliament - of an articulate, reasonable and relatively youthful voice for traditional conservatism.

Back in 2017, soon after launching his party, Bernardi spoke about "bursting the Canberra bubble" and included the title in his policy manifesto.

Sound familiar?

It is worth pondering the -moment Bernardi found himself estranged from his party - the moment when he would argue the party moved away from him rather than vice versa.

It happens to be the same moment that reanimated Pauline Hanson and One Nation, as well as creating the environment for the revival of Clive Palmer's United Australia outfit.

It was when Malcolm Turnbull challenged and defeated Tony Abbott in 2015. Bernardi had been made an opposition frontbencher and forced to resign on separate occasions by his leaders over a thinly veiled swipe at Christopher Pyne under Turnbull and a colourful rhetorical version of the "slippery slope" argument on gay marriage under Abbott.

The South Australian senator never hid his antipathy towards Turnbull and while he was frustrated at times by Abbott's prime ministership, he was shattered by the coup. From that moment on he was likely to defect; but it didn't happen for almost two years, after he conveniently won another term under the Liberal banner at the 2016 election.

The fear of Bernardi and many Coalition voters was that Turnbull would take the party to the left. Indeed, the very fact and manner of the former Australian Republic Movement chief's ascension confirmed that move to many supporters.

Hence One Nation was resurrected, Bernardi's cultivation of an "Australian Conservatives" forum was successful and morphed into a political party, and Palmer decided to start throwing his weight and money around.

All this activity and fracturing on the conservative right of politics was a direct reaction to the moderate coup in Canberra.

The only way for Turnbull to succeed was to recognise this and keep faith with the conservative constituency.

He failed to do this in rhetorical and economic terms, and eventually surrendered his leadership by pursuing his decade-long dream of a bipartisan climate deal with Labor. Understandably this period created greenhouse conditions for One Nation, Australian Conservatives and Clive Palmer; they thrived.

Yet Bernardi's contribution was always more measured, intelligent and intellectually consistent than that of the Queensland figureheads. He became the sensible voice of conservative debate, helping to lead the debate on lower taxes, smaller government and non-discriminatory but reduced immigration.

Bernardi pushed for reductions in foreign aid, which have occurred, and a serious examination of -nuclear power options, which is being pursued. He also had a motion passed declaring the path to surplus involved curbing spending rather than increasing taxes. Without overstating how much credit he is owed (many other players and factors were involved), his intercessions not only helped to lead the Coalition down a better policy path over time, they also helped to moderate the other minor parties. Even Hanson dropped her blanket Muslim immigration ban in favour of a security-based argument modelled on Donald Trump's policies and -advocated by Bernardi.

The Australian Conservatives helped to take the xenophobia out of the immigration debate, highlighted deep-seated concerns about freedom of speech that have proven alarmingly prescient, and relentlessly argued for smaller government and lower taxes. This was a fruitful and entirely productive role in national affairs - even though he was using a platform provided by Liberal voters, he was pulling back on the -Coalition's drift to the green left and encouraging a more tolerant and sensible approach from the right-wing breakaway parties.

Then Turnbull self-destructed on climate policy and Morrison ended up as prime minister. The Paris-driven climate elements of the national energy guarantee were scrapped, and the Coalition set about reconnecting with the mainstream.

Morrison understood what was required, walking the party back on climate invective and immigration levels, while Kerryn Phelps and Bill Shorten gifted him additional differentiation on border protection. Together with Josh Frydenberg he offered a short, medium and long-term path to lower income taxes.

With the Coalition back on the right track (pun intended), at least partly a result of Bernardi's manoeuvrings, and One Nation and UAP winning attention through personality, lunacy and advertising, the Australian Conservatives became electoral roadkill.

So Bernardi has reached a crossroads.

Had he kept his party going and run under its banner in 2022, perhaps Bernardi would have won a Senate seat - but probably not.

Chances are we will never know, because Bernardi is likely to go one of two ways. He could be lured back to the South Australian Liberal Party fold where he would be a strong contributor from within (former minister, factional powerbroker and Bernardi's arch-enemy Pyne might have something to say about that). Or, perhaps more likely, he could resign from parliament, return to the Liberal Party the Senate spot he owes it, and find another way to influence public affairs from outside the Canberra bubble.

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 June, 2019

'It's the next to go': Apartment block just 150 metres from evacuated Mascot Towers is suffering from 'cracks and sinking foundations' - as experts warn thousands of properties across Australia are unsafe

Careless builders should be held liable and made to pay

An apartment building just 150 metres from the cracking Mascot Towers could be the 'next to go' as Sydney's building defect crisis deepens.

Pictures show the six-storey complex, completed in 2009, had waterproofing issues, sinking foundations and sediment cracks as far back as July 2014 - when it was only five years old.

Real estate agent Edwin Almeida, who took the images, told Daily Mail Australia on Tuesday the problems were still there - and getting worse. 'That's the next one to go,' he said on Tuesday. 'There are a lot of issues.'

In a video from 2009, the real estate agent shows concrete coming apart at 19-21 Church Avenue at the touch of his hand, and points out peeling render, water seeping into the basement car park and concrete cancer.

'We're not talking about something you could put a step ladder on and fix it, we're talking about scaffolding going up five or six levels,' he said in the clip.

At the time, he estimated it would cost owners nearly $1million to repair the damage.

When Mr Almeida visited the property again on Sunday, he remarked: 'It's only getting worse.'

Experts say thousands of homes with similar issues are at risk across the country.

Mascot Towers, a 10-storey high rise just 150 metres away, was evacuated on June 14 after engineers found multiple cracks in the building's car park. Since then, it has emerged the 132-unit building is sinking.

The Mascot Tower evacuation comes just months after residents at the Opal Tower in Olympic Park were forced to flee when the building cracked on Christmas Eve, leaving hundreds with nowhere to go. 

Mr Almeida said the problem has spread 'all over Sydney', and affected everything from apartment towers to free-standing homes.

He claims issues facing homeowners today are a result of the 'deregulation of the construction industry', and the issue 'has been exacerbated by the dilution of the liabilities the developers and builders had in 2014'.

Mr Almeida said height and space restrictions when it came to large-scale development had been loosened in the past few years, and that building was taking place en masse on water tables, which increased the risk of water damage and the prospect of more devastating structural damage.

'The problem isn't just with high rises,' he said. 'It extends out to normal homes. It's a widespread problem, which is even more frightening, because there are more homes being built with imported materials.'

He said the issues were not just structural either. With water damage, comes mould, which can result in illnesses for residents.

'We've got families with little kids living in mould-infested apartments all around the east coast,' he said.

Peter Georgiev, director of Archicentre - which provides design, advice, assessment and inspection services - said building standards began slipping in the 1990s, and had been on a 'downwards slide' ever since.

'Once, building codes were quite prescriptive,' he said. 'If you built in the 70s, the walls were brick, the floor was concrete. If you wanted to change that, too bad.

Mr Georgiev said the issue would have widespread implications, as scores of homes and buildings became uninhabitable.

'It's not going to go away, this issue,' he said.

'This is just the tip of the iceberg. The flow on effect here is going to be the devaluing of real estate across the board, everything from speculative single houses in the outer suburbs, redeveloped properties in middle suburbia... anything that is a volume builder based product, we are finding these are the issues.

'It's not just a few people affected, it's hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions - we need a road map as to how we [are going to] do things in the future.'

The architect, who has been working since the early 1980s, said Australians should 'absolutely' be concerned as to whether their apartment was safe - but said ultimately there was no clear path to resolving the issues.  

Mr Georgiev says the Federal Government needed to take responsibility and force builders and developers to fix their cut corners.

'To know we've got this problem with waterproofing is the first step, but the second is how do you hold builders and developers accountable?' he said.

'At the moment, the government is saying the consumer has to pay - it's total bull dust. 'The builder should be held accountable.

'We want the government to say no, you go and fix that - we'll give you a low interest loan but you'll pay. They've got to come up with something cleverer than throwing consumers to the wolves.'

SOURCE  






'From first to last bell': Mobile phones are BANNED in State  schools across Victoria in a bid to clamp down on cyberbullying

Victorian public school students will be banned from using their phones from next year.

Students will have to switch off their phones and store them in lockers until the final bell, Education Minister James Merlino announced.

'This will remove a major distraction from our classrooms, so that teachers can teach, and students can learn in a more focused, positive and supported environment,' he said in a statement.

'Half of all young people have experienced cyberbullying. By banning mobiles we can stop it at the school gate.'

In the case of an emergency, parents or guardians can reach their child by calling the school.

The only exceptions to the ban will be where students use phones to monitor health conditions, or where teachers instruct students to bring their phone for a particular classroom activity.

The ban will start from term one in 2020.

It comes after McKinnon Secondary College banned phones from its grounds and reported students as being more focused during class and communicating more in the school yard.

In February 2018, ahead of the November state election, the Liberals announced a policy of banning students from using phones in classrooms.

At the time the Andrews government said bans were the decision of individual schools. 'I guess policy imitation is the greatest form of flattery,' former Liberal leader Matthew Guy tweeted on Tuesday night.

SOURCE  






'I lost my job and my marriage': Refugee, 36, starts a GoFundMe page claiming his life's been 'ruined' since a girl, 19, lied about him sexually harassing her as he helped fix her car

"Always believe the woman" feminists say.  They ignore that there are a lot of lying bitches around.  Thankfully, this one is being prosecuted

A Bosnian refugee falsely accused of sexual harassment has set up a GoFundMe page to help him get his life back on track.

Kenan Basic helped Caitlyn Gray, now 20, fix her car for two hours in Bankstown, west Sydney in November.

Gray, who was 19 at the time, lied to police that he demanded sexual favours and lunged at her breasts and crotch when she refused.

Basic found himself charged and locked up in Silverwater maximum security jail for two weeks.

He lost his job and his wife divorced him and he has now launched a fundraising page. On the page, Mr Basic writes: 'Hi my name is Kenan Basic and l been falsely accused and jailed my life has been ruined after I was wrongly accused of indecent assault.

'I lost my job and my marriage.

'After all this happening to me it's really hard to come back on track when l don't know where to start from.

'So I am rising this profile for me if you guys can help me with anything l would extremely appreciate to all of yous (sic) who help me to come back on track of my life.'   

Gray faced Bankstown Local Court on Tuesday and pleaded guilty to lying about her initial accusations.

She said she did it because he had said something to offend her and she wanted him to go to jail. She submitted a written apology to Mr Basic. 

Gray falsely accused Mr Basic - who had spent more than two hours helping fix her car at a western Sydney petrol station after she had a minor collision - of acting inappropriately towards her.

She wrongly claimed Mr Basic had made unwanted advances towards her and subsequently grabbed her breast and vagina as a way of 'payment' for assisting her with the damaged vehicle.

The court heard Gray, who has no prior criminal history, had regularly been seeing a psychologist in November last year - before making the false accusations against Mr Basic.

Her psychologist's clinical notes, counsellor notes, character references and job history was also handed to the court.

Magistrate Glenn Walsh told Gray to ensure she attended Campbelltown Community Corrections office within seven days so that a full sentencing assessment report could be completed.

Gray will reappear in court for sentencing on August 7.

Mr Basic previously said he was grateful to be free after all charges, but was now hesitant to help strangers.

CCTV captured the interaction between the pair, but Gray told police he followed her after she drove away.

Mr Basic admitted he did follow her, but claimed he did so to ensure her car didn't break down again. - not to harass her as she claimed.

Gray later went to Liverpool police station and gave a statement about the ordeal - which resulted in the arrest of Mr Basic on November 23.

Mr Basic was then charged with multiple offences including one count of incite person over the age of 16 to commit an act of indecency and one count of stalk and intimidate intending to cause fear or physical harm.

Five days later police spoke to Gray again after they failed to find any CCTV evidence to comply with her version of events.

Again, Gray continued to lie and insisted she had been telling the truth. When she spoke to police for a third time on November 29 she repeatedly insisted she had been telling the truth.

Shortly after, Gray came clean and admitted she had fabricated the accusations.

'No-one would ever expect that as a Good Samaritan you stop to assist a broken down motorist that then you would subsequently be charged with these serious offences,' Mr Basic's lawyer said.

SOURCE  








City of Sydney climate debate a microcosm of political decline

Chris Kenny

We have shrunk from a lively public square as a clearing house for the issues of the day into darkened silos of hate-filled barbs, cultivated on social media and thrown into a new public debate that doesn't so much seek to win contests over ideas but to shout down, silence and demonise opponents.

A little example of how sad this has become played out this week in the Sydney City Council where a motion was passed declaring a climate emergency in the NSW capital. The Sydney councillors happily took to the Town Hall steps displaying a "climate emergency" banner and waving flags - apparently sharing their delight about drawing attention to our impending doom.

The motion they passed was nonsensical and alarmist. It accused a federal government committed to the Paris climate targets of presiding over a "climate disaster" and warned of heatwaves and rising sea levels creating chaos in the Pacific as it declared an official "climate emergency" in concert with other activist groups and organisations worldwide.

A Liberal Party councillor, Craig Chung, pointed out how ludicrous the motion was and tried to amend it. When his amendments were rejected, he voted for the motion regardless. On Sky News' The Kenny Report yesterday I asked him why.

"The language is absurd, this was the fundamentalist Clover (Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore) at her best, using alarmist language and warning us that the world is going to end," Chung said.

"The reality is that I'm a Liberal councillor in the city of Sydney, the majority of the seats are taken up by the Clover climate fundamentalists and while the language that she uses is completely alarmist and is completely catastrophising what is going on, some of the contents of that motion are things that we really need to address, and if I want to sit at the table, if I want to be there taking part in the policy debate, I've got to get a seat at the table."

This seemed worrying; Chung knew the motion was ill-founded but went along it all the same. It sounded like he was dragooned into it. It seemed inappropriate for him to support a motion he knew was nonsensical just to fit in.

"This Left group, they love to preach the idea of free speech and being inclusive," Chung explained, "but I tell you what the moment you don't get involved in their motions and the moment you cut yourself out, you get called all sorts of names, last night I was called a flat-earther and a coal lugger despite the fact I do think we need to take some action.

"The gallery was full of people, Clover supporters, all of these people who were absolutely jeering me and cheering Clover. I moved an amendment, that was absolutely jeered by the gallery there, an amendment that took out the language of the warnings and catastrophising and moved an amendment that said we need to do this and we need to do it rationally and calmly. But that was voted down unanimously.

"We're not talking just about the Clover Moore people, we are talking about the Labor Left rump that are there as well, these are people who absolutely don't want to hear from anybody else."

Chung should be strong enough to stand up to this sort of political grandstanding and argue and vote for what he believes is right. But however courageous or timid he might be, it can be no excuse for his opponents.

"That's the way the city of Sydney runs, that's the way Clover Moore runs business there, this is a closed shop for Clover Moore. This is about her preaching to her choir, about getting a headline, but actually offering no solutions," Chung said.

So this councillor voted for a motion that condemns the federal government for doing nothing (something Chung knows is false) and spreads alarmist fearmongering (something Chung abhors).

"I know that some people will criticise me for (supporting the motion) but at the same time, if I don't do that I'm never going to get a seat at the table, I'm just going to have slogans thrown at me and abuse thrown at me, I need to be able to stay at that table to maintain a rational debate."

Nobody should give in to bullies, it only encourages them. But I fear this pointless debate in Sydney's Town Hall tells us much about the deterioration of our national political discussion.

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 June, 2019

Attempt to shut down Christian campaigner backfires

In response to the shutdown, Christians dig deep to protect religious freedom

Donations are pouring in at $1,000 per minute for Israel Folau after the Australian Christian Lobby set up a new fundraising page for his legal battle against Rugby Australia.

The page, hosted on the lobby's website, has already been given more than $400,000 just hours after the star player's GoFundMe campaign was shut down.

Between 6am and 7am on Tuesday, the amount donated had doubled from around $40,000. By 10am it had reached around $400,000.

The new campaign was set up by ACL Managing director Martyn Iles who said his group will donate $100,000.

Hundreds of supporters, angry with GoFundMe, said they had doubled or tripled their donations this time around. 'We gave twice what we were going to give,' said one. 'I have now donated more than double the amount I had previously donated,' added another.

'Israel's case is our case if we want to live free and embrace our beliefs without fear of being marginalised or discriminated against,' Iles said.

He writes on the page: 'Recently the online fundraising platform GoFundMe shut down Israel Folau's legal defence fund and turned away hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations.

'On behalf of the Australian Christian Lobby, I have spoken to Israel Folau to let him know that ACL will be donating $100,000 to his legal defence, because it's right and it sets an important legal precedent.

'I have also offered to host his online appeal for funds here on our website and he has accepted our offer.

'All gifts you give on this web page will be deposited into a trust account to pay for Israel Folau's legal case.  'So, please give generously today to help Israel Folau stand for your religious freedom.'

The ACL, based in Canberra, has 135,000 members and aims to influence politics with Christian beliefs.

It comes after it was revealed GoFundMe shut down Folau's page while allowing a preacher to raise money to fund legal costs over anti-LGBTI comments.

Canadian Christian preacher David Lynn, who was arrested for allegedly making 'disparaging' comments has raised more than $50,000 on his still active page.

Folau launched his appeal for $3million on Tuesday and had raised more than $750,000 within six days. But the fundraising platform said on Monday it was pulling the campaign and refunding thousands of donors.

More than 95,000 people signed an online petition calling on GoFundMe to take down the page, noting its purpose was against the website's terms and conditions.

'After a routine period of evaluation, we have concluded that this campaign violates our terms of service,' GoFundMe Australia's regional manager Nicola Britton said in a statement.

'As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity.

'While we welcome GoFundMe's engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion,' she said. 

SOURCE  






Let’s not fall for this myth of generational injustice

Intergenerational injustice is a myth. Labor unwisely used the theme of supposed intergenerational injustice as part of its losing campaign strategy, arguably prompted by the misleading and ongoing campaign waged by the left-leaning Grattan Institute.

Grattan maintains that unfairness in the treatment of the generations arising from features of the tax and transfer system must be tackled. Note here that this outfit supports the introduction of inheritance taxes.

Before discussing the empirical aspects of the debate about ­intergenerational injustice, it’s worth thinking about how societies work when there isn’t a big central government taxing citizens and redistributing income and benefits.

The social compact runs along these lines: parents and often grandparents are involved in the rearing of children; parents are expected to work to provide for their children and their parents; one way or another, older folk who can no longer work are looked after.

None of this is regarded as unfair; it’s the way it is and should be. Indeed, in many developing countries couples deliberately have large families to ensure there will be enough children with resources to look after them in old age.

So what do we mean by intergenerational injustice? The Grattan view is that people on the same income should be taxed in exactly the same way irrespective of their age.

It doesn’t matter to the researchers that the income of young people is overwhelmingly sourced from wages and salaries whereas retirees’ incomes are mainly made up of returns to ­assets that have been accumulated, often from post-tax income or from compulsory super­annuation.

Two features of the tax system that the Grattan Institute thinks should be scrapped immediately are the seniors and pensioners tax offset and the higher income threshold for exemption to the Medicare levy that applies to senior citizens. These measures offer a modest degree of tax relief for people of pensionable age who continue to work.

But here’s the thing: they cost the budget only about $700 million a year, which is peanuts given that the federal budget now involves annual expenditure of close to $500 billion. Age Pension payments alone cost more than $48bn. Moreover, encouraging people to keep working is sensible policy.

Labor, unsurprisingly, was not particularly interested in attacking these minor features of the tax system. It was going after the big stuff — abolishing cash refunds for franking credits, slashing negative gearing, increasing the rate of capital gains tax, increasing the tax on super­annuation — but the effects would have been felt overwhelmingly by older people with ­assets.

For Labor that was a plus, but the electorate didn’t see it that way.

Another aspect of the debate about intergenerational injustice that is often raised relates to the different wealth positions of young versus old people.

It has always been the case that more wealth is held by older people as a consequence of their years of work, saving and investing.

Young people are investing in their education, establishing a family, hopefully buying a house — in other words, they are not saving. It is only after these ­expenses start to diminish that people can save for their retirement, although compulsory superannuation has partly foisted this task on the young as well.

In this context, it is often mentioned that young people are now finding it increasingly difficult to buy a house and it has been predicted that some people may never become homeowners.

In reality, the changes in the rate of home ownership have not been as dramatic as some of the media would make out.

Overall, the rate of home ownership has fallen from 71 per cent in the mid-1960s to about 65 per cent now. There have been some bigger falls for certain age groups: 45 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds now own a home compared with just more than 60 per cent 25 years ago.

For those aged between 35 and 44, the rate of ownership has fallen from 75 per cent to just more than 60 per cent. Even so, home ownership rates have fallen for all age groups bar for those aged over 65.

While it is true that the house price-to-income ratio has risen sharply during the past two decades, the cost of servicing a debt of a given size is significantly lower than was the case when the parents of many young adults were buying houses.

The biggest barrier to home purchase now is accumulating a deposit of a sufficient size to get into the market.

This is where the bank of mum and dad becomes useful. It has been estimated this bank is now among the top 10 home loan providers. It’s hard to see how this phenomenon squares with the idea of a generational clash.

The bigger point here is that it is not a useful exercise to tot up what benefits and taxes different generations receive and pay and how this has changed across time. To say that fewer older people now pay net tax than was the case 20 years ago is to say nothing: it was always relatively trivial and it still is.

Moreover, to impose a higher tax burden on retirees runs the serious risk of retirees, both now and in the future, organising their affairs to qualify for the Age Pension — a very expensive outcome for the federal government.

The parents of young adults may not have paid university fees — but note that a much smaller proportion undertook higher education than is the case today — but there were no childcare subsidies or family tax benefits.

Mortgage-holders had to endure interest rates close to 20 per cent even though houses were much more affordable.

And retirees now face pitiful returns on their savings. It’s kind of six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

To intergenerational injustice, I say bunkum. And good luck to any political party that plans to eliminate legitimate and well-established concessions for retired folk unable to work and adjust their portfolios.

SOURCE  






PM Morrison wants to bust over-regulation

From his recent Perth, WA, speech to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry

To provoke the much needed  ‘animal spirits’ in our economy we must also remove regulatory and bureaucratic barriers to businesses investing and creating more jobs.

Congestion is not just on our roads and in our cities.

We also need to bust regulatory congestion, removing obstacles to business investment.

When we came to power in 2013, our Government launched its ‘Cutting Red Tape’ Initiative.

Working across every government department in Canberra, we set ourselves the goal of reducing the burden of regulation on the economy by $1 billion each and every year.

And we succeeded.  Between September 2013 and December 2016, this initiative yielded red tape savings of $5.8 billion.

Removing what governments identify as excessive or outdated regulation is one thing. Whether we are really focusing on the barriers that matter to business in getting investments and projects off the ground is another.

Take the WA mining industry for example. In 1966, the late Sir Arvi Parbo took the Kambalda nickel mine near Kalgoorlie from discovery to operation in 18 months.

By contrast, the Roy Hill iron ore mine took around 10 years to complete around 4,000 approvals. Delays to the project meant delays to over 5,000 construction jobs and 2,000 ongoing jobs.

This in a region where iron ore mining has been taking place for decades and is relatively low risk.

There is a clear need to improve approvals timeframes and reduce regulatory costs, but in many cases regulators are making things worse.

Look at the WA Environment Protection Authority and the uncertainty it has created over new emissions requirements for the resources sector. Business will also make valid criticisms of many Commonwealth agencies and departments.

That’s why I’ve asked my colleague Ben Morton – as Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister – to work with me, the Treasurer and other Ministers, to tackle the full suite of barriers to investment in key industries and activities.

This will be a renewed focus on regulatory reform but from a different angle.

Rather than setting targets for departments or government agencies, we’ll be asking the wider question from the perspective of a business looking, say, to open a mine, commercialise a new biomedical innovation, or even start a home-based, family business.

By focusing on regulation from the viewpoint of business, we will identify the regulations and bureaucratic processes that impose the largest costs on key sectors of the economy and the biggest hurdles to letting those investments flow.

What are the barriers, blockages and bottlenecks?  How do we get things moving?

I urge the business people in this room and around Australia to engage with this process.

Step one is to get a picture of the regulatory anatomies that apply to key sectoral investments. Step two is to identify the blockages. Step three is to remove them, like cholesterol in the arteries.

While reducing taxes has had a major impact in the United States, it was actually the Trump Administration’s commitment to cutting red tape and transforming the regulatory mind set of the bureaucracy that delivered their first wave of improvement in their economy.  You can be assured I have begun this term by making it clear to our public service chiefs that I am expecting a new mindset when it comes to getting investments off the drawing board.

SOURCE  






Ads highlight CSR concerns

In the past two weeks, we have witnessed full page newspaper ads proclaiming that a slew of big companies “support the Uluru Statement from the Heart”. This followed the announcement of support for Recognition by 21 investment banks, super funds and accounting firms.

This renewed bout of corporate politicking was clearly planned in anticipation of an election victory by the Labor party, which had pledged to fast-track a constitutional referendum on a Voice to Parliament.

In the wake of the Morrison government’s re-election, big business — like many commentators and pundits — have found themselves on the wrong side of history … and found out just how tin their political ear is.

The election result offers a timely opportunity for those operating within the corporate bubble to reconsider what is being done by companies in the name of CSR.

I hope my book encourages such a reconsideration through the critique it offers of the current — highly political — approach to ‘social responsibility’ that is being enthusiastically embraced at the highest levels of business.

What the election result has demonstrated is the validity of the insider vs outsider thesis about modern politics.

The Quiet Australians’ rejection of Labor’s embrace of identity politics and progressive ideology has exposed the cultural divide between so-called inner city elites and ordinary Australians in the outer suburbs and regions holding mainstream views.

What the election result also ought to burst is the insider bubble —the propensity for corporate elites to live, work, and socialise with like-minded elites and not question self-reinforcing progressive agendas.

Bursting the bubble surrounding CSR exposes the contradiction that lies at heart of the CSR philosophy.

The standard argument for CSR is that that in order to earn a ‘social license’ to operate, companies must fulfil a range of social obligations beyond their traditional profit-making role, by considering the social impacts of their activities on the interests of broader groups of stakeholders in the community.

The book turns around the reputational and branding arguments for CSR to make the case against CSR by pointing out what the election result has now made even more obvious.

This is that corporate involvement in divisive social questions on which there is no community consensus among shareholders, stakeholders, employees and customers, can have negative brand and reputational consequences for companies that risk acquiring reputations for being ‘being political’.

The book, therefore, argues that because CSR politicking can be bad for business, corporate leaders should be encouraged to take a more hardheaded approach.

SOURCE  

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







25 June 2019

Time to dump the books? Tradies earn up to $1MILLION more in their careers than those who do degrees - and graduates are finding it harder to secure full-time jobs

New data comparing the salaries of tradies and university graduates suggest young people would be better off picking up a drill than a textbook.

The surprising data has revealed tradies could make $1million more than university graduates throughout their lifetime.

The figures from the Australian government's Job Outlook website showed blue-collar workers who have come through apprenticeships or having completed vocational training certificates (VET) could be significantly wealthier than the tertiary-educated over the course of their careers.

According to the Job Outlook website, a university-qualified human resources professional could expect to make about $2.78 million over an average 40-year career, and an advertising professional and accountant would make $2.91 million.

On the other hand, a VET-qualified steel construction worker could make $3.15 million, an electrician could make $2.91 million, and a metal fitter could make $3.12 million.

Tradies also avoided HECS debt - the cost of university courses which graduates must pay back once they are in the workforce and their salary reaches a set threshold.

The figures were backed up by research conducted by social demographer Mark McCrindle, which showed people with a tertiary education also had a higher chance of being underemployed.

Mr McCrindle found that from 2008 to 2014, university graduates in full-time employment fell from 86 per cent to 68 per cent, indicating that universities were losing touch with what employers wanted from staff.

By comparison, VET graduates had a full-time employment rate of 78 per cent after training, and 82 per cent of apprenticeship graduates found a job after training. 

Data by recruitment agency Withyouandme also found that tertiary education could be leading to underemployment and a loss of national productivity.

'Individuals are invariably ending up in underemployment and jobs which don't match their potential,' the report said.

'The results show that the number of graduates in every industry is set to outstrip the number of jobs which will be created, making the chances of securing a job in a graduate's industry a difficult proposition.'

'Too many Aussies with Bachelor degrees are pulling beers in pubs or working in retail - careers which are not aligned with their studies.'

A report by Skilling Australia also stated the university drop-out rate was 26.4 per cent between 2005 and 2013, and 21.8 per cent of HECS loans will never be repaid as degrees go unused.

According to experts, employers are more focused on people who have actual skills, employment history, and are job-ready - something fresh university graduates don't always have.

Despite the relatively poor outcomes for graduates, there was no slowing in the number of people seeking university places.

Data showed the number of Australians with HECS debts above $50,000 in 2017-18 reached 208,146, compared to 159,475 in 2016-17.

SOURCE  






Power without earning it: How the Greens plan to push their extreme left-wing agendas on Australians - to ban private schools, oppose free speech and legalise drugs

If the Greens had their way, conservative media opinions would be banned, drugs such as ecstasy legalised and private schools phased out.

While the hard-left political party doesn't win elections, it continues to share the balance of power in the Australian Parliament, putting it in a position to shape national laws.

The Greens are unlikely to ever win government in their own right - scoring just 10.4 per cent of lower house votes at last month's federal election.

This was a minuscule increase from the 10.23 per cent share they received in 2016 as they campaigned in May to ban coal-fired power stations within 11 years.

However, the Greens still remain ambitious, with the party's founder Bob Brown in 2011 predicting it would one day replace Labor as Australia's major party on the left.

Before that supposedly happens, the Greens have their sights set on holding the balance of power in the Senate within three years - forcing whichever major party is in government to adopt their agenda to get laws passed.

And it's no secret - the party's leader Richard Di Natale declared this as the party's goal this week.

He claimed a 0.17 percentage point increase in their primary vote as a sign of political success, even though their Senate numbers remained at nine.

'If we repeat this result in 2022, we'll see an extra three senators returned and we'll see the Greens with sole balance of power in the Senate based on these numbers,' Senator Di Natale told Sky News earlier this month.

Griffith University politics lecturer Dr Paul Williams said the Greens had an outside chance of having a crossbench monopoly in the upper house of federal Parliament.

'It's errantly possible that they could have solely the balance of power,' he told Daily Mail Australia.

After the 2010 election, the Greens were able to impose a hated carbon tax on Australia, following the failure of former prime minister Julia Gillard's Labor Party to win a majority in the House of Representatives.

A minor party in the Senate, however, hasn't had the balance of power to itself for almost two decades.

This was during an era when the centre-left Australian Democrats successfully demanded that fruit and vegetables be exempted from the GST, as proposed by a Liberal-National Party government.

Dr Williams said the fracturing of the minor party vote made that a big ask for the Greens in the Senate by 2022.

'I can't see a time when they'll only be Greens, Labor and the L-NP,' he said.

In recent weeks, Senator Di Natale has declared his support for press freedom following Australian Federal Police raids on the ABC and the Canberra home of News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst.

Three months ago, however, the Victorian senator told supporters at Brunswick, in Melbourne's inner-north, he would seek to ban conservative commentators, ranging from Sydney radio 2GB broadcaster Alan Jones to Sky News hosts Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny.

'We're going to make sure we've got laws that regulate our media, so that if people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones and Chris Kenny - and I could go on and on and on and on - if they want to use hate speech to divide the community, then they're going to be held to account for that hate speech,' he said.

Dr Williams said the Greens and Labor both wanted more press regulation, however impractical that may be, because they were suspicious of conservative-leaning media outlets.

'Given that Alan Jones dominates the airwaves,  I'm not sure how you'd regulate that,' he said.

SOURCE  






Socialism appeals to the young but many don't know what it means

Red is the new black, right? Jeremy Corbyn leads the British Labour Party. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic Party's nomination for the US presidency describing himself as a "democratic socialist".

And the 2018 US midterm elections saw a surge of enthusiasm for Democratic candidates running on policy platforms at least as leftist as Mr Sanders espoused in 2016.

That the young are thought to lead the revival for socialism is not surprising.

The most prominent face of the leftward turn among Democrats is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just 29 years old and only four months into her legislative career.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez is one of the sponsors of the Green New Deal, a suite of social-democratic and pro-environmental proposals, supported by several of the Democratic presidential candidates (eg Senators Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Warren).

It's happening here too. Australian public opinion also exhibits an unmistakable age gradient, with younger Australians more likely to support Labor — and especially the Greens — than older Australians.

But what do people — and younger people in particular — mean when they say they favour or oppose socialism?

New polling by the United States Studies Centre and YouGov reveals considerable confusion and ignorance about socialism in both Australia and the United States.

We asked: "What is your understanding of the term socialism?"
Respondents could provide any answer they liked, in their own words.

Twenty-eight per cent of Australians fell at the first hurdle, with "don't know", "unsure" or "no clue" responses.

Another 13 per cent of Australians gave answers indicating they understand socialism as being sociable (eg "spending time with friends", "talking with people").

Just 59 per cent offered a response that was even close to any conventional definition of socialism (greater equality, public control of the means of production, etc).

Younger Australians are more likely to offer "don't know" or the "being sociable" classes of responses.

Less than one in three of our youngest Australian respondents could offer an even vaguely correct definition of socialism, a rate that rises to about two in three or better for respondents in their 50s or older.

The "s" word has been thrown around far more frequently in America than in Australia in recent years. Seventy-four per cent of Americans respond with something close to a conventional definition of socialism.

Although younger Americans were less likely than older Americans to be able to define socialism, more than 60 per cent of even the youngest US respondents could do so, compared to less than 30 per cent of young Australians.

Socialism is generally much more popular in Australia than America, but there are nuances in what Australians and Americans like and don't like about socialism.

Despite plenty of Australians being unable to define socialism, Australians do have strong views on the components of socialism, whether specific sectors of the economy should be owned and operated by the government, by the private sector, or if respondents were indifferent.

Here Australians report more socialist preferences than Americans, with clear majorities for government control in six out nine cases, spanning roads and highways (70 per cent), health care and hospitals (67 per cent), public transport (62 per cent), schools and universities (59 per cent), electricity, gas and water (58 per cent) and aged care (53 per cent).

A much different picture emerges in the United States.

In one only case out of nine — roads and highways — do a majority of Americans prefer government to private sector control or indifference, and only barely, with 51 per cent support.

Australians are more likely to support public ownership and control than Americans, but not because young Australians are embracing socialism. Just the opposite.

In six out of nine sectors we asked about, older Australians support public ownership and operation at rates of around 75 per cent or higher, typically outpacing younger Australians on this score by more than 20 percentage points.

Perhaps older Australians are pining for the "pre-privatised" Australian economy of their youth, while younger Australians have known nothing else.

It's the opposite in America

In the United States we see not only less enthusiasm for government ownership across the board, but a reversal of the age gradient we observe in Australia.

Younger Americans are almost always more enthusiastic about government ownership than their elders, typically by about 15 percentage points. There's is the only sector of the American economy with majority support for public ownership and control among any age cohort: roads and highways.

This finding helps explains the political headwinds encountered by advocates of public-private partnerships in the United States, including the Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey.

Roads and highways have been the domain where public-private partnerships have had some acceptance in the US, with Australian institutions prominent among the private investors and operators.

Americans sure aren't socialist, but roads and highways is the domain where support for public ownership runs the strongest and support for private ownership is weakest (just 23 per cent, compared to 11 per cent in Australia).

While generally quite sceptical about socialism, Americans need further convincing of the utility of "Australian style" asset recycling and public-private partnerships as a model for transport infrastructure.

SOURCE  






Sydney to declare a climate emergency in face of national inaction

Just showboating

Sydney, the largest city in a country acutely vulnerable to global warming, moved on Friday to declare a climate emergency, joining hundreds of local governments around the world in calling for urgent steps to combat the crisis, some in the face of inaction by national politicians.

The declaration does not include any major new actions. But Mayor Clover Moore said it was important that Sydney, which has already made ambitious pledges to reduce greenhouse emissions, raise its voice in a global demand for action.

"Cities need to show leadership, especially when you're not getting that leadership from the national government," Moore said.

Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, a research center, said Sydney's declaration - which the City Council is expected to easily approve - underlined "just how serious the climate change issue is." "It is a genuine crisis," she said. "Sydney has responded in an appropriate way."

Australia, home to some of the most extreme natural environments on the planet, is recovering from the hottest summer on record - a season of raging wildfires, burning fruit on trees, and crippling drought in farming regions.

But in national elections last month, voters rejected the major party calling for stronger action on climate change, delivering a surprise victory to the incumbent conservative government, which has resisted proposals to sharply reduce carbon emissions.

The conservative coalition was propelled to victory in part by support in the state of Queensland, where the state government cleared the way this month for a fiercely contested coal mine.

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 June, 2019

New reef envoy Warren Entsch takes aim at 'coaching' of kids over climate change

The new Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef has declared the World Heritage site doesn't need "saving", while taking a swipe at climate change activists for "indoctrinating" school students who protest the issue in Australia.

Queensland MP Warren Entsch, who was appointed to the new role on Sunday, acknowledged climate change was a challenge for the reef, but said his priority is to reduce plastic in Australia's oceans.

But Mr Entsch said he was unmoved by student climate protesters who frequently targeted his electorate office, saying he had witnessed adults "coaching" some of the young people involved ahead of visiting his office.

"They're frightening the living hell out of kids. It's like child abuse and I think they should be held accountable," he told SBS News on Tuesday. He said "hostile" and "dishonest" activists were "giving kids nightmares because they don't believe there's a future".

Climate strikers have targeted the outspoken MP who represents the electorate of Leichhardt which covers Cairns and far north Queensland.

"One of them was almost in tears, as far as she was concerned the reef was dead in 10 years ... They only spoke in slogans 'save the reef', 'stop Adani' and '100 per cent renewables by 2030'."

He said Australia needed "solutions not slogans" around climate change.

But he dismissed the idea the Great Barrier Reef was facing any kind of existential threat, instead declaring his mission is to reduce the amount of plastic in Australia's oceans.

"We don't need to 'save the reef'. The reef is functioning well. There are lots of challenges. We need to continue to manage it and meet all those challenges," he said.

He nominated curbing plastics in the oceans as the main challenge he hoped to address as envoy, committing to a national policy on plastics.

SOURCE  






Kudos to NSW for phonics check trial

The NSW budget included some very welcome education news: a trial of the Year 1 phonics screening check in some government schools.

This is a great outcome for NSW children, and CIS is particularly pleased to see it, as we have been advocating this policy for several years.

South Australia was the first state to have a trial — the feedback on which was overwhelmingly positive from students, teachers, and principals — and now conducts the check annually in all government schools (it is bi-partisan policy, with the trial having been introduced by the then Labor government).

There shouldn’t be anything partisan about wanting to ensure high-quality reading instruction in the early years of school. It is well-established that early reading ability is crucial and strongly influences later literacy skills and achievement across subject areas. It’s vital we identify students who are falling behind as soon as possible so we can intervene to help them.

And phonics instruction is especially important for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. A comprehensive review by the NSW Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation found that explicit phonics instruction substantially reduces the reading gap between disadvantaged and advantaged students.

The context is that too many children aren’t learning how to read in primary school. The 2016 PIRLS test found that one in every five Australian Year 4 students had reading levels below the international literacy benchmark.

While the focus in the past has been on lifting education spending, it is more important that school systems implement evidence-based policies, with accountability and transparency.

The NSW government also announced in the budget that, along with a significant increase in school spending, in future, there will be an outcomes-based approach to NSW schools. Unsurprisingly, this was controversial, with a former NSW education minister labelling it a “bad idea”.

Imagine… a government wanting to ensure that additional billions of taxpayer dollars spent on schools actually leads to better outcomes? Just outrageous.

SOURCE  






'I feel sorry for them': Wool worker calls PETA a cult and accuses it of brainwashing vegan protesters with 'blatant lies'

A wool worker has called PETA a cult and accused it of 'brainwashing' animal cruelty activists after protesters walked through central Sydney clutching a fake dead lamb.

Chantel McAlister, who's worked in the wool industry for over a decade, says PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) use misinformation to recruit those who protest on their behalf.

'People like PETA are cult leaders and they just force feed mistruths,' the Queensland woman told Yahoo. 'I do feel sorry for them,' she added, describing the vegan protesters as 'foot soldiers' for PETA. 

The wool worker's comments come after two female PETA members descended on Sydney's Pitt Street mall last week to protest the wool industry.

During the protest, the two women carried dead sheep props while dressed in skin coloured clothing and drenched in fake blood.

Daily Mail Australia does not suggest the protesters used misinformation to convince the public to stop using wool, or are victims of 'brainwashing'.

The protest followed the release of footage by the animal rights organisation depicting alleged animal mistreatment in the wool industry.

The footage showed shearers allegedly punching sheep in the face, jabbing and beating them with electric clippers, and stomping and standing on their heads and necks.

But Ms McAlister believes PETA protesters are the victims of misinformation.  'Ninety-nine per cent of them have big hearts and they're very compassionate but from the misinformation they are fed, their anger is misguided.'  'They have their heart in the right place but they are brainwashed.'

While she admits to hating 'all farmers' when she was younger, she has since changed her mind after a decade spent in the wool industry.

The Queensland woman worked her way up from being a handler to a master wool classer and says that the wool industry doesn't resemble the one depicted by PETA.

While she says cruelty and serious injuries to sheep are not the norm, she does admit that some animal cruelty may happen due to the presence of 'bad eggs' in the industry.

To counter the work of groups like PETA, Ms McAlister runs a website, Truth About Wool Campaign, in order to dispel myths about the wool industry and to educate the public. 

In 2017, she also spent time photographing the wool industry during a tour through Australia.

After various media outlets covered the work she received a number of death threats, mostly on Facebook, from various animal rights activists.

But she said she will continue her campaign. ‘It’s about educating urban areas about what goes on in the industry to counter these smear campaigns with positive stories’ she told Daily Mail Australia.

Last week’s protest in central Sydney’s Pitt St follows another held in January, in which PETA activists pretended to barbecue a fake dog in the heart of the busy and popular shopping area.

On that occasion, the group were protesting the eating of meat, and stopped members of the public to ask 'If you wouldn't eat a dog, why eat a lamb?'

In a statement about the protest, the group said: 'As humans, we instinctively feel compassion and empathy for animals, but we're taught that it's OK to enslave and eat some of them.'

SOURCE  






CSIRO'S ‘clarion call’ more a tin whistle call

A clarion is a war trumpet

Through the years, the CSIRO has made an important contribution to the development of the Australian economy by assisting industry through its scientific research. But there have been times when the CSIRO has lost its focus by wandering into areas in which the ­organisation has no expertise. The end result has been highly political and unconvincing output.

This week we saw another example of this loss of focus with the release of a particularly pointless and political report entitled Australian National Outlook 2019.

Here’s the blurb. “More than 50 leaders from over 20 organisations contributed to a new landmark ­report. The report, which looks out to 2060, signals Australia may face a Slow Decline (capitals in original) if it takes no action on the most significant economic, social and environmental challenges. But, if these challenges are tackled head on, then Australia could look forward to a positive Outlook ­Vision (again capitals in original).” Gosh, you could almost set it to music.

Now you know I always want to be helpful to my readers, so here’s a tip: don’t bother reading the ­report, which is mercifully short at less than 100 pages.

Mind you, it’s not just the CSIRO that has lost the plot with the production of this rent-seeking bilge. The National Australia Bank was the lead private sector sponsor and some members of its senior management team are among the 50 leaders consulted. Why the board of the NAB thought it was appropriate to use shareholders’ funds ($240,000 in cash, plus a multiple of that in in-kind assistance) to sponsor this sort of kite-flying piffle is anyone’s guess.

I did, however, learn that the CSIRO has a futures director — where do we all apply? — who thinks that ANO 2019 should serve as a “clarion call for Australia”. Given the report seems to have died almost without trace since its release, his statement could be on the hopeful side. ­According to this chap, “we believe the positive outcomes in this report are all achievable, but they will require bold, concerted action and long-term thinking”.

He also had some positive comments to make. He is the “chief customer officer business and private banking” — how this makes him suitable to prognosticate on Australia’s future across the next 40 years is also anyone’s guess — and he says “a key outcome of the ANO 2019 must be leadership and action. NAB will be making commitments to drive positive change that helps customers take advantage of new opportunities and encourages growth in Australia.”

You are probably getting the drift already. If we don’t do things the report’s way, it’s big trouble, misery and doom. But do things the report’s way and all will be swell. And what are these preferred things? Lots of high-rise buildings, lots of low-emissions energy (which also can be exported), lots of investment to prepare for jobs for the future (more money for education and the CSIRO), lots of building resilience to climate change and, the one I love the most, a culture shift that restores the trust in institutions, companies and politics.

It turns out the CSIRO has a futures team and the report included more than 20 researchers from across the organisation. Then there was the motley collection of organisations, in addition to the NAB, whose leaders were asked to nominate their pet projects.

These included three universities only (Australian National University, Monash University and University of Technology Sydney), Australian Unity, Australian Securities Exchange, Baker McKenzie, Gilbert + Tobin, ClimateWorks Australia, Shell Australia, Australian Red Cross, PricewaterhouseCoopers, UnitingCare Australia and Birchip Cropping Group (of course). To say this methodology is unscientific is to understate the point, something NAB chairman Ken Henry (who was a former Treasury secretary) would fully understand.

This group of organisations does not represent the Australian economy or the Australian community. But you will be pleased to know that “it was a highly collaborative process over two years” with the penultimate meeting of the group focusing on “narrative ­development”.

Of course, the message that unless productivity can grow strongly we won’t be as well-off down the track is completely obvious. We didn’t need this report to make this point. We already have the Productivity Commission, which does credible research on the topic. And there are also the intergenerational reports regularly put out by the Treasury.

But according to the wise leaders who took part in the ANO 2019 exercise, it’s going to be great in 2060 as we all pile into our cities because our population will be heading to 41 million based on ongoing high rates of immigration. (People living in the regions should be barred from reading this report because there is no future for them.)

Our living standards are going to be more than one-third higher with the Outlook Vision (stop here for drum roll) compared with the Slow Decline (stop here for sad music). Average real wages will be 90 per cent higher. We won’t be driving cars much ­because passenger vehicle travel per capita will have declined by 45 per cent as we all live around the corner from work, school, services and recreation (admittedly in dog boxes in cracking buildings, flammable cladding hopefully removed). It sounds a bit like living in Moscow in the 1960s.

And here’s a prediction worth bottling: household spending on electricity relative to incomes could decrease by 64 per cent by 2060 and greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced to “net zero” by 2050. The CSIRO is very taken with the opportunities associated with the commercial development of hydrogen as a means of generating electricity and heating as well as powering transport.

Now there is nothing wrong with the CSIRO researching ways of capturing hydrogen in novel and cost-effective ways. Other countries, including Japan, are also looking into this topic. But to oversell the scope for hydrogen to replace our existing resource exports is to call into question the credibility of the CSIRO.

Even on the best estimates, ­hydrogen exports from Australia might amount to less than $10 billion by 2030 and this is assuming that Australia can establish a comparative advantage in producing and transporting hydrogen, which is by no means certain. But this is small beer given that coal is currently earning Australia close to $90bn and resources in total bring in about $160bn.

Hydrogen is an interesting play, but it would be foolhardy to base a large part of Australia’s economic fortunes on hydrogen alone. But note the report’s picking of winners — with necessary support, of course — also includes “agriculture (although everyone will be living in the cities), healthcare, cyber security, food manufacturing, mining and metals, construction and education”. Note the overlap with the list of experts consulted.

As with so many government reports these days, the ANO 2019 report uses highly simplified charts and cartoon pictures to convey its key messages. The trouble is these puerile portrayals make it difficult to take the report seriously. You just have to wonder whether there was an implicit ­assumption on the part of the project participants that there would be a change of government when the report was released and its deep green, interventionist messaging would be eagerly lapped up by a Labor government. My guess is this report will now quickly gather dust.

The CSIRO should get back to doing useful basic and applied scientific research.

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 June 2019

Climate activists are the establishment, not the underdogs

These well-to-do campaigners would happily make ordinary people’s lives harder.

On the eve of the Australian election last month, the righteous anger of modern politics turned to violence when a man was stabbed with a corkscrew.

His assailant, Steven Economides, is a senior 62-year-old partner at KPMG who lives in the Sydney suburb of Balgowlah Heights where the average three-room house costs around £1.5million.

The victim of this white-collar crime was a volunteer campaigner for former prime minister Tony Abbott, who stands accused of indifference to the future of the planet. Abbott was seeking re-election as MP for Warringah. Economides was a supporter of Abbott’s rival, independent Zali Steggall, whose call for real action on climate change is said to have won the seat.

Today’s typical Australian eco-warrior is affluent, educated and smug. These people are to be found in fashionable suburbs, frequently close to the water. They drive European cars, fly north in the winter and despair at the suburban bogans and their seeming indifference to the Greatest Ethical Challenge of Our Time.

The world looks somewhat different from the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland, where a proposal to develop Australia’s largest coal mine has raised hopes of economic activity and jobs.

The Carmichael Mine would be built by the Indian company Adani and would feed the increasing demand for coal-fired electricity generation in the sub-continent, the quickest and cheapest way to provide reliable power to a nation in which 18,000 villages still lack electricity.

The development has been frustrated by the largest and most sophisticated anti-development campaign Australia has seen.

The site of the mine is inherently unlovable, flat scrubby grazing land, plagued by drought, 400km inland on the edge of the outback. The campaigners responded by linking the development to the campaign to save the Great Barrier Reef. A powerful coalition of green groups, including Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, launched deceptive campaigns to persuade the public that the mine was ‘near’ or even ‘in the heart of’ the reef. In reality, the mine will be further from the reef than the North York Moors are from London

In its form, the strategy is little different from the campaign that successfully stopped the development of hydro-electricity in the early 1980s and turned tree-hugging into a professional enterprise in Australia.

The campaign to stop the construction of the Franklin Dam on the Gordon River was led by a young environmental activist named Bob Brown who supplied 16mm movies of pristine wilderness to television stations as a ‘weapon of conservation’ and instructed activists to put on jackets and ties in preparation for media interviews.

Brown turned the Franklin into an internationally recognised icon with the help of the support of David Bellamy. The turning point for the Franklin campaign came when the opposition Labor Party came on board, turning it into an election issue that would help it gain votes in inner-city electorates on the mainland.

Bob Hawke’s victory at the 1983 election came despite a swing against Labor in Tasmania, where the workers were less concerned about the loss of native habitat than they were about the loss of jobs.

It was the start of Labor’s uncomfortable alliance with green politics that hastened its estrangement from working Australians and remains a nagging source of tension between the party’s industrial and intellectual wings.

Some 36 years later, the environmental movement pinned its hopes on a Labor victory in the recent election to stigmatise coal in the same way it had effectively ended the development of hydro-electricity.

Queensland’s state Labor government was caught in a bind. Approving the mine would have risked the loss of inner-Brisbane seats to the Greens. Blocking it would lose it seats in central and far-north Queensland.

Queensland premier Anastasia Palaszczuk decided to stall, relying on the ability of the public service to procrastinate, hoping that an incoming Labor government in Canberra would take the decision from her, or that the backers of the Adani mine might pack up and go home.

Palaszczuk badly underestimated the strength of the popular revolt building in the regions and the suburbs. Nor had she foreseen that the Coalition would grant federal approval for the project days before calling a federal election, thus putting the pressure on Labor.

There was a growing resistance to the sanctimonious campaign driven by activists from the south who put parading their virtue above other people’s jobs.

The arrival of Brown’s Stop Adani protest at Easter served only to cement the anger of local people. The procession of SUVs and well-appointed camper vans arriving from the south was met with a counter protest by local people driving utes and tractors.

The anger expressed at the ballot box was devastating for Labor, which received just 27 per cent of the vote in Queensland, its lowest share of the state vote since the federation in 1901.

It took the state government a matter of days to absorb the message and make a swift about-face. Premier Palaszczuk ordered her bureaucrats to stop stalling, giving them three weeks to make their decision.

Late last week her environment minister announced that the project was approved and preliminary construction began at the weekend.

The Adani approval is a considerable setback for Big Eco, the international coalition of activists which had invested heavily in turning a simple mine approval into the last stand for coal. Tens of millions of dollars was spent on lawfare to stymie the approvals process and shareholder activism aimed at starving the project of funds.

It is becoming harder for Big Eco to pretend that it is the underdog, bravely fighting against bully-boy corporations. It is becoming clear that the very opposite is true.

Increasingly, the activists have the upper hand. They are well-funded, ruthless and professional. They are in cahoots with media professionals who mix in the same circles and adopt the same assumptions, but are estranged from their fellow Australians.

The Adani campaign has sharpened the battle lines. The climate-change debate is not a contest between science and ignorance, belief and denial, or good and evil. It is a clash between those rich enough to enjoy the luxury of projecting their virtue and those who simply want to get on with the job.

SOURCE  






ABC beginning to show awareness of their Leftist bias

What’s interesting about the ABC’s headquarters in Sydney’s inner-city Ultimo in recent times turns on that which is suddenly missing at the top of the organisation — namely, the prevalence of denial that has pervaded the public broadcaster for decades.

For eons, the ABC board, senior management and high-profile staff have denied the public broadcaster has a problem with bias or political diversity. This despite the fact the ABC has been, and remains, a conservative-free zone without a conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or ­online outlets.

Some ABC defenders have claimed there are many conservatives within the organisation — without naming one such person. Others have asserted this is a non-issue since there is no relationship between how journalists do their jobs and their political views. The latter position excludes the possibility of not only deliberate bias but also unconscious bias.

Ita Buttrose was appointed ABC chairwoman by the Coalition government in late February this year. On May 3, she announced that the ABC board had appointed David Anderson as the public broadcaster’s managing director and editor-in-chief. He had been acting in this position after Michelle Guthrie’s contract was terminated by the ABC board in September last year.

On May 30, Buttrose did an interview with Rafael Epstein on ABC radio in Melbourne. The left-of-centre presenter lobbed up what appeared to be a leading question in search of an expected reply. Namely: “There’s a lot of people in government who think we’re biased — how do you address that?” Epstein was referring to the criticism that the ABC is biased towards the left.

The answer was not what the presenter expected. Buttrose’s ­immediate response was: “Sometimes I think we might be biased. I think sometimes we could do more with diversity of views. I haven’t got a problem with anyone’s view but I think we can make sure ours is as diverse as we can make it to be.” Following further questioning, she raised the issue of unconscious bias.

Then on June 10, ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Fran Kelly queried the ABC chair about what she meant by saying that ABC people sometimes reveal a bias without really knowing it. Buttrose doubled down on her earlier view, stating “we’re all biased in one way or another”. She then reflected that media types did not respond well to criticism.

As far as I can recall, Buttrose is the first incumbent ABC chair to concede early in her term that the public broadcaster has a problem with bias. Maurice Newman, however, did made some criticisms to this effect towards the end of his term as chairman. Buttrose also told Kelly all media organisations are in a pretty similar position when it comes to bias.

Last Monday, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age ran an interview with Anderson by Jennifer Duke. He told the Nine newspapers’ journalist that in ­future the ABC will push for a greater diversity of viewpoints among guests on its panel shows.

In particular, Anderson said, “from time to time … the perspective of views that we represent is something that we could improve upon”. He mentioned that the greater diversity of opinion he had in mind included political views, ethnic background and gender.

Anderson then added: “I think that is what leads to people’s rush to judgment about the ABC being biased — perhaps that we haven’t accurately reflected what would be the views of the country, for whatever reason.”

As far as I can recall, Anderson is the first incumbent ABC managing director and editor-in-chief to concede the public broadcaster has a problem with presenting political pluralism and has failed, on occasions at least, to ­reflect the views of all Australians. He has not specifically conceded bias in the public broadcaster. However, a lack of political diversity does not occur without ABC producers and presenters making choices about who is invited — and who is not invited — on to their panels.

It is a matter of record that many an ABC panel takes place where everyone (the presenter included) agrees with everyone else in a left-of-centre kind of way. Such panels lack political diversity. That also makes them boring.

Anderson told Duke that some conservatives do not want to go on ABC panels. That’s true. But it’s also true that some conservatives have been effectively de-platformed by ABC producers and presenters.

It’s early days yet under the Buttrose-Anderson management team. It seems that more than 90 per cent serious criticism of the ABC’s lack of political balance relates to less than 10 per cent of its total output — with a focus on the public broadcaster’s news, current affairs and comedy production. It should not be all that difficult to inject some conservatives into prominent presenter, producer and editor roles at the public broadcaster.

In the lead-up to the May 18 election, Melbourne-based ABC presenter Jon Faine warned Liberal Party deputy leader Josh Frydenberg that Bill Shorten was about to address a Friends of the ABC rally with a promise to increase funding for the public broadcaster. The Treasurer was unimpressed. Moreover, Q&A presenter Tony Jones suggested that Scott Morrison should accept the “great opportunity” presented to appear on his program and, in doing so, “might get a sense of what the public was thinking”.

The Friends of the ABC had no impact on the election outcome — not even in Melbourne, where support for the public broadcaster is strongest. And the Prime Minister remained in his job without accepting Jones’s (condescending) invitation and without being unnerved by ABC chief political correspondent Laura Tingle’s confident prediction the Coalition would be defeated.

With the next election scheduled for mid-2022, there is time for the ABC to renew its somewhat strained relationship with the ­Coalition and improve its own performance with respect to its audience. Dropping the decades-long denial about real or unconscious bias and a lack of political pluralism is a good start.

SOURCE  






PC terminology distorts the truth

Do readers remember when the term “political correctness” was on every conservative’s lips and at the fingertips of every commentator? That term, used as a phrase to denote intimidatory “right think”, is unfortunately fast leaving the lexicon. This is because so much of what was once scoffed at as political correctness has been absorbed into the mental and psychological landscape.

Today almost every political and social problem is looked at through a set of ideological prisms, and opinions on even the most serious issues are conveyed through a menu of acceptable tropes. The result is superficial, ideologically motivated mumbo jumbo.

Take violence against women. Lately the union boss John Setka got himself into a lot of trouble about this issue. Why? Not just because he himself has been charged with harassing a woman through phone and text messages, nor because he has publicly threatened Australian Building and Construction Commission inspectors, claiming their children will be made to feel “ashamed” of them, nor because he is the boss of a union that has used systematic bullying at building sites for years.

No, this is not why Setka has been threatened with expulsion from the ALP and his job. It is because he was perceived to criticise Rosie Batty, whose campaign against gender-based domestic violence has turned her into an untouchable icon of the virtuous right-thinking elite. Does anyone see the irony of this?

Of course, no one should criticise Batty, who had the hellish experience of seeing her child killed by his mentally deranged father. Her son was the victim of the most appalling laxity on the part of the police. Her husband had four outstanding arrest warrants and two intervention orders against him. He should not have been let loose to murder that child. At the inquest the police lack of action was criticised by the judge as revealing “a disturbingly relaxed attitude and a failure to accord an appropriate degree of urgency to the situation”. Obviously.

However, despite her devastating personal experience, Batty’s campaign will be fruitless, doomed to empty breast-beating. This is because it is a direct product of political correctness. The campaign, which was started during the prime ministership of Malcolm Turnbull with $100 million of taxpayer money, was never going to have any effect on the real causes of domestic violence, because it is seemingly not about looking at the real causes.

It has been hijacked as an ideological campaign by ambitious feminists, harnessing the mantra of gender inequality, to attack something that does not originate in gender inequality.

Rather, domestic violence has its origins in the twin social evils of alcohol and drug abuse, combined with poverty, large-scale family breakdown, and of course inadequate policing. Hence domestic violence is most acute in Australia in Aboriginal communities. However, that fact does not play to the anti-racism ideology. So while the professional feminists are using domestic violence as a vehicle to promote yet more talkfests and paid lectures, Aboriginal women and children are being continually subjected to the most degrading physical and sexual violence.

Meanwhile, in the alternative universe in which we white educated types live, the men are not allowed to question any of this. Instead, they are encouraged to pay homage to the phony gender rubric that frames any discussion about domestic violence by flinging off the scourge of their maleness and sporting white ribbons.

Women are too hamstrung by the platitudes of feminists to query this agenda. So we are all obliged to treat domestic violence not as a practical problem of the drug culture and of policing, but as a seriously vague “gender issue” about which men have to beat their breasts and women take the high ground as victims and then demand that governments should do something, even though government can do very little.

Domestic violence is not the only area where the demands of political correctness have skewed the mental landscape interfering with the truth of the matter. So-called identity politics is rife with this. The language is carefully policed and anyone going outside to call a spade a spade, even in the mildest terms, invites condemnation. Witness what happened to Barry Humphries when he was shunned by the very festival he helped to set up. His fault? He had called the current epidemic of transgenderism “a fashion”.

Then there was the fearless duo of Germaine Greer and the equally acerbic Julie Burchill, special subjects of the bleedin’ obvious, who pointed out, not in mild but in scathing terms, that you could “put on a dress and cut off your bits” but it doesn’t turn you into a woman — unless of course you live in Tasmania, where you don’t even have to cut off the bits.

Despite their “transgressions”, these people are safe by virtue of their fame and intelligence. However, look what happened to Israel Folau, who as a contracted football player was doing the only thing he can do. He was not safe. His case has a strange inverted relationship to that of Setka — who was condemned because he slipped up on the politically correct line rather than his transgressions.

Folau is a good man, a model family man who has nevertheless been pilloried as a bad man, an undesirable and lost his job.

Why?

The brouhaha surrounding his posts was caused by one thing. His employers did not sack him because of his religion, nor was it an employment issue. Folau’s big mistake was a political correctness transgression.

He crossed a threshold that the commissars of political right think will not allow. He should have left only one category [homosexuals] out of his list of sinners.

We are not interested in the salvation of drunks and adulterers, or anyone else for that matter. After all, there are people who have been taking drugs still playing for the Wallabies — not to mention the footballers of various codes charged with rape.

SOURCE  





More houses needed
        
Official results show that 2018 was one of the strongest years on record for population growth, with the number of people living here rising by 404,780 during the year.

“This reinforces the need for state and territory governments to work with the Federal Government to implement microeconomic reform measures that will support the fast tracking of congestion busting infrastructure projects and more efficient planning, tax and red tape cutting regimes to support an increase in new housing construction,” Shane Garrett, Chief Economist of Master Builders Australia said.

The ABS data indicate that Australia’s population rose by 1.6% over the course of 2018. Net migration from overseas accounted for about 250,000 additional residents while the excess of births over deaths added 156,000 to the population.

“There is a very strong linkage between inward migration to Australia and the pace of job creation. The 270,000 increase in total employment during 2018 is very similar to the figure for overseas migration,” Shane Garrett said.

“Population and jobs growth drives construction activity right across the spectrum including for residential, offices, shops, schools and hospitals – not to mention all of the support infrastructure needed,” he said.

“Australia’s building sector is currently facing challenges in the form of weakening economic growth and difficulties around access to finance in some parts of the market. Fast tracking the rollout of previously announced government infrastructure projects would help strengthen confidence on the ground in addition to meeting the needs of a growing population,” Shane Garrett said.

“Master Builders estimates that between 193,850 and 201,705 new homes will need to be built each year over the coming two decades to accommodate future growth. Failing to do this will surely result in home ownership becoming an even more formidable quest for our younger generations,” he said.

“Given that we managed to build just 173,350 dwellings per year over the past 20 years, the onus is on all tiers of government to lift their game and ensure that land supply, planning policy and taxation settings are more conducive to the delivery of the homes and buildings we will require,”  Shane Garrett.

During 2018, the fastest rate of population growth was in Victoria (+2.2%), followed by the ACT (+1.8%) and Queensland (+1.8%). More modest growth was recorded in NSW (+1.6%) and Tasmania (+1.2%).

Particularly challenging economic conditions in the NT contributed to a 0.4% decline in its population during 2018. Population growth was quite modest in South Australia (+0.8%) and Western Australia (+0.9%).

For more information contact: Ben Carter, National Director Media & Public Affairs, 0447 775 507






Albo, take faith seriously

One of the first things new Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, needs to emphasise to his demoralised party is that they will not return to government without showing they take religion seriously.

Albo’s own seat of Grayndler — which Labor holds with a margin of nearly 16 per cent — is one of a number of Labor-held Western Sydney seats where the electorate includes many voters who are about God.

It matters to Australia’s Muslim, Christian, and Hindu voters — and all the others who have a religious affiliation — that they are free to practise their faith; and, if they wish, to talk about it openly.

No wonder Labor frontbenchers have warned Albanese that Labor needs to work constructively with the Morrison government to address concerns about religious freedom by passing new laws.

It sounds like simple and sensible advice. But the problem for the new Labor leader is that a decision to cooperate with the government on matters of religion is likely to further divide his party.

For a deep and possibly irreparable fissure has opened up — and runs right through the heart of the ALP.

On one side stand Labor’s traditional blue-collar and middle-class voters respectful of belief in God. But on the other side stand the battalions of Labor’s inner-city intellectuals who sneer at religion, dismiss faith as primitive superstition, and wield the cudgels of identity politics.

It is not the deity that commands the unswerving devotion of the elites, but diversity. And they impose on the rest of us what political scientist, Kenneth Minogue, once described as “a dictatorship of virtue”.

The ALP is going to have to get to grips with God if it hopes to occupy the government benches in the House of Reps again. But in order to do that, Albanese is going to have to work a miracle of his own.

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 June 2019

CFACT at the Friedman Conference, 2019, Sydney Australia

Tax and climate at issue

From Friday May 24th to Sunday May 26th a CFACT team was there in Sydney for the dual Friedman Conference and the World Taxpayers Associations 17th Biennial Conference. It was the largest liberty event in Australia with over 500 people sharing in gala dinners, and almost one hundred presentations on tax battles, free speech issues and campaign strategies.

It was great timing, held just one week after the unexpected win of the conservative coalition government so people were very keen to talk about parallels between US and Australian politics.

A team of three including Jo Nova, Jim Simpson and Jeff Grimshaw helped spread the word about the many achievements of CFACT, especially in the climate debate, at UN events and moments like Marc Morano’s meeting with Al Gore in Melbourne. We signed people up to the newsletter, selling copies of Climate Hustle and talking about the ways people can get involved.

One participant was so keen she ordered copies of Climate Hustle for all her local libraries, promising to donate them so the people of Eurobodalla shire would be able to watch them. Another group of students were very excited to get a copy and planned to watch the DVD together as a finale party event at the close of the conference.

This was also the 100 year birthday of Tax & Super Australia. So many reasons to celebrate!

Jo Nova spoke about the rise of pagan temples in the Australian electricity grid (how many solar panels does it take to stop a storm?) She discussed the problems with re-taskiing industrial power stations as global weather controllers.

The mood was energized!

SOURCE  






‘Advocate doctors are calling the shots’: Peter Dutton responds to medivac ruling

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has declared “advocate doctors” are dictating which asylum-seekers and refugees on Manus Island and Nauru should come to Australia for medical treatment, after a controversial Federal Court ruling.

Two doctors applying for a person’s medical transfer under the Medivac bill now only have to review a person’s medical file and do not necessarily need to speak directly to them following yesterday’s judgment.

Mr Dutton said he had also been advised that a patient did not necessarily have to provide consent to doctors to put forward his or her case for a medical transfer.

“I am worried by this most recent court decision and I’m awaiting advice at the moment in relation to our appeal prospects,” Mr Dutton said.

“It’s inconceivable that a sovereign government doesn’t have the right to say who is going to come to our country and don’t have the right for those people to turn back once medical assistance has been provided.

“Not only does a doctor or the two doctors, not only do they not have to see the patient themselves, the patient doesn’t even need to provide consent … If you’ve got a situation where people aren’t even asking for their case to be considered, that is, for them to come to Australia, then it is a deeply flawed process.”

The government is ramping up pressure on Labor to support a repeal of the Labor-Greens-crossbench Medivac bill, which only applies to the current cohort of people in offshore processing, when parliament returns in July in the wake of the Federal Court judgment.

There are 512 people still on Manus Island, including 393 refugees and 119 non-refugees, and 332 on Nauru, including 242 refugees and 80 non-refugees.

“The Labor Party has created a massive mess here. This is Labor’s law and Labor should support the government to move in the Senate to revoke this bad law because it sends a bad signal when you have a country like ours being dictated to by doctors who can say that people must come here, regardless of their background,” Mr Dutton said.

“If you look at the advocacy record of some of the doctors involved in putting these cases forward I do think that’s problematic.”

Mr Dutton repeated “fears” the court ruling “opens the floodgates” and said if a significant number of people were transferred from Manus Island and Nauru it would create a “pull factor” for other asylum-seekers and the people-smuggling trade.

“Mr Albanese needs to provide support to us in the Senate to see this bad law repealed because otherwise the next arrival will be on Albanese’s shoulders,” he said.

SOURCE  

Albanese in a bind as he faces policy consequences

The coalition could hang a new rash of boat people around his neck, which would be a big loser for the ALP

Anthony Albanese faces two critical tests when the new parliament convenes in the first week of July.

Both will challenge the new Labor leader’s claims to be a centrist leader determined to steer the party back from the fringes and into the living rooms of mainstream Australians.

The first is on tax. The second is now on boats.

A Federal Court ruling yesterday on the medivac laws has set up a fight on border protection probably earlier than Albanese would have liked.

But it is a blue he has to have and just like the argument over whether to support the government’s entire personal income tax package, the decisions he makes now may well define his leadership over the course of this term.

Already Albanese has signalled that he is not for turning on the medivac laws that Labor rammed through the lower house earlier this year with the crossbench in its rush to deliver a defeat to the government on the floor of parliament.

The consequences of such a decision for Labor in opposition was never a consideration because no one believed it would be in opposition.

Albanese has ruled out any prospect of Labor supporting the Coalition in repealing laws it so vigorously fought for. There is no appetite within the Labor caucus or shadow cabinet for such a move.

Nor is there a conceivable justification for the new leader to overturn what every one of the Labor frontbenchers claimed at the time was the right decision.

The Federal Court ruling changes nothing for Labor’s position. There are no grounds for a volte-face. But then there are political realities.

Having been forced to defend the legislation, he becomes a rich target for the government on an issue that very few Labor MPs want to talk about.

The fact is that there are consequences for many of the decisions taken by Labor over the past six years and this is just one of the many that Albanese now has to contend with.

SOURCE  





Cormann clear on no tax plan deal with crossbenchers

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has ruled-out striking a deal with crossbenchers on the Coalition’s flagship income tax cut plan.

Speaking on Sky News this afternoon, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said Mr Cormann had made it clear he wouldn’t negotiate with her or other crossbenchers over the controversial three-stage deal.

Meanwhile, Jacqui Lambie is “very open” to backing the Coalition’s full suite of tax cuts and changes to asylum medevac legislation but is set to demand more funding for Tasmania in return.

“I spoke to Mathias Cormann this morning,” Ms Hanson said. “He gave me a phone call and he said ‘I’m not negotiating with crossbenchers on this at all’. [He] also said, ‘you know we have our three stages and we’re going to pass that no matter what’ …

“They’re not prepared to actually look at it, listen to reasoning over this whole thing. I just don’t think it’s the best way to go.”

Senator Lambie said today she was willing to “do a deal for Tasmania” with the Morrison government, potentially including the last tranche of its tax cuts and the medevac changes. “I’m very open on all that,” she told ABC local radio.

“Obviously, I still need to get into those department heads and speak to them. I also need to speak to the ministers. “But everything is open. Nothing has been shut off. It’s like ‘well, what have you got? This is the deal I’m looking for, what can we do here’?”

Senator Lambie said she wanted the Coalition to provide further funding to address the “big disaster” of Tasmania’s health system, as well as homelessness and TAFE.

Other crossbench senators were likely to make their own demands, she suggested. “They’ll be deals going on, left, right and centre,” she said.

She had made no decisions but was speaking to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann about the reform agenda, including the third tranche of tax cuts, to take the rate to 30 per cent for all incomes between $45,000 and $200,000.

“He (Senator Cormann) is doing everything he can to move meetings to make sure I can get to what I need to as soon as I get up there (in Canberra),” she said.

Returning to the Senate 18 months after resigning over a dual citizenship, Senator Lambie said Tasmanians were “confused” about the tax cuts but might be relaxed about her backing them. “I think they understand that those last tranches of the tax cuts won’t be … until 2024-25,” she said. “There’ll be another election in there.

“Those ones that are a little bit more switched on are saying ‘well, you know, you could probably do the deal and look at putting that stage three through because it may never eventuate’.”

She appeared to endorse Centre Alliance suggestions the last tranche of tax cuts could be conditional on certain economic indicators. “Is there a way that you can measure it against something in the economy, so if it drops this far, that’s it, the deal is all over?” Senator Lambie said.

“So it’s (a case of) looking at all that. But I need to see experts into all that. I think Tasmanians are a bit like me: they’re watching which way it is, whether or not I will do a deal for Tasmanians if they support that stage three … All that’s up in the air.”

While the Coalition has previously played down striking a deal with crossbenchers to get its legislation through, Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick met Mr Cormann in Perth on Monday to discuss energy policy.

Senator Patrick has demanded action to reduce gas prices to give long-term assistance to pensioners in exchange for his support on the personal income tax cuts that deliver short-term relief for average workers.

The government’s refusal to negotiate comes as Labor divides on the issue, with some members such as inner-city Melbourne MP Peter Khalil urging his party to back the Morrison government’s full tax agenda.

The Coalition has previously ruled out splitting up the package, arguing the later stage will bring much-needed structural reform.

If it fails to secure Labor’s backing, the government will need the support of four crossbenchers in order to get the legislation through the Senate when parliament resumes.

But Ms Hanson is standing firm and has refused to support the plan, saying it “wouldn’t benefit people on pensions or welfare payments” with rising electricity prices. “It’s not the sensible thing to do, we’re talking about $158 billion in tax cuts, and I’ll go on about this again, it is that far down the track how do we know what the economy is going to be like at that time.”

SOURCE  





Arrow warns of $1b wound from gas royalty hike by Queensland government

A major coal-seam gas operation predicts that the Queensland government’s shock move to lift royalties will cost it at least $1 billion more over the lifetime of a project.

The initial modelling from Arrow Energy, which is proposing a 27-year project, comes amid acrimonious debate about whether the gas sector should be paying more to Queenslanders.

Arrow is proposing a project based in the Surat Basin in southern Queensland that it estimates would employ 1000 people, churn out 5 trillion cubic feet of gas and require $10 billion in capital expenditure.

It is so symbolic that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk described the project as a “vote of confidence in Queensland as a resources investment destination”.

While it was not threatening to cancel the work because of the rise, Arrow pointed out that its shareholders Shell and PetroChina were yet to make the final investment decision on going ahead.

SOURCE  






Radio star Derryn Hinch and a Victorian Labor senator have officially lost out on Senate spots as the final results from the federal election come in

The Coalition has won three senate seats in total in Victoria, a state they were widely expected to perform badly in before the federal election. St Kilda-based Liberal David Van has joined re-elected senators James Patterson and recently promoted assistant minister Jane Hume.

“It’s an honour to be elected to represent Victoria in the Senate for the next six years,” Mr Van said today.

“I’m looking to bring the interests of the quiet Australians to our Parliament. Regardless of your background, religion or where you live in our great state, the values of Robert Menzies and the Liberal Party have universal application.

“I want to listen to the concerns of those quiet Australians, and ensure that we continue to engage with their communities as we return to Parliament in July.”

Sitting ALP senator Gavin Marshall has been pipped to a senate spot by Mr Van and re-elected Greens senator Janet Rice.

The Opposition had aimed to win up to eight lower house MPs and three senators at the federal election, off the back of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’s landslide state election win in November.

But the party only managed to gain two seats — Corangamite and Dunkley — which were already notionally Labor due to a redistribution of federal boundaries, while the Liberals increased their margins in key target seats like Casey and Deakin.

Labor’s Jess Walsh will enter parliament alongside re-elected Victorian ALP senator Raff Ciccone.

Senator Hinch has missed out on returning to the Senate but The Australian’s Media Diary has reported he could be set to return to Sky News in a leading role. His Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party won several upper house seats in the last Victorian state election.

The Victorian senate results mean all seats up for grabs at last month’s federal election are now confirmed and the writs could return as early as Friday.

Yesterday, Labor recorded its worst Senate result since 1949 in the battleground state of Queensland, securing just one seat after One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts and the Greens’ Larissa Waters managed to win the fourth and sixth spots.

Outgoing Labor senator Chris Ketter, who was given the usually winnable second spot on the party’s Queensland Senate ticket behind Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union organiser Nita Green, has lost his seat in a major blow to the ALP.

The failure to win two upper house seats in the Sunshine State reflects Labor’s poor showing in the House of Representatives, where the party took just six of 30 Queensland electorates — a net loss of two.

SOURCE 

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





20 June, 2019

Universities shine in the contest of ideas (?)

Below is some complete and utter bullshit from Deborah Terry, chairwoman of Universities Australia.  She describes what universities should do as if they actually did it.  Far from shining in the contest of ideas, Australian universities avoid any contest of ideas.

If she really believes all that dribble, let her explain why the riot squad had to be called in order to disperse the student demonstrators who were blocking people who wanted to hear Bettina Arndt at the University of Sydney.  Let her explain the Australia-wide difficulties Bettina has had even getting to book rooms for her talks

And what about the difficulty the Ramsay centre has had in being allowed to sponsor courses in Western civilization?  There has been huge resistence to letting students hear anything about the history and ideas of Western civilization.  What went wrong with the "contest of ideas" there?  Censorship of ideas would be the accurate description.

I note that she gives no evidence that our Universities shine in the contest of ideas.  Offering assertions without evidence is the nadir of scholarship.  If she is the representative of Australian  universities she discredits them.  There is of course plenty of evidence that Australian Universities do NOT shine in the contest of ideas. I have just mentioned some. The woman has her head in a dark place.  She is suffering from a severe case of loss of reality contact 


Australia’s universities have been on the public record through the decades affirming our commitment to informed evidence-based discussion and vigorous debate.

As institutions, we nurture the skills of our students to debate ideas, develop their critical thinking skills and engage with a wide array of views — including those with which they agree and those with which they disagree.

The exercise of free speech applies to both proponents and opponents of controversial ideas.

You need only to look to democracy-defending protests around the world to see this in action. Surely the ideal is for a vigorous engagement and contest of ideas, passionately and peacefully expressed.

Under wider Australian law, freedom of speech is not without limitation or caveat. There are, for example, prohibitions on hate speech and discrimination, as well as laws on defamation.

University students and staff are, of course, subject to these wider laws, like the rest of the Australian population.

The skill of being able to engage in vigorous debate without suspending courtesy is one that our students will need if they are to succeed in the workplace and the world.

The French review reminds us that the mission of universities includes responsibility for the maintenance of scholarly standards in teaching, learning and research.

Hence universities teach students to seek out and weigh evidence, test and verify, and to form cogent arguments drawing on that evidence. At the same time, our university researchers keenly examine and respectfully debate ideas, new paradigms, evidence and conclusions.

Universities play a fundamental role in the health of open, democratic societies worldwide. Australia’s universities are ever vigilant in defence of our democratic freedoms.

SOURCE  






'Don't listen to him': Controversial priest Father Rod Bower's message to Israel Folau after latest attack on gay people. Anglican priest Rod Bower hit out against former rugby union player Israel Folau

"Father" Bower  may be an Anglican priest but he is not a Christian.  You can believe anything and be an Anglican. As long as you can balance a cup of tea on your knee you are right. He is just a "social justice" warrior in a clerical collar.  He has form for ignoring the Bible teachings on homosexuality

An outspoken priest has hit out at sacked rugby union player Israel Folau following his latest attack against transgender and gay people.

Father Rod Bower shared his support for the LGBT community on the billboard at Gosford Anglican Church, on the New South Wales central coast, on Monday. 'LGBT friends. Folau is wrong. Don't listen to him,' the message read.

The gesture comes after Folau took aim at the LGBT community in his latest sermon at the Truth of Jesus Christ Church in Kenthurst, Sydney, on Sunday.

Folau said allowing children to undergo a sex change was giving in to the 'devil' and kids were going through treatment despite 'not even knowing what they are doing'.

SOURCE  






Preschool teachers demand $100K salaries and claim they are underpaid because 95 per cent are female

And who do they think is going to pay those salaries?  They would wipe out the sector if they got what they wanted.  Requiring university degrees for childcare is insane

Preschool teachers with university degrees are demanding $101,767 salaries, saying they're underpaid because they work in a female-dominated industry.

The Independent Education Union is pushing for pay rises of up to 49 per cent for their most experienced members.

The Union believes experienced preschool teachers should paid the same as primary school educators, who have the same university degrees.

But the Australian Childcare Alliance argues that if the case is successful, preschool teachers will be making the same as doctors and childcare costs will skyrocket.

'If we're successful it will be a very significant case legally, and it will also have a major impact on our early childhood teacher members,' IEU Assistant Secretary Carol Matthews told The Age.

The IEU argues that early childhood teachers have similar jobs to primary school teachers, but don't get paid as well because more than 95 per cent of daycare workers are women.

If the Independent Union wins its case for pay rises, other 'feminised' industries such as childcare and disability services are also expected to call for similar changes.

The case is being overseen by the United Voice union, which represents more than 100,000 workers in the childcare sector.

Labor's loss in last month's federal election meant childcare workers didn't get $10 billion in 20 per cent pay rises that then-Opposition leader Bill Shorten had pledged.

The Coalition's new industrial relations minister Christian Porter said he is keeping a close eye on the pay increase demand. 

Childcare workers on the Educational Services (Teachers) Award are on salaries of between $50,017 and $69,208 a year.

Mr Shorten had promised to make it easier for unions to be successful in pay equity cases, saying workers in those industries were paid less because they're female-dominated. 

The Independent Union advocate for gender-based pay fairness, and argue that preschool teachers aren't properly compensated for what they do.

United Voice, who represent childcare workers with diplomas, lost a fair pay case in 2018, but if the IEU wins their current case, United Voice would likely try again.

But the Australian Childcare Alliance, who represents privately owned childhood care and education services, is going up against the IEU.

The ACA wrote to the Fair Work Commission, arguing that if the union wins, the most experienced preschool teachers would be earning the same as doctors, academics and nursing directors.

'In any case, there are powerful discretionary reasons to refuse the claim, including that the grant of the claim would jeopardise the viability of many services and would substantially increase childcare costs,' the ACA submission said.

SOURCE  






Poor timing for Al Gore’s climate panic poppycock

In politics, timing is crucial. And thus it was with the unfortunately timed participation of former US vice-president Al Gore in the Queensland government-sponsored Climate Week earlier this month.

According to the blurb, “Climate Week QLD 2019 will showcase how the state is transitioning to a low-carbon, clean-growth economy and building a community of action to address climate change.”

Occurring as it did after the unexpected victory of the Morrison government, Gore’s pronouncements during the week about the perils of climate change — let’s face it, he easily wins the gold medal in the boy-who-cried-wolf category when it comes to climate-induced apocalypses — were particularly jarring.

As for that photographed pose of Gore and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad cuddling up to each other, it’s probably best not to comment.

It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall when the planning for this gala week occurred. The expectation would have been that Labor would win the federal election, with the clear message that the public was demanding “real action on climate change” — so the motto goes. Reference would have been made to Bill Shorten’s plans to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 and for 50 per cent of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources.

The Queensland government would endorse these targets while arguing for more ambitious ones. Reference would be made to the Palaszczuk government’s pledge for the state to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Without doubt, Big Al would be supportive.

Of course, the Great Barrier Reef would need to be a central part of the story. And the potential for the final rejection of the Adani project would complete a very satisfactory week of positive, vote-winning news items for the Queensland government.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would give Gore the time of day. After all, he is not a trained scientist; he appears to make a living from concocting scary climate stories.

While he was in Queensland, he was offering up some more whoppers. Maybe he thought the appearance fee he received — estimated to be $320,000, paid for by Queensland taxpayers — necessitated the delivery of some sensational unsubstantiated claims.

To tell an audience that the choice is between Adani and the Great Barrier Reef is puerile and misinformed. To suggest that India is now sourcing 60 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources is just plain wrong — out by a factor of four to five. And these statements come on top of the many falsehoods Gore has peddled in the past. These include:

 * In 2006, he claimed that the planet would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years.

 * In the same year, he predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet (just over 6m) “in the near future”.

 * In 2008, he claimed that the north polar cap would be completely ice-free within five years.

 * In 2011, he claimed that polar bears would soon become close to extinction (their number has been ­rising).

Presumably, these faulty predictions were known to the organising committee as well as to the key politicians — Annastacia Palaszczuk, Trad and Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch — who supported the shindig. But Gore is a name and his discredited propaganda doesn’t prevent him from being a regular invitee to the annual conferences of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Recall that the last one was held in Poland during a particularly cold weather snap.

So now that Gore has left town on his private jet — no doubt some sort of carbon offsets were arranged — state governments and the renewable energy industry, in particular, are in the process of reconsider­ing their approach to climate change and their inter­action with the federal Coalition government.

There is no doubt that most of the renewable energy players were devastated by the May 18 election result. Their hopes, in descending order, were: Labor victory; defeat of Energy Minister Angus Taylor in his seat of Hume in NSW; and the appointment of anyone but Taylor as the next energy minister.

These hopes have been completely dashed.

A vitriolic, misleading and well-funded campaign was waged against Taylor, including the dredging up of snippets from his successful commercial past that were intended to cast doubt on his integrity — indeed, suitability for high office.

In the end, the self-serving, mean-spirited attempt to damage Taylor completely backfired and he was returned to parliament with a swing towards him. Not only does he remain the Energy Minister but his areas of responsibilities have been expanded to include emissions reduction.

One of the problems for the mendicant renewable energy players in dealing with Taylor is that he is just too smart and commercially experienced. He understands the industry like the back of his hand and is happy to query the sometimes faulty advice he receives from the bureaucracy.

He knows that claims that renewable energy-sourced electricity is now cheaper than coal-fired electricity are not correct and that Australia’s electricity generation mix will involve a range of technologies in the future.

He is committed to increasing supply and promoting greater competition to drive down prices. These measures are in line with the recommendations of the report of the Australian Competi­tion & Consumer Commission on retail electricity prices.

The renewable energy players will be forced to stand on their own two feet — for a change — and will need to adjust to the new reliability standards that come into play on July 1. Penalties are being imposed on far-flung installations and contributions are expected to fund the additional grid infrastructure required to hook up new wind and solar farms.

The salad days are over for the renewable energy industry, a situation ironically made worse in Queensland by the (temporarily stalled) requirement to use lic­ensed electricians for the instal­lations of large-scale solar farms.

The Palaszczuk government may be committed to a “low-carbon, green growth economy”, but that pales next to its devotion to trade unions.

As for the big energy companies, which also were hoping for a federal Labor win and had geared up accordingly, it’s time for a radical rethink.

Their campaign against the “big stick” legislation — the legislation contains a great deal more, with forced divestment the final option — is being quietly shelved. Co-operation with the Coalition government is now the name of the game.

Next year, Big Al should be able to stay at home. Indeed, next year there may not even be a Climate Week QLD — the state’s taxpayers deserve a break.

In the meantime the Adani project, unsurprisingly, has been given the go-ahead.

SOURCE  

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





19 June, 2019

New Laws to Rein in Law-Breaking Unions And Officials
   
The Ensuring Integrity Bill failed to pass when it was introduced in 2017 but the Morrison government has pledged to reintroduce it early in the next sitting of parliament, which sits from July 2.  The makeup of the new Senate gives it a fair chance of passing this time, perhaps with a few amendments. It gives government and the courts more powers to rein in thug union officials

The Ensuring Integrity Bill is about making sure that fit and proper people are in charge of unions and employer organisations, not bullies and thugs.

 “Attacks on the Bill as anti-union are way off base. Rights and obligations govern our society and when obligations are repeatedly flouted, then rights are restricted. Unions and union officials should be no different to the rest of the community,” Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia said.

“Master Builders has strongly and consistently backed the Bill for this reason, and we are encouraged by reports that the Government will it bring it back before the Parliament,” she said.

“The Opposition Leader deserves credit for his public repudiation of John Setka’s behavior past and present, but he cannot legitimately ring-fence the issue from its industrial relations context. Setka’s bullying behavior and flouting of industrial laws is the embodiment of his union’s deliberate strategy of coercion and intimidation in pursuit of his its industrial agenda, and it’s small businesses and tradies around the country who are the victims,” Denita Wawn said.

“The reality is that Setka and his antics are merely the tip of the iceberg. Construction unions constantly demonstrate their total contempt for the law and hundreds of their officials have followed suit while remaining in positions of responsibility, retaining their rights and privileges under the current laws,” she said.

“The real-life consequence is that union officials who have been found by the courts to have unlawfully bullied and coerced, still have the right to enter construction sites. The community does not tolerate bullying, and it must be not be tolerated on construction sites,” Denita Wawn said.

“The Ensuring Integrity Bill is about making unions more accountable and bringing them into line with the community’s expectations. The Bill will make sure that any organisation or its officials that don’t live up to their obligations will face real and meaningful consequences,” she said.

“Union officials should not be exempt from community standards of behaviour. The Ensuring Integrity Bill means that union officials who repeatedly break the rules they will have their privileges restricted just like everyone else,” Denita Wawn said.

Medianet Press Release aapmedianet@aapmedianet.com.au






Skeptical Australian Radio commentator slammed over climate change remarks on TV science panel

That weed Karoly has been a Warmist from wayback.  He is far from an unbiased scientist.  Note that all he points to is raised levels of CO2.  But nobody disputes that.  What about the global temperature? Is that rising? Crickets. (It's falling). Typical Greenie deviousness

His argument that Australia is contributing more than its "fair share" of global warming is also  faulty.  What he is referring to is again CO2 emissions. And skeptics see CO2 as being primarily plant food  -- which it undoubtedly is -- and not as any significant influence on global temperature.  There have been long periods when CO2 has shot up while temperatures remained stable -- the 30 relatively recent years of 1945 to 1975, for instance. Karoly has his head in an unmentionable place


Alan Jones copped an absolute roasting on tonight’s episode of Q&A — despite not even being on the panel.

The radio shock jock was slammed by a panel of science experts for downplaying human impact on climate change, after he said we only contribute three per cent to greenhouse gas emissions during his own Q&A appearance last month.

“I saw the radio commentator Alan Jones on TV recently, and he said that 0.04 per cent of the world’s atmosphere is CO2,” the questioner said. “‘Three per cent of that human beings create around the world, and of that, 1.3 per cent is created by Australians’. Is that correct, and if so, is human activity really making a difference?”

Professor David Karoly, an Australian atmospheric scientist based at CSIRO, bluntly responded: “Not everything Jones says is factually accurate.”

Prof Karoly said that, while it’s correct that 0.04 per cent of the world’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide, Jones’ statistics around humans causing climate change — and the role Australians specifically play — is completely false.

“I am a climate scientist, and Alan Jones is wrong. The reason he’s wrong is because we know that yes, the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million … and that corresponds to about 0.04 per cent.

“All his other numbers were wrong. We know that carbon dioxide concentration 100 years ago was about 280 parts per million, or 0.028 per cent, but it’s grown 120 parts per million — or about 40 per cent — and that 40 per cent increase is due to human activity. We know that for absolute certain.” [Real scientists never know anything for absolute certain]

In other words, Prof Karoly was saying we’ve technically increased greenhouse gases by 40 per cent, not the three per cent figure Jones used.

The scientist also slammed the radio host for implying that Australians contribute a negligible amount to global warming.

“Australians have contributed about 1.5 per cent. Now that sounds like a small amount, but Australia only makes up 0.3 per cent of the population, and we’re contributing 1.5 per cent roughly of greenhouse gases,” said Prof Karoly. “So is it fair that 0.3 per cent of the global population has contributed 1.5 per cent? We’ve contributed much more than our fair share.”

Particle physicist Brian Cox said people think the climate is overly “simple”, which is a big part of the problem. “But actually, the climate is extremely complicated. These models are very, very complicated and constantly evolving.

“I think many people assume you can just work out what the climate’s going to do, like it’s common sense. But it’s actually a very complex system.” [Too complex to support any firm prediction, in fact]

SOURCE  





Top bosses of Australian universities endorse free speech

The chancellors agree to adopt the model proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French, thus shafting their wishy-washy Vice-chancellors.  But it will be up to the Vice-chancellors to administer the model

Today we report that Peter Shergold, John Brumby, Angus Houston and other heavy-hitters who serve as university chancellors are taking seriously the activist challenge to open inquiry and free speech on campus.

This is good news, because Universities Australia, the lobby for the vice-chancellors in charge of campus life, reckons there isn’t a problem. This is an issue that goes to the heart of higher education and its interplay with values and institutions in the wider culture. The task of universities is to pursue knowledge and truth, encouraging young minds to range widely, reason honestly and test their opinions against other views. None of this amounts to “hate speech”, the lazy smear now aimed at opinions that depart from progressive orthodoxy. If society is to solve complex problems, we need graduate-citizens who won’t tailor their thinking to audience sensitivities.

But the trojan horse of “social justice” has brought unhinged activism into higher education. Politics and academic integrity do not go together, especially when emotionally brittle activists demand “safety” from competing viewpoints — opinions, not hate speech. The future of universities in their present form is not assured. They undermine their true interests if they appease noisy minorities. Online courses have yet to shatter the face-to-face campus business model but entrepreneurs, companies and technologists are all actively investigating cheaper, better and more flexible options. Meanwhile, the cost of professional qualifications is rising (two degrees are often needed now for entry-level jobs) and discontent with value for money is likely to intensify.

Universities are less dependent on public money these days but they cannot afford to alienate the federal government, which has noticed the change in campus climate. Last year, psychologist Bettina Arndt, a sceptic of the claimed “rape crisis” at university, faced ugly attempts to shut down her speaking tour. A visiting US paediatrician, deemed “transphobic” for opposing sex change treatment of children, was “deplatformed” at the University of Western Australia. Also last year, physics professor Peter Ridd, a climate science critic, was unlawfully dismissed by James Cook University, partly for breaching a (difficult to satirise) order that he not satirise the disciplinary process against him.

All this, and the passivity of UA, helps explain the intervention by Education Minister Dan Tehan last November. He appointed former High Court chief justice Robert French to look into campus freedom. Mr Tehan’s action presented no threat to university autonomy. He has highlighted a missed opportunity for the sector to self-regulate. In the US, the Heterodox Academy has emerged to champion “viewpoint diversity”. Key figures in this movement — including psychologists Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt — are classical liberals, hardly anti-intellectual right-wing enemies of the academy. It’s heartening that Heterdox has a foothold here in Australia.

UA’s shabby reception of Mr French’s report in April shows the need for leadership on this fundamental question of principle. The lobby seized upon Mr French’s legalistic finding of “no crisis” in campus speech, ignoring his pointed remarks about the vulnerability of free expression under the endless rules and codes that entangle university life. UA has to judge for itself how best to protect the lucrative education industry it represents, its reputation, recruitment prospects and revenue streams.

But there are dissident vice-chancellors behind the collective indifference of the lobby. Dawn Freshwater, vice-chancellor at UWA, has certainly stolen a march with a new, beefed up statement telling students (and staff) that they have to be open to viewpoints at odds with their own, a sometimes uncomfortable experience that any thoughtful person has to get used to. And now university chancellors have agreed in principle to Mr French’s suggestion that universities adopt a voluntary model code making freedom of expression a paramount concern. (Mr French is also chancellor of UWA.)

It’s important to keep a sense of proportion. Even in the humanities and social sciences, where progressive groupthink is strongest, there are many scholars quietly faithful to evidence. It seems big city elite institutions are more likely to suffer from a dysfunctional campus culture. That is the case in the US, where the problem is worst. But all the Anglosphere countries have some level of this corruption and the US experience shows it can spread very quickly. The task is to prevent a crisis and resist a dysfunctional culture already present in higher education, as well as the corporate world.

In business the same ideology of selective “diversity” put paid to the career of footballer Israel Folau and generated the Orwellian newspeak of “behavioural awareness officers” for the AFL. Like the May 18 election result, the good sense of the mainstream will impose a correction; there are already hopeful signs. But why can’t more vice-chancellors see the advantage of rising to the occasion and becoming authors of their own reform?

SOURCE  







Holding out against French code not viable strategy

The decision of chancellors to ­assert their precedence over university management on the freedom of speech issue is very significant for higher education.

Ever since Education Minister Dan Tehan launched the review of freedom of speech in universities by former High Court chief justice Robert French last year, university management, represented by the body Universities Australia, has reacted defensively.

It was seen as yet another threat to the autonomy of universities. It followed the revelation that Tehan’s predecessor, Simon Birmingham, had secretly used his ministerial prerogative to deny several research grants that had been approved by the Australian Research Council.

In fact, if freedom of speech had to be reviewed, there could not have been a fairer or more reasonable person to review it than French who had thought deeply about the issue. He said clearly that there was no free speech crisis and came up with proposals that steered a middle course that would appear to be palatable to universities.

Among the things he did not recommend was the imposition of laws that would prescribe to universities how they would deal with freedom of speech and academic freedom issues. His answer was a voluntary code that universities could subscribe to and align their policies to, with freedom to vary them where they saw necessary.

That should have pleased the universities. It is puzzling that the vice-chancellors, represented by Universities Australia, did not back it. Now the chancellors who chair university governing bodies and are ultimately responsible for the institutions have intervened and said that freedom of speech is a matter for them. They have collectively got behind the French model code for freedom of speech.

It’s no coincidence the chancellors are people with a huge reservoir of experience in business, politics and public life. It is clear to them, if not to the universities they preside over, that holding out against the free speech code proposed by French is not a viable strategy for universities.

SOURCE  





Herron murder highlights real homeless problem

As the details emerge about the background of Courtney Herron’s alleged killer, we need to take a serious look at the problem of homelessness and mental illness. Our approach to these problems has not been working.

Henry Hammond, a 27-year-old homeless man, appears to have had untreated mental illness and issues with substance abuse, including the drugs heroin, LSD and ice.

According to witnesses, he had a long history of bizarre behaviour. He was failed by a system that did not assertively address these issues because of misguided priorities.

The real cause of homelessness — and of the tragic events in Royal Park — relate to a lawless homeless subculture in which mental illness and drug abuse are rife.

The rate of mental illness is up to 40% in homeless persons, and even higher in ‘rough sleepers’.

And as I point out in the CIS paper Dying with their Rights On: The Myths and Realities of Ending Homelessness in Australia, although the government already spends $10 billion a year on housing and homelessness, rates of rough sleeping are increasing.

Despite the 29% increase in funding (from $634.2 million to $817.4m) for homeless services alone between 2011 and 2016, the number of Australians sleeping rough increased by 20% across that time.

Approximately 8,000 Australians continue to sleep rough each night because homelessness services have not been assertive enough at getting people off the streets. Outreach workers are reluctant to violate the ‘right’ of people to sleep rough and refuse treatment.

Homelessness services have therefore proved unable to help because they refuse to take an effective approach to assisting people to exit the streets.

Hence, participation in mental health and drug counselling and treatment is largely optional. This means the people who most need help to deal with their addictions and mental illnesses are the least likely to get it.

Long-term care facilities offering high levels of support would benefit the chronically homeless and gravely ill people — who will otherwise continue to live and die on the streets.

Drug and alcohol treatment must be made mandatory for homeless addicts, as must compulsory mental health assessments to ensure that appropriate treatment reaches those who need it.

SOURCE  

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





18 June 2019

John Setka has threatened to withdraw millions of dollars in funding from Labor amid Anthony Albanese’s push to expel him from the party

Looks like the Setka stoush goes back to his union's dissatisfaction with Shorten's Greenie policies. Setka represents miners.  Enough said

Embattled union leader John Setka has threatened to withdraw millions of dollars in funding from Labor amid Anthony Albanese’s push to expel him from the party.

Mr Setka, who heads up the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU), claims the effort to expel him was sparked not by comments he made about domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty, but by the funding threat.

“What I said was no more money to the ALP. We are freezing everything. Not one more cent,” Mr Setka told The New Daily, referring to the same meeting where he supposedly disparaged Ms Batty.

He argued the unions were wasting their money supporting Labor.  “The $12 million the ACTU spent, they might as well have gone down the racetrack and gone to the Crown casino and got a better return,” he said. “They f***ed it all. Their policies. Everyone tip-toed around and did everything we had to do. Millions and millions of dollars. And we are in the gun now.”

The ALP executive is due to meet on July 5. That is when Mr Albanese will move to expel Mr Setka — a move supported by 12 national unions and ACTU secretary Sally McManus.

Speaking to The New Daily, Mr Setka said he would look to challenge his expulsion in the courts. “Look, my view is I will challenge it. It’s up to the members because it would be a costly exercise,” he said. “I am a little bit old school. I actually think you should have actually done something before you get cooked on a spit about it.

“They’ve accused me of bagging Rosie Batty. Now, it’s clear that wasn’t said. Well good luck to them. It’s going to be a long, drawn-out thing.”

Mr Setka denies the accusation that he made disparaging comments about Ms Batty. Other union leaders who were at the meeting have backed him up.

It seems he told the meeting that, according to lawyers he’d spoken to, laws had become skewed against men in recent years, particularly in the wake of Ms Batty’s campaigning and Victoria’s royal commission into family violence.

Those comments are not the only issue behind Mr Albanese’s push to expel him. Mr Setka’s personal conduct is also a factor — he has indicated he will plead guilty to harassing a woman with text messages.

But the Opposition Leader did cite Ms Batty when he publicly called for the expulsion last week. “Rosie Batty is a great campaigner against family violence and the idea that she should be denigrated by someone like John Setka is completely unacceptable to me as leader of the Australian Labor Party. And I don’t want him in my party,” Mr Albanese said.

Mr Setka claimed it was really all about money. “Right now, without sounding like a sook because Albanese is going to expel me, look, I would say no, we are not going to give them a cent,” Mr Setka said. “I said at the start of that meeting, we are not giving one more cent to the ALP. That’s a big threat to a lot of people.

“Why should we give them any more money? That’s the bigger threat. So you’ve got to read between the lines.”

SOURCE  






Campus bureaucrats prove timid friends of free speech

The government is mounting a campaign to resurrect freedom of expression in Australian universities. Throughout history, academics have been punished for questioning fashionable orthodoxy. In the 21st-century West, they enforce it by silencing dissent and ostracising dissenters.

Australian university leaders seem not to care much for freedom of speech as a universal right. They willingly ignore the historical fact that when the suppression of dissent becomes state law and institutional policy, democracy dies.

The government is taking a fresh approach to liberating higher education from its orthodox rut. It commissioned an independent review into free speech on campus led by University of Western Australia chancellor Robert French. Major recommendations include that each higher education provider has “a policy that upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom”. A model code is recommended to extend the principle of freedom to all forms of expression, including art and music.

The government is emphasising the importance of freedom of expression and the case made by French across 300 pages is difficult to refute. Lest it be seen as meddling with university autonomy, the Coalition has made the model code voluntary. It is a leap of faith and, I believe, an error of judgment.

The ivory tower is a bastion of orthodoxy protected by billions in taxpayer funding. Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan has revealed universities will receive a record $17 billion funding this year. As such, he thinks they should take some responsibility for their impact on Australian culture.

The argument makes sense in light of recent higher education reforms. As education minister, Julia Gillard commissioned a major review of tertiary education. The Labor government adopted two key targets from the Bradley review: at least 40 per cent of 25 to 34-year-old Australians will have a bachelor degree or above by 2025 and students from low socio-economic status backgrounds will comprise 20 per cent of enrolments at undergraduate level.

When universities are funded by Australians to educate 40 per cent of the young population, they should recognise the reciprocal responsibility to educate them well. A part of that responsibility is creating a culture where students learn that mastering the exercise of freedom is essential to becoming a good democratic citizen.

To date, Labor has been far more effective than the Coalition at leading cultural change, usually by embedding institutional reforms in legislation. For example, the Bradley review ushered in major structural changes, many embedded in law. By contrast, the Coalition has struggled to make higher education reforms stick. Spending cuts proposed during Tony Abbott’s time were blocked by a recalcitrant Senate.

More recently, the government’s withdrawal of public funding for inconsequential human­ities research was broadly criticised. University executives joined Labor to condemn the veto of funding for projects such as rioting and the literary archive, and Soviet cinema in Hollywood before the black list. University of NSW president and vice-chancellor Ian Jacobs accused former educa­tion minister Simon Birmingham of unjustified action. UNSW deputy vice-chancellor for research Nicholas Fisk said: “It is distressing for … the academic community … to learn that research proposals selected on the basis of excellence were shunned for no apparent reason.” Other university leaders said the Coali­tion had undermined academic autonomy and free speech.

While Coalition calls to reform campus culture are welcome, the historical tendency of university leaders to adopt cultural bias against freedom of speech is well known.

In Britain and US, the documented history of left-wing bias on campus goes back decades. The left began to march against Western civilisation and conservatism in the 1960s. Since then, numerous attempts have been made to reform political correctness on campus without success. However, the recent adoption of the Chicago statement on free speech by more than 60 universities in the US has inspired hope in Australia.

The French review recommendations may not be met with the same enthusiasm as the Chicago principles. There is no Australian equivalent of organisations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or Campus Watch dedicated to disseminating insider news about the prevalence and harm of politically correct bigotry in universities. As a result, there is less public pressure mounted on politicians to challenge it. We also lack the constitutional imperative for protecting freedom of expression as a patriotic duty. Thus, the Prime Minister would not have the ready justification available to US President Donald Trump when he issued an executive order on free inquiry in universities earlier this year.

Tehan has started his campaign to resurrect freedom on campus by trying to reason with chancellors and vice-chancellors. He has assured sector leaders that the government will protect their autonomy while advocating for greater accountability in respect of core democratic freedoms.

However, there is no financial incentive for vice-chancellors to challenge faculty orthodoxy and no punishment for allowing it to continue. And some university executives have been involved in what many perceive as the punishment of dissenting speech.

After the Federal Court upheld physics professor Peter Ridd’s right to intellectual freedom, the management of James Cook University issued a statement. It claimed that Ridd had “engaged in serious misconduct, including denigrating the university and its employees and breaching confidentiality directions regarding the disciplinary processes”. On the face of it, Ridd’s major transgression was to call into question orthodox environmentalist beliefs. If the Federal Court cannot convince university leaders about the importance of protecting intellectual freedom, who can?

The government is facing a great challenge in trying to liberate free speech from the chains of PC orthodoxy on campus. There will be no lasting change to freedom of expression in Australian universities until it is legislated at a federal level with quantifiable targets that are tied to funding.

The principal reason to protect free speech on university campuses is to nourish democracy for generations to come. Freedom of speech is a means and an end. It is the foundation of public reason that makes human progress possible. We must defend it or we will lose the battle for democracy.

SOURCE  






Catholic Cardinals, bishops issue declaration: homosexual acts, gender reassignment are ‘grave sins’

Two cardinals and several bishops have issued a declaration to correct “almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation” they claim is endangering Christians’ spiritual health.

The “Declaration of the truths relating to some of the most common errors in the life of the Church of our time’, released last week, took aim at some of the liberal positions on controversial issues taken by Pope Francis and others.

It was signed by US Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was the Vatican’s principal legal officer for six years, appointed by Pope Benedict, but who was sacked by Francis in 2014.

In 2017, Francis restored Burke as a judge on the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura.

Other signatories were retired Latvian Cardinal Janis Pujats, and Kazakstan archbishops Tomash Peta and Jan Pawel Lenga and bishop Athanasius Schneider.

The declaration said the church was in a state of “almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation’’ which necessitated their exercising responsibility to speak up: “One has to recognise a widespread lethargy in the exercise of the Magisterium on different levels of the Church’s hierarchy in our days.’’

Many Christians, they said felt “an acute spiritual hunger’’ and a need for “a reaffirmation of truths that are obfuscated, undermined and denied by some of the most dangerous errors of our time.’’ Many people felt abandoned in a kind of existential periphery, a situation that “urgently demands a concrete remedy’.’

The Declaration covers dozens of issues, crystallising decades-old debates that have recently come to a head. It is a comprehensive restatement of centuries of church teaching, upholding, for example that “hell exists” and that people condemned there “for any unrepented mortal sin” are there eternally.

That insistence will be as welcome among some bishops, priests and Catholics as Israel Folau’s tweet on a similar subject was at Rugby Australia. The Declaration says “homosexual acts” and gender reassignment surgery are “grave sins” and same-sex civil marriages are contrary to natural and Divine law.

Father Paddy Sykes, chairman of Australia’s National Council of Priests, said the document “highlighted the huge divisions in the church, around the world and in Australia’’. The NCP has 1200 to 1500 paid up members. Its quarterly magazine, The Swag has a circulation of 4000 to 5000.

The divisions in the church, Fr Sykes said, were clear when the Australian bishops’ conference split 50/50 last year between Brisbane’s archbishop Mark Coleridge and Sydney’s archbishop Anthony Fisher, with Archbishop Coleridge, regarded as the more progressive and liberal, appointed president on the grounds of seniority. “I’m glad he was,’’ Fr Sykes said.

Fr Sykes, a parish priest in the NSW country diocese of Wagga, said the new declaration was 100 per cent correct theologically. It would appeal, he said, to “people whose natural inclination was to have certainty in order to feel safe’’.

“Pope Francis recognises that life is not like that and that we need to deal with the fluidity of the life of the world,’’ he said. The pope had “shaken a few cages’’.

But Fr Sykes agreed that Francis was dogmatic on some political subjects, such as climate change. Last week, the pope told energy executives at the Vatican that the world faced a “climate emergency’’ and called for radical action.

Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy chair Fr Scot Armstrong took a different line to Fr Sykes. He said the cardinals and bishops had produced a “quality, comprehensive’’ document to offer “concrete spiritual help to address the difficulties being experienced as unity (in the church) is further stretched, and in some cases, even breaking down’’.

It was “a useful reminder that the faith is not our own concoction but received from Christ’’ Fr Armstrong said. It could not be altered “as a political party might change policies, or a corporation might change its business approach’’.

“Pope Francis recently remarked — jokingly — that if some don’t like the faith they can go and found their own church,’’ Fr Armstrong said. “He was joking, but the point was made. This document serves to strengthen that point.’’

In the declaration, the cardinals and bishops said abortion was “forbidden by natural and divine law” and euthanasia, which becomes lawful in Victoria under tightly controlled conditions this week, was a “grave violation of the law of God” because it is the “deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person”.

Marriage, they said, was “an indissoluble union of one man and of one woman … ordained for the procreation and education of children”. The priesthood must be reserved for males.

In a swipe at the joint Muslim/Catholic document signed in Abu Dhabi in February by Francis and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, imam of Cairo’s Al-Azhar Muslim University, stating that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God”, the signatories insisted that “the religion born of faith in Jesus Christ … is the only religion positively willed by God.”

Referring to the confusion over divorce, remarriage and the reception of Communion generated after Francis’s encyclical Amoris Laetitia [It was NOT an encyclical] and the Vatican’s 2014 and 2015 synods on the family, the signatories insisted it was unacceptable for Catholics who divorced their spouses and entered into subsequent civil unions to receive Communion.

In contrast, many of the 17,457 submissions collected during the consultation phase of the Catholic Church’s Plenary Council, suggest many Australian Catholics favour modernisation of church structures and teachings, with calls for married priests, women priests, an end to LGBTIQ discrimination, greater transparency and reform of church governance. But others advocated a reassertion of tradition and better faith education.

Australia’s Catholic bishops are in Rome to meet Pope Francis on their five yearly ad limina visits.

SOURCE  






Censoring unis ‘will lose best students’ researcher warns

Universities will lose reputation and talented students if they fail to defend free speech against an activist campus culture bent on shutting down debate, warns research­er Matthew Lesh.

“I’ve been phoned by parents and students asking which is the best university to go to for intellectual freedom,” said Mr Lesh, who audits campus freedom for the Institute of Public Affairs.

On Saturday, Education Minister Dan Tehan complained that universities were failing to take up the challenge of protecting free speech and had “their heads in the sand”.

Mr Tehan pointed to several attempts at censorship last year but agreed with former High Court chief justice Robert French, who reported on the issue in April and said Australia did not have the “crisis” seen in the US.

But Mr French said university rules and policies that could be turned against freedom of expressio­n were “rife” in Aust­ralia’s higher education sector.

And Mr Tehan said if the secto­r was on its way to a campus speech crisis, “we will end up a more divided and less harmonious Australia — and we should do everything we can to avoid that”.

Peak lobby group Universities Australia yesterday said the sector­ had put out a joint statement last year “reaffirming an endurin­g commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression on our campuses”.

UA chief executive Catriona Jackson said the French report was getting “careful consideration”. When that report was released­, UA warned against imposition­ of sector-wide rules aimed at “a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist”.

Mr Lesh welcomed the University of Western Australia going it alone with a new manifesto on free expression that tells students they must be open to a robust exchange of ideas that may clash with their beliefs and make them feel uncomfortable.

The new statement, announced by UWA vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater, represents the first serious response since the French report to incidents last year where campus activists tried to harass and silence controversial visiting speakers.

Also last year, James Cook University dismissed­ physics professor Peter Ridd, a critic of climate science methodology. This was unlawful, a court held in April.

Mr Lesh said UWA’s competitors for the best students were far away but serious commitment to open inquiry and free speech could become a factor in Sydney and Melbourne, where each city had elite rival institutions.

“If one of the major east coast universities decided to stake itself out as being for intellectual freedom, they could almost certainly attract more students,” he said.

The new UWA document stresses learning through “openness to considering ideas that challenge existing belief struct­ures”, resisting “inappropriate constraints on the freedom to ­express (ideas)”, while noting that “vilification of marginalised groups” remains taboo.

“Beyond (such) constraints, freedom of expression is unfettered within our university, and so a multitude of ideas will be encountere­d here,” it says.

“This freedom to express ideas is constrained neither by their perceived capacity to elicit discomfort, nor by presuppositions concerning their veracity.”

Professor Freshwater, who left school at 15 and stepped up from a diploma in nursing to a degree and then a doctorate, told ABC radio last year about the value of “being stretched (and) put in an uncomfortable position” as you learn. She likened this to free speech exposing young students to difficult ideas and feedback they might not want to hear.

The British-born educator now chairs the elite Group of Eight universities, and has just been headhunted by Auckland University to become its first female vice-chancellor next March.

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 June, 2019

The environment is too important to be left to eco-warriors

Noel Pearson below draws on his consultive Aboriginal culture to argue that environmental issues should be resolved in a non-confrontaional way.  He makes a powerful case against current Greenie behaviour.  What he overlooks is that the Greenies WANT confrontation. They get their kicks out of parading as more righteous, more caring and wiser.  It fulfils ego needs for them.

You can see that in the way they immediately dream up a new issue as soon as they get their way on their previous issue.  Nothing satisfies them. Nothing can satisfy them.  Their lives would be dull and empty without their campaigns.  We are not dealing with psychologically whole people where Greenie campaigners are concerned


Can a cause for the right succeed in the long run if it is pursued through unrighteous means? Can causes for the good be selective in their adherence to science? Or do righteous ends justify unrighteous means?

This is the crisis confronting environmentalism. It suffered a grievous loss at the federal election and the Adani red line is broken. This may be a crisis of legitimacy. The question is whether political environmentalism is turning off voters and hardening attitudes against the necessary effective policies to secure future sustainability. Are the means employed by political environmentalism destroying the possibility of Australia achieving the desired end of sustainability through consensus? Or is consensus unnecessary because the morally right end means the maxim “by any means necessary” applies?

Political environmentalism is undermining the cause of sustainability because short-term expediency and tactical opportunism is trumping long-term strategic consensus-building. Environmentalism has degenerated into the binary of cultural war when it needs to transcend such wars. Its leaders have led the movement into a zero-sum game, where political victory in one battlefield is countered by loss in another.

We should first explain what we mean by causes for the right.

Political parties seeking power in government are not in the business of the right. Electoral politics are by definition ruthless, with few holds barred. Lies, half-truths, fake news, negative advertising and dirt files are part of the repertoire of power in politics. One party’s Mediscare is the other party’s retiree tax.

Former Labor NSW state secretary and federal minister Graham Richardson captured the ethos of politics in his memoir Whatever It Takes. Noble and ignoble things are achieved by marshalling political power.

While causes for power are amoral, there are causes for the right. Civil rights and the anti-apartheid movement are examples. Emancipation and antislavery are even older precedents. Such causes mobilise the political process and power for good ends. Conservation is such a cause. Few would dispute it is a moral duty of humankind regardless of political affiliation and preference.

Causes for the truth must be ethical, otherwise they suffer damage. Moral integrity is the great currency of righteous movements, but the political environmentalists have jeopardised the cause of conservation by allowing it to descend into the hyper-partisan battlefield of culture and politics.

It is exposed to the 51-49 per cent risk. When your party wins 51, then you may win tactical victories, but when it is 49 you have put your cause in peril. This is what has happened to Adani after the election.

I want to allege five profound mistakes the political environmentalists are making in Australia:

First, they are alienating the lower classes in their droves. This is the lesson of the 2019 election. The political environmentalists pushed climate policies that worked for the post-material middle class, but cared less about the economically precarious. More than the costs, it is the movement’s superior cultural attitude that pisses off the lower classes in such a visceral way.

Second, they are alienating indigenous peoples by pushing the costs of conservation on to those who have not created the crisis. Indigenous leaders such as Marcia Langton and Warren Mundine have highlighted the green lockup of indigenous lands from development.

These groups manipulate and exploit divisions within landowner communities. They divide and rule the same as mining companies do, setting up puppets that favour their agenda. We saw this in the campaign against the Kimberley Land Council. We see it in Cape York in relation to Wild Rivers and blanket World Heritage listing proposals.

Traditional owners supported conservation goals and helped create by agreement new national parks and other conservation tenures. But the political environmentalists are never satisfied. They want everything locked up.

They are making enemies of the country’s largest landowners because they use electoral leverage with governments to subjugate land rights. If they are alienating the land rights movement, which is more aligned to conservation than other sectors, what does that say about them?

A third problem is they are at the forefront of deploying so-called “new power” in their public campaigns. Through the diffusion of social media and decentralised campaigning, green groups began to seriously challenge the “old power”. GetUp co-founder Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms explain this development in their 2018 book New Power.

Breaking the old power monopoly is welcome; however, the dilemmas of social media and its susceptibility to manipulation and its effects on civil society and democratic governance are troubling. Twitter and Facebook have just created online mob behaviour. Hardly platforms for moral causes.

And the political environmentalists have used the new power to promote conservation and climate change action in as cynical a way as the forces against which they are pitted. Getup and Sleeping Giants use the same tools of manipulation as deliberately as Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica.

A fourth problem is the political environmentalists are highly selective in their adherence to science, and in so doing bring science into disrepute in public policy debates. Who really believed the black-throated finch was the environmental issue of Adani? The poor critters were used as a proxy for opposition to coalmining.

Why the charade? The Queensland Labor government should have been honest with the public and said: the policy question we face is whether the Galilee Basin should be opened up to coalmining in the context of its contribution to the crisis of global warming. But because they wanted to walk two sides of the street at once — intimating to greenies they did not support Adani while intimating to regional workers that they supported coalmining — they did not bring the crux policy question to a head and provide their answer to it.

They lacked the courage of their convictions and simply did not have the leadership to untie the Gordian knot that expanded coalmining in the Galilee Basin represents. And now the May 18 loss sees them stampeding over the poor birds and anything else standing in the way of their electoral prospects next year.

The stances environmental groups take in relation to any number of issues — nuclear energy and aquaculture, for example — evince a selective adherence to science.

Does not environmental science tell us about the interconnectivity of the planet, and if nuclear power is used in Europe, Asia and the Americas, and contributes to lower carbon emissions, why is the debate on nuclear power not on the basis of science and the mitigation of risks associated with nuclear energy, instead of a green version of obscurantism?

The proponents of safer nuclear waste disposal in Australia (which included the late Bob Hawke) have got a point that is worth subjecting to science rather than outright prohibition. While the case for domestic nuclear power may not be strong, it is a substantial source of energy throughout the world, and as a uranium producer we are obliged to consider our role in the management of its waste. There are strong geopolitical arguments in favour of Australia assuming this responsibility and mitigating the large risks involved, which we are better placed to carry than most other countries. After all, it is the green­ies who tell us the planet is one and national boundaries are environmentally meaningless.

The fifth and most fundamental problem is the political environmentalists have aligned environmentalism with socialism rather than conservatism. Another way of saying this is they have aligned environmentalism with progressivism rather than conservatism.

There is a fundamental philosophical problem at the heart of contemporary environmentalism. I do not mean in respect of the appreciation of the natural environment. I mean in respect of where our motive must come from in order to conserve the good things we have been bequeathed from our ancestors for the benefit of our future unborn.

This is the motive that is unanswered by the utilitarian calculations of liberals and socialists. Not everything is about price. Conservatives understand that some things are valuable because they are priceless.

English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton’s 2012 book Green Philosophy is the starting point for a new conservative approach to conservation. The approach is old — about stewardship and our responsibility to bequeath to future generations the gifts we received from our ancestors — but its application to the environmental crises facing our homelands, including global warming, is new. The climate obscurantists who are in the same binary as the political environmentalists and who think themselves conservatives should read Scruton. They should be the first to understand the conservation in conservatism but, alas, ­cultural war has caused a degeneration on all sides.

Progressive socialists don’t know what Scruton is referring to: oikophilia, the love of home that speaks to people’s connection with their environment, which animates their responsibilities. Instead, they propose large schemes, imposed from above by state diktat, while doing violence to the most important engine of conservation: the local connection of communities with their environment, and their concern to leave their descendants what their ancestors left for them. Progressives are more concerned with environmental posturing, cutting the correct moral gesture, being seen to be more enlightened and selfless, in contrast to the deplorables and knuckle-draggers.

The green leaders all want to be the next Bob Brown, renowned for their own Franklin Dam or Wet Tropics. They trample over politically weaker communities such as Queensland property owners uncompensated for tree-clearing restrictions that underwrote our Kyoto target in the 2000s. It was John Howard’s federal government and Peter Beattie’s state government that dispossessed these landowners without proper compensation.

Indigenous landowners are another politically weaker community that are ridden roughshod over by political environmentalists.

The folly of all of this is now surely clear. What can be done?

Ever since Richardson alighted on the strategy of garnering the environmental vote, Labor began outsourcing its environmental policy integrity to the political environmentalists. This yielded electoral returns in 1987 and 1990 but ultimately led to Labor bleeding market share to the Greens and being held hostage to political environmentalism. Labor’s environmental credibility came from environmental group endorsements after adopting their policies and acquiescing to their demands.

Rather than undertaking the principal responsibility of government, coming up with policies that balance development with environmental sustainability, it did preference deals with the political environmentalists. Environmental groups became experts at marginal seat politics, turning 2 to 3 per cent of the environment vote to win 51 per cent victories for their pet campaigns.

The hook-up with GetUp is the apotheosis of Labor’s dalliance with political environmentalism. What electorate is not going to be suspicious of the next bunch of out-of-towners hectoring them about how to vote next time? GetUp was Bill Shorten’s long game at mobilising AstroTurf activism and it has all ended in tears.

Labor must define its own environmental credentials in its own right, not as an alliance with the Greens or as the lapdog of a certain environmental milieu. Watching Jackie Trad squirm as Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch approved the Adani mine this week told the whole sorry story. Labor can no longer walk two sides of the street at once. It worked for Annastacia Palaszczuk in 2017 but not for Shorten in 2019. Voters might be fooled once, but not all the time.

To develop environmental policies free from deal-making with the political environmentalists, Labor must balance human society and environmental sustainability. The last thing the environment portfolio needs is a progressive from an inner-city seat, surrounded by a milieu of political environmentalists. Labor needs to take environment policy back to first principles and get its philosophy right first.

The environment is too important to be left to the political environmentalists.

SOURCE  






‘Laziness’ to blame for Mascot Tower cracking with fears more apartment buildings will crumble

First it was the Opal Tower. Now, residents of Mascot Tower have been forced out. But more evacuations could come as buildings crumble.

A building industry body fears more apartment towers will be at risk of cracking from engineering malfunctions after 131 residents were forced to evacuate an inner Sydney complex on Friday night.

Mascot Towers was vacated after engineers became increasingly concerned about cracks in the primary support structure and facade masonry of the decade-old building.

All 122 units were empty on Saturday with its residents expecting to be homeless for at least a week.

Building Designers Association of Australia president Chris Knierim called for an independent building commission to investigate the sector, blaming laziness and the rapid development of new buildings for the latest failing.

He said the industry is under an “enormous amount of pressure” to keep up with the consumer demand for high-rise accommodation.

“The building industry has been too lazy for too many years,” Mr Knierim told ABC Radio. “I have a feeling we’ll see more problems.”

The news of the structural concerns sent shockwaves across the country, with many criticising the influx of rapid development.

“Mascot Towers residents are latest victims of dodgy, greedy builders and inept certification procedures,” controversial commentator Prue MacSween tweeted. “Government Planning Dept and Councils need to lift their game and be held accountable alongside builders, their engineers & certifiers.”

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian promised to “hold everybody to account” once the cause of the building’s crumbling was known.  “There was some speculation it could have been from things that happened in the near vicinity but we need to find out the cause before we know how to act,” she told reporters on Sunday.

When asked if the state government would help those displaced by the complex’s failings, Ms Berejiklian simply replied: “We’re getting to the bottom of what happened”. “The NSW government will hold everybody to account, that’s our role,” she said.

Residents in the Church Ave complex at Mascot near Sydney Airport were forced to find their own emergency accommodation after a “large crack” suddenly appeared in the “slab beams in the primary building corner”, raising concerns of an impending collapse.

Police cordoned off the area and fire trucks parked outside as state engineers inspected the property and firefighters made their way through the complex evacuating occupants in scenes eerily similar to the Opal Tower debacle.

Residents have been told to anticipate being kept out of their apartments for at least a week, local state MP Ron Hoenig told media on Saturday.

Mr Hoenig said the cracks had first been noticed weeks ago by the corporation which owns Mascot Towers. The corporation had brought in engineers before they had got worse on Thursday and Friday.

“It’s too early to point the finger, they’re not sure yet,” he told reporters, according to The Daily Telegraph.

“But it’s suspicious that the new building is not even occupied and the building that’s been up for 12 years all of a sudden has substantial cracks.”

Despite running directly underneath the building NSW rail engineers have concluded no damage has been caused to Mascot train station, Mr Hoenig also said.

According to a spokesperson from Police and Fire Rescue NSW, temporary housing had been set up at Mascot Town Hall on Friday night and residents were also evacuated to apartments nearby. Some residents stayed with friends, others said their employer had helped out with alternate accommodation while one family spent the night in Mascot Town Hall, according to AAP.

On the advice of authorities, news.com.au visited both locations promising temporary housing only to find no trace of it. By 11am this morning, apparently none of the temporary housing was in use. “All residents have found alternative accommodation so the temporary housing was no longer required,” a spokesperson confirmed to news.com.au.

The evacuation comes amid claims the building has been plagued by issues for years. Shop owners in businesses said they had noticed cracks on their walls and ceilings start to develop five years ago. And now, residents are fuming that they had to pack up their lives in minutes due to long running issues.

“We’ve been living here for five years now. They’re always maintaining the building, we’ve never been here without the tradesmen coming in and out,” said Elicia.

“But if you look at that building right next to us, when they were building there was shaking all the time. So if this damage was caused by that or if it was a structural problem, we don’t know yet. We have no idea. The problem is, we don’t know whose problem it is to fix it.”

SOURCE  







No evidence Medivac laws must change: Keneally

Labor is standing by laws it helped pass to make it easier for refugees toget medical treatment in Australia, saying the government hasn’t produced any evidence why the laws should be dumped or changed.

The party’s new home affairs spokeswoman Kristina Keneally is demanding the government explain why it wants to repeal the legislation but denies Labor has changed its view of the laws.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton today said he understood Labor was reconsidering its position on the bill and was “open to suggestions about how that bill could be repealed or at the very least wound back”.

“Peter Dutton is the last person who can speak to theAustralian Labor Party’s position on the Medivac legislation,” Ms Keneally told reporters in Sydney this afternoon.  “Let me be clear: Labor supports the Medivac legislation.”

Ms Keneally, who was briefed by the Department of Home Affairs last week, said she was yet to see any evidence the laws should be scrapped or changed. “If the government believes that the Medivac legislation is no longer necessary ... (or) if the government wants to improve the Medivac legislation to ensure that people can more readily get the health care that they need, then the government needs to explain that to the parliament,” she said.

“The government has said nothing about either of those two aspects of the legislation.”

Mr Dutton today revealed just over 30 people had been brought to Australia under the Medivac legislation but none of them were taken to Christmas Island, which was reopened by the government at a cost of $185 million amid warnings from senior ministers that hundreds of asylum-seekers would be sent here for medical treatment.

Labor sources have told The Weekend Australian the party would not support repealing the bill but would consider amendments put forward by the government.  “(Labor) will insist any amendments don’t compromise the objectives of ensuring sick people can get the healthcare they need while keeping Australia safe,” sources said.  “Essentially, the ball is in the government’s court here.”

Under the legislation that passed parliament with Labor, Greens and crossbench support in February, the government is unable to block the transfer of refugees and ­asylum-seekers who are considered to be dangerous but are not ­subject to an adverse ASIO ­assessment and have not been sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment.

Those in offshore processing could be transferred to Australia with their families on the advice of two doctors. The advice would be reviewable by an independent medical panel, and could only be over­ridden by the immigration minister on national-security grounds.

Mr Dutton said it remained the case under the law that the government would be unable to stop potential criminals from coming to Australia.  “We can be compelled under that law to bring people (to Australia),” he told the ABC’s Insiders.

“It (the Medivac bill) was set up on the basis that people wouldn’t be brought here if they needed medical attention. It was a complete nonsense. We have brought many hundreds of people who required attention and we’ve been able to reduce the number significantly off Manus and Nauru. Where we have a concern about somebody in circumstances where they must come to Australia, we do offset that risk, if you like, through all sorts of measures and we provide support to that person to get healthy and the idea is they would return back to Manus or Nauru.”

Mr Dutton also admitted he did not expect the United States to accept the full quota of 1250 refugees from Manus Island and Nauru under a deal clinched between former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former US president Barack Obama. “There’s 531 people who have gone and there are about 295 who are in the pipelines, where they’ve got approvals but they haven’t been uplifted yet,” he said.

“I don’t think we’ll get to the 1250 because there’s been over 300 that have been rejected by the United States for various reasons. That’s an issue for the US. They’re a sovereign state. They will make decisions about who they will bring under their migration program.

“I hope all of them (the 295 in the pipeline) can take up that offer where it’s made. There are about 95 people who have either withdrawn from consideration or rejected an offer and that’s a concern as well. If we can get those 95 across the line, we get closer to zero.”

Only two Rwandan men accused of killing tourists have come to Australia from America under the Australian-US deal, which Mr Dutton has repeatedly said was not a people swap.

Anthony Albanese and Senator Keneally have committed to reviewing all of Labor’s border security policies except boat turnbacks, offshore processing and regional resettlement.

SOURCE  







Signs of resistance to the woke gang’s war on reason

Comment from Bernard Lane in Australia

Will we ever wake up from the “woke” activist nightmare? This week, Kmart insisted it was a software glitch in photo printing ­kiosks — not some PC edict — that erased the “offensive” word Jesus from captions. Maybe, but the suspicion of journalists is hardly surprising. The grim reality of offence-activism keeps racing ahead of parody.

In Britain, transgender folk angry at being “misgendered” go running to the bobbies, who may be distracted by an epidemic of knife crime. Two years ago a biology professor at a US liberal arts college, Bret Weinstein, objected on moral grounds to a diversity “day of absence” when whites were told to stay away from campus. Harangued as a “white supremacist”, Weinstein was forced out of his job after the college president pandered to “courageous” students fighting racism with more racism. Some days the outlook seems bleak, and we may miss the filaments of hope. So, at the risk of being a politically incorrect Pollyanna, here’s a handful of reasons for optimism.

Planet Peterson

Had a gutful of anti-social media? On Sunday, Jordan Peterson, the most famous psychologist on the planet, gave a sneak preview of Thinkspot, his new online venue for people to speak their minds. “Once you’re on our platform, we won’t take you down unless we’re ordered to by a US court of law,” he said. “We’re trying to make an anti-censorship platform.” Unlike Twitter, where unwoke posts can get you banned. Ever on the lookout for white supremacists and other malefactors, Twitter last month suspended Ray Blanchard, a psychologist who helped write the diagnostic bible on “gender dysphoria”. He’d posted “hate speech”, namely his clinical opinion that sex-change surgery was less than ideal for children who might grow up to bitterly regret it. This won’t happen on Thinkspot. Peterson’s social media play may shake things up. He has 1.2 million followers on Twitter. Others in the loose grouping known as the intellectual dark web — united by the belief that without free speech and honest debate, society can’t correct its errors — also command big audiences. To join Thinkspot, you’ll have to pay a subscription and forswear mindless blurts of abuse. “If the minimum content (for posts) is 50 words, you’re going to have to put a little thought into it,” Peterson said. “If you’re being a troll, hopefully you’ll be a quasi-witty troll.” Thinkspotters will be able to tag a point of interest in a podcast, attaching their own remarks, audio comments or video clips. “We can really add dialogue to the podcast and YouTube world (with) continual running conversations.” Peterson is also plotting a private, online university to bypass what he sees as a corrupted academy.

Smarter than we look

Entrepreneurs are twigging to the podcast secret: a vast, hitherto unsuspected audience hungry for long-form debate of deadly serious stuff, plus jokes. Likewise the appetite for that crusty old form, the 90-minute public lecture. Peterson’s rather severe self-help book, 12 Rules for Life, has filled halls in 150 cities around the world with more than 300,000 people. And their pay-off is to be told that life is suffering and malevolence made bearable by the meaning that comes with willingly shouldering a heavy burden of responsibility. Peterson: “It’s almost inconceivable the degree to which people are starving for encouragement, how little they get and how little it takes to make a massive difference in their life, to say to them, you are a sovereign individual … and you can put your life together with truth and courage.”

Name your grievance

Believe it or not, dog-humping is good news for the intellect. Canine rape culture, Hitler’s Mein Kampf as an influence on “intersectional feminism”, “fat-exclusionary” bodybuilding, a plan to put white students in “light chains” to teach them about their “privilege” — all this and more went into a booby trap sprung upon activists disguised as journal editors. Even insiders couldn’t tell the difference between hoax gibberish and genuine gibberish. The credit for this expose goes to three left-leaning scholars (two Yanks, one Brit) fed up with repulsive excess in “grievance studies” — critical race theory and kindred identity politics on pseudo-­academic steroids. Helen Pluckrose, the Brit of the trio and a medievalist, will be in Sydney on Tuesday night at the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to give a lecture against woke rewriting of higher education’s “colonialist” curriculum. She and her co-conspirators in the grievance studies hoax — mathematician James Lindsay and philosopher Peter Boghossian — have been alert for any sign that this academic victimology might fall out of fashion, as happened to the skull bump mumbo jumbo of phrenology. Pluckrose: “(Grievance studies has) got so dominant, it’s overreaching and so much of it now is so ridiculous that even the best intentioned left-liberals, who really want to support identity-based politics, are having to say, oh come on, this is a bit much.” From the US state of Tennessee, Lindsay thinks he can already discern what looks like sanity up-in-arms. “A rapidly increasing number of people are sick of the ultra-woke,” he says. “Most people don’t want to focus on race and sex all the time and be told they’re never doing it right, and they’re sick of what is pretty clearly racist attitudes (against whites).” In Portland, Oregon, Boghossian is less sanguine: “My guess is that things will get a lot worse before they correct.” He’s the only one of the three employed at a university, and may lose his job after being found guilty of an ethics breach for failing to alert journal editors to the hoax. Of course, this would have sabotaged the hoax, sparing universities the spectacle of ­scholarship deranged by activism. But this is a story with staying power. Mike Nayna, a Melbourne-based filmmaker, has documented every move in the grievance studies saga. Coming to a screen near you this year, with any luck.

Bad ideas mean well

Universities are an ideas incubator for society, so their vices matter. Next Friday and Saturday, 300-plus pointy heads will converge on the Sheraton New York Times Square hotel for seemingly yet another academic conference. But this is different because the host, Heterodox Academy, wants universities to choose between truth-seeking and political activism. Diversity is a higher education fetish — more women and people of colour, please — but “viewpoint diversity” is an awkward topic because of progressive groupthink in the social sciences, humanities and university administration. Heterodox Academy has put viewpoint diversity on the agenda, challenging the dishonesty that prevails when noisy activists intimidate the sensible majority. For authorities to preside over this campus culture — of “safe spaces” and “deplatformed” speakers deemed to offend groupthink — is a form of malpractice, according to American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a prime mover in Heterodox. “To teach students to see society as a zero sum competition between groups is primitive and destructive,” he says. The brutal tribalism of social media has compounded errors of judgment by administrators who ignore the findings of psychology. If you want to make young people resilient, the worst thing possible is to shelter them from different views, to play along when they equate unwelcome words with injury, allow feelings to trump reason and abandon all nuance for moral warfare. It has grown rapidly and the underlying conditions are present throughout the Anglosphere. It’s not just scary, it’s a threat to the very purpose of the university. “We can’t do higher education with no nuance,” says Haidt.

Our friend, dissent

It’s welcome news that next month Haidt will make his first tour to Australia, speaking about “Moral psychology in an Age of Outrage”. It should boost Heterodox membership Down Under, which is small. One graduate affiliate is Monica Koehn, a mature-age student at Western Sydney University with a business background. She is doing her doctorate in evolutionary psychology and mating behaviour, a field where gender politics sometimes denies inconvenient science. Koehn says: “If universities had more viewpoint diversity, I believe people would be more willing and able to listen to evidence from differing points of view.” Like Haidt, her politics happen to be on the left but she opposes the shutting down of debate. “If people don’t have the ability to hear a speaker or understand both sides of a controversial topic, how are they able to make up their own minds?” Another Heterodoxer is Kevin Carrico, now at Monash University in Melbourne but American-born and a seasoned visitor to China, the object of his scholarship. “A considerable amount of my thoughts about viewpoint diversity and orthodoxy very much grew out of my experiences in China, where I was not always particularly impressed by the vitality of political debates,” he says. “Coming back to the US after living in China — I don’t want to be too hyperbolic, but I suppose I did recognise the dangers of a situation in which everyone agrees on something and nobody raises any questions about it.” He, too, regards himself as progressive. “But sometimes in academia, critical engagement is too often simply equated with a far left or Marxist viewpoint, which in my perspective … don’t actually provide us with any real understanding of the sheer complexity of the world.”

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 June 2019

'It's absurd': Childcare is costing parents more than fees for exclusive private schools - with some spending $50,000 a year. It's costing $50,000 a year for full time care, and $30,000 for part time care

We see the fruit of all encompassing regulation.  When I was a kid, parents would send their kids to be minded to the old lady over the road who had already brought up her own family.  She charged pennies so those who only earned pennies could afford it.  And because she was known in the area there were no fears about it. 

That should still be allowed but these days she would be a deep-dyed criminal, in breach of dozens of regulations.  Why not revive the old system by allowing a regulated and an unregulated sector?  We would soon see how much parents valued the regulations which are allegedly "for your own good"


Parents are forking out more for childcare than the cost of the some of the country's most exclusive private schools, with some centres now charging over $200 a day.

In the most extreme cases, daycare costs are setting Sydney families back $50,000 a year for care five days a week, and $30,000 for part time care.

Parents would be paying less to send their children to Cranbrook in Sydney's eastern suburbs, an elite boys' kindergarten to year 12 college, which costs $37,230 per year.

Australian Childcare Alliance NSW chief Chiang Lim told the Saturday Telegraph that Sydney is the hardest hit city in the country when it comes to extreme childcare costs.

'It is absurd that it can be more expensive than some of the elite private schools in Sydney,' he said.

A recent OECD cost of living report found that Australia has some of the highest childcare costs in the world.

On average, Aussie parents are spending 26 per cent of their joint incomes on childcare.

Sending one child to daycare in Mosman, on the north shore, costs an average of $159.56 a day, with one centre charging $210.

Meanwhile, fees in Coogee are slightly less at an average of $150 per day, while Canterbury in Sydney's inner west costs $115 for a day of care. 

'We really need a review of the entire system,' Mr Lim said.

Wealthier families in Sydney's affluent suburbs put their kids on the waiting lists of community pre schools with cost just $40 a day.

Childcare subsidies are paid directly to the centres, but are capped at an hourly rate of $11.77, which doesn't offer big savings for struggling families.

Couples with a combined income of $351,248 per year don't qualify for subsidies, and parents who take in between $186,958 and $351,247 have a capped subsidy of $10,190 per child.

This has lead to parents working less or finding other ways to get their children looked after. 

SOURCE  






Audit doubts outcomes of plan to tackle domestic violence

A 67 page report titled: "Coordination and Targeting of Domestic Violence Funding and Actions" has just come out from the  Auditor-General.  There is a useful summary of it below from education journalist Rebecca Urban.

Campaigner Bettina Arndt is very pleased with it.  She has long called out feminist lies on the subject.  She comments:

"Big news this week of damning evidence from the National Audit Office revealing the monstrous waste of public funds on the domestic violence industry which simply demonises men and does nothing to address real problems of family violence.

This is an important report and we all need to get active using this to make the case to MPs and other influential people that this important social issue needs proper attention instead of pandering to feminist propaganda."


Serious doubts have emerged about the effectiveness of Australia’s multi-million-dollar plan to tackle violence against women, with a scathing audit report highlighting a lack of performance tracking, robust data collection and public accountability.

The Australian National Audit Office has reviewed the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, finding that monitoring, evaluation and reporting was “not sufficient to provide assurance that governments are on track to achieve the … overarching target and outcomes”.

The national plan, which was developed in partnership with the states and territories and rolled out by Labor prime minister Julia Gillard in 2011, has been championed by successive governments since and has cost taxpayers more than $700 million so far.

With an overarching vision for Australian women and their children to “live free from violence and in safe communities”, the plan is delivered with several partners, including Australia’s National ­Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, Our Watch and White Ribbon, and funds projects ranging from research into links between gambling and domestic violence, or incidences of violence in diverse communities, through to social media campaigns about men’s behaviour and respectful relationships lessons in schools.

However, as the audit office found, although metrics to assess the performance of the plan were established at the outset, they were limited and did not necessarily align with the targeted outcomes that the plan sought to achieve.

For example, for the stated outcome “communities are safe and free from violence”, the single ­related measure of success was limited to “increased intolerance of violence” and did not consider actual levels of violence or broader community safety. For the outcome “relationships are respectful”, the single measure of success was limited to young people and the available data allowed for an assessment of “knowledge or awareness of violence against women” but was unable to assess whether young people were demonstrating “improved skills and behaviour”.

According to the audit office report, this is not the first time that concerns have been raised, with stakeholders previously flagging to the federal Department of ­Social Service, which oversees the plan, a need for improvements to the measures of success and data sources.

They noted “significant concern around the lack of performance indicators”, “concern about the consistency and completeness of the data used”, and that “current indicators do not adequately account for all cohorts of women at risk of violence or adequately account for all forms of violence that women and their children could be exposed to”.

SOURCE  






Labor leader's extraordinary blunder: Powerful union bosses slam Labor leader as an 'IDIOT' for attempting to fire innocent union leader

Not a good start for Albo.  Still, I suppose it makes him a good Leftist to spring into action without knowing the full facts

Union bosses have branded Labor leader Anthony Albanese an 'idiot' after prematurely calling for the sacking of union heavy weight John Setka on dodgy information.

Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union boss John Setka was laying low of Friday after calls for his scalp were splashed across papers around the country.

A relaxed Mr Setka was spotted enjoying a soda water with an acquaintance at a North Melbourne cafe on Friday. He declined to comment when approached by Daily Mail Australia and said he was 'allowing the dust to settle' after a week of controversy.

Behind closed union doors, his powerful allies are livid at an extraordinary attempt by Mr Albanese to have him removed over supposed comments about anti-family violence campaigner Rosie Batty Mr Setka made at a union event.

The claims were later revealed to be false, but Mr Albanese refuses to back down. 

Sources have told Daily Mail Australia how union bosses are branding the Labor Leader's comments 'idiotic', and that Mr Setka's haters are continue to push for his scalp.

'They're now going after him because they reckon he swears too much,' a source said. 'Can you believe that. Of course he swears too much. But who cares!?' 

In a tough week for the 'love him or loathe him' union boss, ACTU secretary Sally McManus acknowledged Mr Setka did not denigrate Rosie Batty. 'He never said anything to denigrate Rosie Batty,' she said. 'He didn't in any way say laws are worse for men. It's just been reported in a way that's not correct.'

The ACTU secretary had earlier called for Mr Setka's scalp if he was found guilty of harassing another woman

That matter is currently weaving its way through the Melbourne Magistrates' Court and involves claims Mr Setka bombarded a woman with unwanted texts and phone calls.

On Tuesday, Mr Albanese, said he would move to expel Mr Setka from the Labor party over the supposed Batty sledge.

At a press conference with his wife Emma Walters a day later, Mr Setka said there was no reason for him to resign.

Ms Walters claimed her husband had been the victim of a 'get-John Setka campaign'.

Maritime Union national president Christy Cain backed Mr Setka, telling the ABC plans to expel him because of 'false' and 'rubbish' claims that he had denigrated Ms Batty would be disgraceful.

He claimed he was in the room last week when Mr Setka was meant to have made the comments, and that Mr Albanese was foolish to have accepted the veracity of the retelling.

Mr Cain further suggested it should be Mr Albanese — not Mr Setka — who should resign.

SOURCE  






The straight-talking senator teaching universities a thing or two

Every time a conservative woman of promise emerges from the blancmange of politics, some hope for the next Margaret Thatcher. Amanda Stoker doesn’t ride on the coat-tails of history or gender, so can we please look at her free from comparisons?

The 37-year-old senator is going places on her own terms. For starters, Stoker is Queensland through and through. By choice, not by birth. Stoker was born and raised in Sydney’s west; her father was a plumber and her mother did the books. Stoker moved to Brisbane as a young lawyer 12 years ago and hasn’t left.

She is no-nonsense, straight talking, her positions firmly premised on commonsense principles. Stoker is making her mark fast, after entering parliament in March last year. To understand her story, her spunk and her political convictions, you need to understand why she is a natural fit in Queensland and how the Sunshine State has played a pivotal role in federal politics.

John Howard has recalled election night, December 1949. He had been at the cinema with his parents and they returned home to find his eldest brother, Wal, sitting on the floor in the dining room listening to the large radio. “Menzies is in,” Wal told his family. “The biggest swing has been in Queensland.”

In fact, Menzies had won 83 per cent of the Queensland seats. Last month, Scott Morrison won 76 per cent of seats in the Sunshine State, 23 seats to Labor’s six.

In the 1961 election, which Menzies nearly lost, the Coalition won seven to Labor’s 11 seats in Queensland. When Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 by pretending to be an economic conservative, Labor won 15 Queensland seats, to the Coalition’s 13. In other words, those who understand Queensland have a shot at government.

Stoker understands the concerns of quiet Australians. This week, the mother of three girls under five hit a nerve at Sydney’s sandstone university. In comments to The Sydney Morning Herald, University of Sydney vice-chancellor Michael Spence said this of Stoker’s line of questioning at a Senate estimates hearing in October last year: “Have you ever heard a more shocking waste of public funds than that?”

Spence was reportedly “galled” that the senator had prised from federal education bureaucrats a new-found focus on holding Australian universities accountable for obligations they have to be places of free intellectual inquiry.

Stoker was questioning Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency chief commissioner Nick Saunders about specific provisions under federal laws that require universities to embrace academic freedom.

Academic freedom ought to be in their DNA, not our laws. Nonetheless, this is where we are today. Understanding what is at stake, Stoker raised a number of concerns with Saunders, including many university policies that prohibit “offensive” comments.

Saunders said he was uncomfortable with Stoker’s examples. “They certainly do not fit with the concept of a university being a place where ideas are contested and debated,” he said, agreeing to examine policies that undermine the legal obligations of universities to uphold academic freedom.

What seems to have gotten up Spence’s nose is that Stoker also mentioned an address last September at the University of Sydney by Bettina Arndt, who challenges claims of a “rape crisis” on campuses. Feel free to agree or disagree with Arndt. But not at Sydney University. Security had to call in a riot squad when protesters became violent and abusive towards students who wanted to listen to Arndt’s views.

Saunders agreed the behaviour of protesters breached the university’s code of conduct, and appropriate action was needed. That hasn’t happened. Instead, Spence told the SMH there is no problem with free speech on campus. He has accused those on the left and right as being as bad as each other.

This is a most disingenuous assertion. The world is a polarised place, to be sure. But where is the evidence of right-wing protesters trying to shut down events of political opponents on campus? Spence’s claim of both sides being as bad as each other was rendered comic when, in the same SMH article, feminist Eva Cox suggested we might need “short-term bans”, including at universities, to stop discussion of particular issues.

Way to shut down free speech. Way to make a martyr, too. Drive lunatics underground into dark places where dopey ideas are not open to challenge.

Stoker wrote to Spence on Monday: “I hope you intend to provide evidence of your assertion that ‘the conservatives are as bad as the progressives’ when it comes to campus misbehaviour. My research has found only evidence of the ‘left’ shutting down the ‘right’s’ right to speak.”

The Queensland LNP senator also challenged Spence’s claims her Senate estimates questions were a “shocking waste of public funds”. “The idea those government departments and agencies that oversee the spending of public money — such as the $17.5 billion provided to universities last year — should not be subject to public scrutiny runs contrary to our system of democracy and accountability.”

She assured Spence she would continue to hold Sydney University, and the country’s other universities, to their academic freedom obligations.

“He’s a sook,” she says of Spence, who has not responded to her letter.

Earlier this year, our grandest universities sidelined a report into academic freedom by former High Court chief justice Robert French, who drew up a model code of academic freedom. University leaders and sections of the media picked out one line, where French says there is no free speech crisis, as reason to do nothing.

“The idea of a free speech crisis was never the basis of the referral (to French),” says Stoker. “It was more than nuanced than that. We received an intelligent, nuanced answer from French that gives us a prescription for the way forward.

“If universities are not serious about this, then we should get serious about setting some KPIs, ­defining very clearly what intellectual freedom looks like, and if they’re not met we should be prepared to pull funding.”

Last week’s exchange goes to the core of Stoker’s values and the reason she left the Bar to enter politics. She tells Inquirer she was a child during “the recession we had to have” and saw how normal, not especially privileged, families suffer when governments don’t get policy right. “That led me to read and try to educate myself about politics and policy, and why it matters, and what works and what doesn’t,” she says.

Stoker joined the Liberal Party at university. By the time she sought preselection last year, she had grown frustrated that not enough people in politics understood and valued freedoms and understood the corrosive role of big government.

“I looked around for someone who would do something and I didn’t see them. So, when you have children to provide for and protect, when something has to be done, you just do it,” she says.

In February, Stoker gave an address at the Centre for Independent Studies exploring the reasons for our declining trust in institutions, especially parliament. “There is a failure to fully appreciate the role between the individual and the government and the relationship between freedom and responsibility,” she tells Inquirer.

She marks down identity politics and its focus on victimhood, which infantilises people as well as breeding resentment. She mentions the decline of mutual responsibility, the idea our many rights come with responsibilities.

Stoker lists academic scorn towards teaching the full story of Western civilisation and attacks on the traditional family as other corrosive influences on society. “If you undermine all of those things … society becomes so broken that we cannot flourish, not in a personal sense, not in a private experience, not in an economic way either,” Stoker says. “Our side cannot permanently shy away from dealing with these things on the basis that intellectual freedom never got someone a job when actually it did, it really, really did.”

This is perhaps a gentle swipe at Scott Morrison who, as treasurer in 2017, said that defending free speech “doesn’t create one job, doesn’t open one business”.

“It might be a few steps removed but it does make a difference to people’s prospects of getting a job, their prospects of having a good economic future,” says Stoker, who wants the Liberal Party to refocus on its principles to settle on policies. “That way we can serve the people for the long time. That’s what principled leadership will do for us.”

Stoker’s words will be felt in Canberra. Her common sense is very Queensland.

Asked about life as a politician and a family woman, Stoker says there have been many more families who have done a lot more with a lot less. “I am not going to bleat or complain,” she says.

A couple of months ago, Stoker returned to her home in Bardon, in Brisbane’s western suburbs, after a long sitting week in Canberra. Her husband pointed to the corner of the room where their three daughters, Mary, Jane and Emma, were playing. They had arranged a bunch of chairs into a semicircle, two stools at the head, and they were taking turns giving speeches about the things they thought were important. It was a game they invented called Senate.

“How cool is that,” says Stoker. “My kids are just fine.”

Stoker’s daughters have every reason to want to mimic their mum’s work. The Queensland senator is fast becoming the voice for Morrison’s quiet Australians.

SOURCE  






The Labor party's magic pudding proved a political mirage

It’s said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. But in the case of Labor’s unexpected electoral defeat, there are quite a few parents to blame, including Bowen.

Let’s think about Bowen’s contribution to Labor’s election defeat. By amassing a dizzying array of additional sources of tax revenue, he was able to predict, in theory at least, that Labor would deliver higher spending and bigger budget surpluses. He honestly thought he had found an economic magic pudding that would secure electoral success.

The basic idea was that he could impose higher taxes on mainly non-Labor voters while handing out more free stuff to Labor’s faithful constituency while reeling in some extra voters. There would be no need for those pesky questions about how Labor could afford to increase spending on health, education, childcare and other pet projects.

What Bowen (and other Labor leaders) failed to appreciate is that the impact of the tax changes that he proposed was not confined to the big end of town. Take the abolition of negative gearing save for new residential real estate. The information on negative gearing is very clear: many investors are on modest incomes and most of them hold only one property. This wasn’t the top end of town, more like aspirational mums and dads.

Then there was Bowen’s fatal plan to eliminate cash refunds for franking credits which, according to some sources, was initially recommended to him by one of the large accounting firms. Mind you, it is never a good idea to take advice from private sector economists with no expertise in policy development and no ear for the politics of a plan.

There was so much misinformation being put out by Labor in relation to this plan, including the fanciful notion that cash refunds were unjustified gifts to people who had paid no tax. That the tax had already been paid by the companies was a point that escaped both Bowen and Shorten.

The real story was about dividend imputation and how double taxation was avoided as a result of its operation. In point of fact, close to $50 billion in franking credits is distributed each year. Some of these credits cannot be used because they accrue to foreign shareholders and companies. But of the $24bn odd eligible for refunds, about $6bn take the form of cash refunds and the rest is used to reduce tax liabilities. In terms of the budget bottom line, there is no difference between a cash refund and a reduced tax liability, another point Bowen and Shorten seemed incapable of understanding.

And here’s the rub: the people who use franking credits to reduce the tax they pay are generally much better off than those who receive cash refunds.

Had Bowen suggested that the system of dividend imputation be reviewed with a view to reducing the cost to the budget, he might have been on firm ground. However, by advising that cash refunds would be eliminated for some shareholders (some pensioners and those with superannuation in taxpaying funds were to be spared) he laid the ground for a fully justified counter campaign pointing out that many retirees on modest incomes were about to lose out.

And for many of those people who would have been hit, Labor’s plan was not just about the dollars, although this was important. It was also an implicit attack on their longstanding aspirations to provide for their own retirement ­according to settled rules.

To underscore Labor’s witlessness on this point, former deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek had previously declared that “this ­aspiration term mystifies me”.

But misjudging the mood of the electorate was only part of Labor’s problem.

Many of the policy proposals, including ones that Bowen had initiated, were simply half-baked. Instead of releasing the costings undertaken by the Parliamentary Budget Office, Bowen opted to keep the reports confidential. Details of the assumptions that formed the basis of these costings were never disclosed.

He was tripped up by this strategy several times, including in relation to the proportion of real estate investment, which takes the form of new properties. Bowen cited a very low figure — 7 per cent — quoting the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the source even though the ABS does not collect these figures. He was forced into witness protection for several days during the campaign.

Then there was the idea, out of blue, to top up the pay of childcare workers — some childcare workers, at least — by 20 per cent, courtesy of the taxpayer.

There were serious question marks about this proposal, including the cost, the disruption to ­accepted wage-fixing principles ­involving the Fair Work Commission and whether other workers also would have their pay topped up. None of these issues was ever satisfactorily dealt with during the campaign.

Voters were never really given a full explanation of the benefits of the additional free stuff that Labor was offering. More money for schools — what would that yield? More money for hospitals and free cancer care — how would that work? Free dental care for pensioners — was that even possible?

As Bowen, now the opposition health spokesman, gets his head around the health portfolio and is pitched against an experienced and competent minister, he can look back on his time as Treasury spokesman and repent at leisure.

Had he been more modest — restricting negative gearing to one or two properties, putting a cap on cash refunds for franking credits or cutting the capital gains tax discount by 10 percentage points rather than 25 are three examples — the election result might have been different. But his advice to voters that if they didn’t like Labor’s policies, they were “entitled to vote against us” was at least honest. Sadly for Labor, many voters took up his suggestion.

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 June, 2019

'We call it for what it is': Police say 'African gangs' are responsible for terrifying crime spree across Sydney - after Melbourne cops avoided the words at all cost

New South Wales Police have identified 'African gangs' as responsible for a terrifying spate of robberies across Sydney.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Jones said Strike Force Arpen is working to find a group of Sudanese teens who have been targeting electronic stores in the city over the past month. 

At least 20 stores, including JB Hi-Fi and Bing Lee locations, have been hit by teenagers taking off with thousands of dollars in goods.

'We are talking about an organised gang of African thieves,' Assistant Commissioner Jones told The Daily Telegraph. 'We are not trying to downplay this in any way, shape or form.'

The comments come just days after detectives insisted Sydney was not facing the same African gang crisis as Melbourne.  

On Sunday, Detective Chief Inspector Glyn Baker said he would not 'describe them as gangs'.

'I think it's very important that we don't draw any parallels whatsoever with what's happening in Melbourne. What we are dealing with here is a group of young African males who are committing criminal offences', he said. 

But Jones says they are now calling 'it for what it is' - however, he emphasised the situation is not nearly as severe as Melbourne's gang issue.

Previously, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton refused to identify the city's problem as an 'African' gang crisis. He had said the youth crime was not limited to one ethnic group, in an interview last year.

'We've certainly had a lot of young Africans, Australian kids offending as well, Islander kids, a lot of indigenous kids we're getting as well.'

Melbourne has been dealing with violence relating to African street gangs for years, with footage and images of brawling youths involved in crimes and brawls.

Ugly scenes involving African youths and the wider community have erupted on numerous occasions in Melbourne in the past months, with politicians slamming Victoria Police for a lack of action.

Police said a gang which calls themselves the Blood Drill Killers were linked to numerous crimes in the city's west in recent months. The gang is comprised of African-Australian boys aged between 14 to 17 and is a breakaway group with links to Apex and Menace to Society. 

Meanwhile in Sydney, four teenagers were arrested for allegedly stealing $15,000 worth of electronics at a store in Taren Point in the city's south on Monday. Four youths of African appearance aged 18, 17, and 16 were taken into custody, with one freed on bail.

In a separate incident, police arrested a 24-year-old man for allegedly stealing a speaker from an electronic store in Hornsby, on Sydney's North Shore.

SOURCE  





Amazing what the threat of losing power does for your political values: Queensland APPROVES the Adani mine - after voters slammed Labor for putting climate change ahead of 10,000 jobs

Adani has won the final approval it needs to construct its new coal mine in central Queensland. The approval comes after former Labor leader Bill Shorten's refusal to endorse the mine saw the party suffer a massive swing against them at the federal election.

Queensland's environment department has signed off on the company's plan to manage groundwater on and around its Galilee basin mine site.

Adani promised an immediate start to construction once the last approval was in hand.

In a statement, the environment department said it had approved the most recent version of the plan, which Adani submitted just a day ago. 'Adani submitted its most recent version of the plan, addressing the department's feedback, yesterday,' the department said. 'The (plan's) assessment has been rigorous and based on the best available science.'

The approval commits Adani to additional measures to safeguard and monitor water sources.

Some water experts claim Adani has grossly underestimated the mine's impacts on underground, and fear the effects of its permit to pump water out of the mine to allow for the safe extraction of coal.

Hydrologists from four Australian universities issued a joint report earlier this week, saying Adani's water science was 'severely flawed'. They warned the mine could have a such a dramatic effect on groundwater levels that the ancient Doongmabulla Springs Complex, 8km from the edge of Adani's mining lease, could permanently dry up.

That would spell death for the plant and animal species that rely on the springs for survival, one of those experts, Flinders University hydrogeology professor Adrian Werner said.

Prof Werner also warned of dire consequences for the Carmichael River which flows through the mine site, saying it would be cut off from its flood plain and could be robbed of groundwater that keeps the river flowing for much of the year.

Before Thursday's decision, a former state government water chief said Adani's plan would have irrefutable consequences for underground water sources in an area that's heavily dependent on them. 'We're looking at extraction of four Sydney Harbours out of underground systems. That's a huge amount of water,' he told ABC radio.

'We see politicians put their hands on their hearts and tell Queenslanders that we're managing our groundwater resources sustainably.'They don't know ... the Queensland government doesn't have a clue what's happening in terms of how underground water is being managed.'

SOURCE  






Je suis un hypocrite

Australian Leftists want freedom of the press for Leftists only

How pleasing and surprising it was to see so many of the commentariat suddenly in favour of freedom of the press. Some of us had been warning for the last few years it was being compromised by executive and legislative censorship, but our progressive betters were at best indifferent to or contemptuous of such protests. But last week's "raid" on the ABC by the Australian Federal Police led to a mass outcry among the intelligentsia. Aunty had been violated.

"An attack on the press for doing their job is an attack on our democracy," tweeted Greens leader senator Richard Di Natale.

How noble. I have been thinking of designing a hashtag for such converts - how does #JeSuisFullofIt sound, Senator? In March Di Natale revealed his inner tinpot when he told his admiring Melbourne inner-city audience of his plans to silence conservative journalists.

"We're going to call out the hate speech that's been going on," he said. "We're going to make sure that we've got laws that regulate our media so that people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones and Chris Kenny - and I could go on and on and on. If they want to use hate speech to divide the community then they're going to be held to account."

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young labelled the AFP's actions "an attack on the press for doing their job" and "an attack on those who tell the truth".

Compare her purported principles to her reaction in 2011 when a Federal Court found Herald-Sun journalist Andrew Bolt had breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in questioning the motives of light-skinned Australians who identified as indigenous. "Diddums Andrew Bolt," she tweeted, "Diddums". Proving this inanity was not a mere case of spontaneity, Hanson-Young repeated these puerile sentiments in a letter to this newspaper for good measure.

"Without a strong media that is fearless . our country will be weaker," lamented ABC broadcaster Patricia Karvelas. "It is in everyone's interests to know the truth". I agree entirely, but I was reminded of the reaction to Herald-Sun cartoonist Mark Knight's excellent depiction of tennis player Serena Williams's US Open tantrum last year.

Knight had spoken the truth in depicting Williams as a spoiled brat and a bully. It resulted in his suffering appalling online abuse. He was called a "white supremacist", he and his family received death threats, and he was forced to leave town for a week while he was protected by security guards. The Australian Press Council subsequently dismissed complaints about Knight's cartoon, finding that its publication was in the public interest.

So did Karvelas fiercely defend Knight's right (and obligation) to speak the truth? "Main lesson from today is that listening is always a good start to building a respectful and civilised community," she tweeted the day it was published. "If people of colour are telling you they find depictions of them hurtful and offensive that matters". So much for a "strong media".

The AFP's actions, claimed ABC broadcaster Wendy Harmer, amounted to a "chilling effect", and "one that goes beyond just media outlets". Welcome to the free press cause, Wendy, albeit it has taken you a few years to get here.

It was a very different Harmer who on 15 December 2014 tweeted "Andrew Bolt's blog is a forum for vile hate speech. A blight on this nation . Get rid of him!!" That was the same day the Lindt Caf‚ siege began at the hands of an Islamist terrorist. Two innocent hostages would later die. It says it all that Harmer was preoccupied with "hate speech" and silencing a conservative columnist.

Inexplicably journalists these days play a leading role in not only suppressing politically incorrect statements, but also in calling for retribution against those who perpetuate them. Take for example former Wallabies player Israel Folau, whose $4 million contract was terminated by Rugby Australia last month after he twice posted on Instagram that homosexuals were destined for hell unless they repented.

In the 13-month period between Folau's first Instagram indiscretion and his eventual sacking, Sydney Morning Herald columnist and sports journalist Peter FitzSimons wrote at least 11 columns about Folau. They are not what you would call reporting or objective analysis. Rather, they were shrill denunciations. "Israel Folau has to go, and will go," he wrote in April. "Quick. Clean. Gone. At least until such times as he repents." FitzSimons was also quick to dismiss Folau's right to free speech. "While he has broad freedom of speech, he has no freedom from consequences," he wrote.

You may recall former SBS sports journalist Scott McIntyre, whose employment in 2015 was terminated over a number of provocative tweets on Anzac Day that vilified the WWI and WWII diggers and those who commemorated them. "Wonder if the poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers pause today to consider the horror that all mankind suffered," he sneered.

So what was FitzSimons' reaction? "I disagree as passionately with those comments as I do with his ludicrous sacking for making them," he wrote. There's that hashtag again.

SOURCE  





'That is rubbish': Sunrise host Sam Armytage slams Kmart's apology after customers were banned from using Christian terms in its photo booths - but 'Islam' and 'Koran' had the all clear

Someone in Kodak's IT department will have been responsible for this -- knowing full-well that it would be a provocation

Sunrise host Samantha Armytage has slammed Kmart after photo printing kiosks at its stores appeared to ban Christian terms. Armytage directed criticism at the retail giant during the Thursday morning segment after the store blamed the error on a system glitch. 'Kmart has come out this morning and said it was a technical glitch, that is rubbish,' she said.

When customers tried to caption photos with the forbidden words, a message came up on screen saying 'profanity has been detected in text and substituted with ****'.

Words such as Jesus, church, Bible and Christian used in captions were deemed to be profanities and replaced with asterisks, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The words Jewish and Allah were also banned but mosque, Islam and Koran were not.

By Thursday morning the error had been fixed, though Armytage invited guests to her show such as social commentator Jane Caro to weigh in on the incident.

The kiosks are run by Kodak which recently installed software to detect profanities.

Kodak sales and marketing manager Gavin Wulfsohn said the list of profanities was wrong and would be fixed.

A spokesman for Kmart said: 'We would like to sincerely apologise for this system error, which has been rectified overnight. It in no way reflects our views as a business.

'At Kmart, we support diversity and inclusiveness irrespective of race, religion, age, gender, ethnicity, ability, appearance or attitude, and we want our teams and stores to reflect the communities in which we operate'.

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 June, 2019

Finally, Sydney University takes action against key organisers of the protest against me

Bettina Arndt

Great news. The University of Sydney has announced disciplinary action against four of the organisers of the violent protest against me last year. After years of tolerating thuggish behaviour from students shutting down free speech on campus, the lily-livered University has finally bit the bullet and sent a warning that such harassment is unacceptable. 

Last September I made a formal complaint to the University after my protest, when the riot squad was called in to remove rowdy activists preventing me from speaking on the fake rape crisis. I named key organisers of the protest and asked for action to be taken over breaches to codes of conduct and bullying and harassment regulations.

Following over eight months of investigation by the University they have finally announced that they are taking disciplinary action against four of the five students named by me in the complaint (apparently one wasn’t a student at the time of the protest). Here’s my video about the decision -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOK846SoBAE&t=2s

A statement from the University claimed they had  investigated whether individual respondents had unnecessarily and unreasonably impeded the ability of members of the public and members of the University community to attend the event, whether they had impeded the event from going ahead, whether certain respondents had physically blocked certain attendees, whether respondents had coordinated their conduct with protest organisers, and whether, if established, the behaviour constituted misconduct under University policy.

And they found that found some but not all of the allegations were substantiated but not all were found to be misconduct.

The university won’t release the name of the students disciplined, nor details of their publishment – claiming they need to protect them because they received abuse when they were named by me last year.

But no doubt details of the action by the University will become public because the key troublemakers, particularly Maddy Ward, have been endlessly speaking out in the press, outraged that I would take action against them.

These students and others like them have been closing down talks on campus for years and no one has gone after them before. After years of dishing it out, they are shocked to find themselves on the receiving end.

We commend Sydney University on taking this stance. It’s good to see this university finally moving to ensure free speech – even though the Registrar’s statement most peculiarly suggested that both my talk and the protest against it were a “legitimate expression of free speech.” They would hardly be taking action against the protest organisers if that were the case.

But what’s even more important, feminists shouldn’t be allowed to shut down the presentation of the true facts about sexual assault on campus. Their campus rape scare campaign has a very dangerous goal – to bully universities into adjudicating rape on campus using lower standards of proof that will see more young men convicted.

Feminist activists already succeeding in corrupting our criminal law system by setting up alternate forms of justice which fail to offer male students normal legal protections. That’s why they are so strenuously trying to stop me exposing what they are doing at our universities.

That’s why this decision is so important.   It sends a strong message that it’s not acceptable for small groups of students to seek to shut down speakers raising controversial issues on campus.

It was Sydney University’s violent protest against me which prompted the Federal Government to call an enquiry into free speech on campus led by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French. This resulted in a national code, adopted by the government, designed to make freedom of lawful speech a “paramount value” for university staff, students and visitors.

Hopefully this decision by the University of Sydney, plus impetus from the French inquiry, will serve to promote healthy debate on campuses – and put a stop to the silencing of discussion about the campus rape scare campaign. Student groups at other universities were intimidated by the violent Sydney protest from inviting me to speak – particularly after the Union of Students passed a resolution to prevent my talks.

I’m recommencing my campus tour, starting next month at UNSW and am in discussion with student groups across the country planning future events.

Via email from  bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au







International Enrollments Could Surpass Domestic Enrollments at The University of Melbourne by 2020

This is very good news.  Education is now one of Australia's biggest exports.  Australia has many universities so capacity is  virtually unlimited.  The money we send to China to pay for electrical goods and much else is coming back to us to pay for the education of young people from rich Chinese families.  It's a win/win

International students come as they please in Australia. With no cap in place, the number of full-fee paying international students studying in Australia continues to grow in spite of the rapidly-rising tuition costs they face.

Many believe 2019 will be the year Australia overtakes the UK as the second-largest destination country for international students and sit behind the United States.

Last year, AU$32 billion was pumped into the Australian economy from foreign students alone.

On average, international students are Australia’s second-leading revenue source after government grants in the higher education sector.

In this report, we use the University of Melbourne as a case study for international tuition and student enrollment trends as they relate to domestic student trends and inflation.

Case Study - University of Melbourne International Student Trends
The University of Melbourne places 32nd in Times Higher Education World University Rankings and ranks fourth as one of the leading recipients of international students in Australia.

In 2014, international students represented 31 per cent of the University of Melbourne student population. In a matter of four years, that percentage rose to 46 per cent.

International vs domestic student enrollments at UniMelb from 2014 to 2018.

In the University of Melbourne's annual report for 2018, it was reported to be 42.1% in 2018, yet their international load to their total student load, when calculated, indicates its 45.81%.

In other words, the percentage of foreign students comprising of the overall amount of students enrolled grew despite the school having increased their overall enrollments every year from 2014 to 2018.

What this suggests is that international students are enrolling at the University of Melbourne at a far greater pace than domestic students.

In reality, domestic enrollments has not only slowed, but declined since 2014. In 2014 there were 29,437 domestic enrollments. In 2018 there were 28,579.

If the present course remains unchanged, there could be more international students enrolled than domestic students by 2020.
Total enrollment of international students has gone from 13,200 to 24,166 in the period from 2014 to 2018. That is, the percentage of international students enrolled at the University of Melbourne has increased by 83.07 per cent in a matter of four years.

With no cap in place for international student enrollment at the University of Melbourne, international students will continue to eat away at the student population proportion.

In 2018, 4178 new international students enrolled in 2018. That makes last year the largest intake of international students ever by the University of Melbourne.

As more foreign students come to study at the University of Melbourne every year, their tuition continues to increase along with it.

International tuition fee increases year over year at the University of Melbourne from 2015 to 2019.

On average, international tuition fees have increased by 4.5 per cent every year from 2015 to 2019.

For students in the Bachelor of Commerce program, international tuition fees were $33,760 (lower bounds) in 2015. To study in the Bachelor of Commerce program in 2019, it costs international students $40,216 - a 19.12 per cent increase in four years.

The bachelor of commerce program is the primary field of study for international students at the University of Melbourne. In 2017, more than one-third of foreign students chose this program.

SOURCE  






Spendthrift Queensland treasurer doesn’t have a clue

I like to keep a running scorecard of the performances of the state treasurers. You won’t be surprised to learn that Queensland’s Treasurer (and Deputy Premier), Jackie Trad, has occupied the wooden spoon position ever since she pushed out the previous incumbent.

The fact is she doesn’t have a clue about running the state’s finances and cliches like “borrowing to build” are not helpful. She is not helped by a very weak bureaucracy, which becomes more bloated with every week.

When the Palaszczuk Labor government was first elected, promises were made that the excessive debt carried by the Queensland taxpayer — thanks to Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh — would be slowly paid down. There was even going to be a separate fund to achieve this.

Raids were made on the government superannuation fund and debt was shifted around between the ledgers of government-owned corporations and the general government sector. It was reminiscent of former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s deceptive pledge to be an economic conservative.

Under Trad as Treasurer, there is absolutely no intention to pay down government debt or constrain the size of the public sector. In 2018-19, general government sector liabilities will amount to $77.4 billion; by 2022-23, the figure will be $87.4bn, an increase of 13 per cent.

Note that government debt in Queensland is the highest in the country among the states.

Having lost its AAA credit rating some time ago, there is absolutely no possibility that Queensland will regain this top rating in the foreseeable future.

The bigger risk is the state will be marked down a notch or two.

Another serious failing of the Palaszczuk government is its complete inability to control its own employee expenses. (This failing is shared by other state Labor governments.) According to the budget figures, employee expenses will rise from $24.1bn in 2018-19 to $27.2bn in 2022-23, an increase of 13 per cent.

Trad might like to portray rising employee expenses as being associated with population growth and frontline services. The reality is far more complicated and the fact that the government spends more than $1bn on contractors points to a government that doesn’t believe in getting value for money on behalf of the taxpayer.

Notwithstanding Trad’s visceral dislike of the resources sector, particularly thermal coal, the Queensland budget would be in tatters were it not for the rise in royalties. In last year’s budget, royalties were expected to raise $4.6bn; the actual figure will be close to $5.4bn. In 2019-20, the expectation is that royalties will yield even more — $5.6bn.

And let’s be clear: the trivial budget net operating balance of $189 million for 2019-20 would be deeply in the red without this flow of royalties. Mind you, this hasn’t stopped Trad from breezily lifting the petroleum royalty rate from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent and asking other resource companies to make a “voluntary” contribution in lieu of royalty hikes. Biting the hand that feeds you is clearly part of Trad’s play book.

According to Trad, “budgets are fundamentally about choices and in this budget we choose to stay the course by continuing to invest in job-generating infrastructure and delivering better, essential frontline services for Queensland workers and their families”.

An alternative formulation is as follows: budgets are fundamentally about choices and in this budget we choose to continue the reckless spending, build up more government debt and expand the unionised public service.

SOURCE  






The ballot box is a great refuge from political correctness

Every time this nation goes to the polls, I’m taken aback by the sheer brutality of the conflict. This is a gladiatorial battle that never fails to deliver victors and vanquished, in the process exposing the flaws and foibles of an imperfect humanity.

To the victorious flow the accolades and the spoils of office. As soon as the direction of the battle becomes apparent, sycophants magically materialise to declare their undying allegiance to the new emperor and his regime. Meanwhile, the conquered are left to wander dazed amid the carnage in search of a narrative that explains the magnitude of the loss to their dispirited and dwindling supporters. It is a blood sport played to the death.

On the other hand, I believe a federal election is one of the few times you can hear the Australian people speaking honestly about their fears and aspirations. And last month there was an almighty disconnect between the mood of the Australian people as measured by the polls and as realised by the election. This is the same issue that surrounded the 2016 US presidential election and perhaps even the Brexit vote.

I think that a shy, silent majority – the non-combatants in the culture wars – are increasingly loath to speak honestly about their voting intentions. People have been socially conditioned to give only politically correct responses. We no longer say what we feel; we say what we think is the right thing to say. But in the quiet anonymity of the polling booth, a different logic is unleashed that speaks to our fears and aspirations.

To the majority of Australians it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say, for example, “I understand we need to take action on climate change – but what action should be taken, at what cost and for what benefit?” I don’t think the Australian people are questioning the logic of climate change, but I do think they believe they’re entitled to an answer.

This issue is opening up a division within the nation. Inner-city knowledge workers, the globally connected, those whose livelihood isn’t dependent upon mining, passionately assert the need for this nation to renounce coal mining. In the swish streets of South Yarra and Woollahra, so-called “green credentials” are an important social decal, rather like the badge of a Mercedes-Benz.

But in the regions, especially in northern Queensland where inner-city thinking isn’t as omnipotent as it is in the southern states, it’s a different story. In towns connected to the Bowen Basin, for example, there are far fewer jobs in knowledge industries. They also have fewer of the tenured, tax-exempt public sector jobs, replete with defined benefits retirement schemes, that abound inside the capital cities’ goat cheese curtain.

What they do have are well-paid jobs in mining that underpin a way of life that is equal to – many say better than – that of the inner city. I suspect that the regions also mightily resent being lectured to by those they perceive to be minimally affected by the very policies they profess. And so, when a pollster calls to ask about voting intentions in the regions, what spills forth isn’t necessarily the truth. The truth comes out on polling day, as it does in the US and UK.

Rather than focusing on the divisions, though, we need to find a way forward. My concern is that I can’t see either side giving ground in what has become an ideological battle underpinning the way we live now. But then, this really is the job of leadership: to galvanise the nation and to navigate a path to sustainable prosperity for all Australians.

SOURCE  





Labor Party puts free press at risk

How can Australians believe Labor will be the watchdog of legislation designed to protect the nation from terrorists, foreign agents and people-smugglers when it can’t even agree inside its own ranks on national security and border protection policies?

Bill Shorten — in his pursuit to become prime minister — talked a big game on encryption and foreign interference laws but ran a mile at the last moment when he feared it would make him look weak on national security.

Despite token amendments and rhetoric, Labor can’t hide from the fact that it backed in laws that have amplified press freedom concerns and the ability of journalists to break sensitive, nationally significant stories.

Anthony Albanese and Kristina Keneally have decided to run a campaign targeting Peter Dutton under the guise of protecting journalists, cherry-picking cases and spinning unverified lines that suit their political narrative.

They also omit the fact that Labor has publicly targeted media outlets that have put its policies under scrutiny, with some inside union and party ranks calling for a royal commission targeting organisations they deemed unfriendly to their cause.

It is clear protections for journalists must be further enshrined in law, but Labor is taking a political risk in putting itself forward as the great defender of press freedom and whistleblowers.

Amid China-US tensions, ­Islamic and white nationalist radicalism, and rising foreign interference targeting Australia, Labor will need to tread carefully to balance its national security priorities. Australians should not forget that Labor is the party that voted for encryption laws and later suggested it wanted a review to add amendments.

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 June 2019

CFMMEU’s John Setka set to be expelled from Labor party after attack on Rosie Batty

John Setka is undoubtedly a bully and a thug.  In his union role he has been that for many years.  And nobody on the Left has ever complained about that.  So how come a single sentence spoken by him has suddenly brought him undone?  We don't even know the whole sentence that he spoke. Only a few words from it have ever been reported.  See below.

It's hard to judge in the face of such heavily edited information but the irony is that what Setka said is probably right.    Bettina Arndt (see below)    has been tireless in pointing to evidence that "men" in general have been blamed for the misdeeds of the few domestic abusers that Rose Batty and others talk  about.  Ms Batty has definitelty cast a wide net in attributing blame for domestic violence. "Masculinity" itself now seems to be seen by many as a fault.

So a situation has arisen where men are automatically presumed guilty in response to an accusation by a woman.  Men have gone to jail in response to entirely false and uncorroborated allegations by women.  If that is not a reduction in men's rights, I do not know what would be.  Men have largely lost the presumption of innocence, a most basic right.

So why is Setka under attack for what he said?  I think it is because of the close alliance betweeen Feminists and the Left.  Setka can say and do anything at all that will antagonize business and conservatives but he must not ding women.


Anthony Albanese has moved to have John Setka, Victorian secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, expelled from the ALP after his derogatory remarks about anti-domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty.

Setka was reported as telling a meeting of the CFMMEU national executive Batty’s work had led to men having fewer rights. He later claimed his comments had been taken out of context.

Albanese told a news conference: “John Setka does not belong in our party, because of the views that he holds”.

The opposition leader said at the next meeting of the party’s national executive he would move for Setka’s expulsion. Meanwhile, he had asked the national executive committee to suspend Setka immediately.

Former opposition leader Bill Shorten was close to the CFMMEU, sometimes relying on it for numbers.

Albanese spoke with Batty on Monday. She had indicated she was disappointed Setka’s comments distracted from the AO she was awarded in the Queen’s Birthday honours.

“Rosie Batty is a great campaigner against family violence and the idea that she should be denigrated by someone like John Setka is completely unacceptable to me as leader of the Australian Labor Party and I don’t want him in our party. It’s that simple,” Albanese said.

SOURCE  





Turkeys voting for Christmas

Bettina Arndt 

I have a fun video for you – my interview with UK journalist Peter Lloyd, author of the 2015 book Stand By Your Manhood which did a great job pulling together all the evidence about what was happening to men in our society and presenting it in a most entertaining manner.

Peter was prompted to write his book in response to the ‘dismissive, patronising and skewed narrative about heterosexual men’ now standard fare in mainstream media. His book demonstrated that it has become normal to consider masculinity as entirely negative and problematic and to present boys as ‘defective girls, damaged by default’ who need to be medicated, educated and socialised out of their masculinity.

His book exposes modern feminists’ determination to promote the idea that this privileged generation of women is still somehow oppressed. He’s now a media favourite on UK television panel shows representing the token male taking on the feminist ideologues. I’m showing you his famous ‘sticks and stones’ video, which has well over a million views on YouTube, where you’ll see his feminist antagonist having a total melt-down. Very funny.

Revealing the real Ita Buttrose

We include an extract from the first interview Peter did with Australian media soon after his book came out – with a morning television show, Studio 10. Anyone deluding themselves that the new Chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, will do anything about the appalling anti-male bias in that organisation, should look at Ita’s sneering treatment of Peter and his book.

You’ll hear Peter’s hilarious line about men who support feminism being like ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’  – a very apt description of another member of that Studio 10 panel, Daily Telegraph writer, Joe Hildebrand. You’ll see him in action virtue-signalling to his dim-witted feminist panellists by treating Peter in the most patronising manner.

That was four years ago but just a few weeks back a most amazing thing happened. Joe Hildebrand has been ‘red-pilled’, having finally seen the light about our male-bashing culture. A brutal murder of a homeless woman in Melbourne - by another homeless man – led the Assistant Commissioner of Police to make an inane comment that this was ‘all about men’s behaviour.’  Amazingly Hildebrand bucked and objected to this comment – both on television and in a newspaper column – saying the behaviour of this man had nothing to do with him.

Anyway, I am sure you will enjoy my discussion with Peter about all this – and many other issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7oKw34Kx7w

Email from Bettina: bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au







Green eco-warriors are killing off tourism because visitors think the Great Barrier Reef is dead

The Greenie lies never stop

Queensland's tourism industry is facing a recession as an increasing amount of tourists shun the Great Barrier Reef.

Reef cruise operators and tourism experts have seen a downturn in the amount of interest the once popular destination is receiving.

They argue claims made by environmental groups and eco-warriors that the reef is dying are detrimental to the industry.

Cairns-based Coral Expeditions commercial director Jeff Gillies said the overall negative perception of reef health has 'definitely affected the downturn in reef tourism'.

Former Cairns mayor Kevin Byrne agreed. He told The Australian 'our tourism industry here is pretty well static, if not in recession.

'We now have the monumental task of convincing people to come to the Great Barrier Reef. As a living organism, it is in wonderful shape and people need to be proud enough to stand up and say it'.

SOURCE  






No, school choice does not cause ‘segregation’

Australia has very extensive school choice.  40% of teenagers go to non-government schools

The mental gymnastics displayed by some people in order to blame school choice for Australia’s education woes never cease to amaze.

A recent OECD report on school choice and equity indicated Australia has one of the most ‘segregated’ school systems in the OECD. This just means schools tend to have less diversity of student socioeconomic background — not that they are practising apartheid.

And if we look at education equity in terms of what actually matters — the effect student socioeconomic background has on achievement — then Australia’s equity is actually slightly better than the OECD average. So finger-wagging at selective and non-government schools for harming disadvantaged students is baseless.

Besides, even if all selective and independent and Catholic schools closed down, it would just mean more high income families would move to areas with the best government schools (raising local house prices) — so social stratification between schools probably wouldn’t reduce, unless we’re going to build a wall between school catchment areas to stop anyone from ever moving anywhere.

School choice can potentially reduce community residualisation because parents don’t have to leave neighbourhoods if they aren’t satisfied with the local government school.

It’s also a furphy that the non-government sector takes funding away from the government system.

According to the Productivity Commission, between 2007-08 and 2016-17, government schools received an 11% real per-student funding increase.

It’s been argued this was only a minor increase, because if teacher wages growth is taken into account then schools on average don’t actually have much more discretionary spending. But this notion — that extra school funding spent on higher teacher salaries doesn’t count as extra school funding — fails the common sense test.

The reality is funding has increased for the government system. While some state governments have chosen to spend the additional money on higher teacher salaries, the fact remains much more is being spent on government schools.

In any case, the government funding received by non-government schools means they can keep their fees affordable for many middle and low income families, so taxpayers don’t have to fund the full cost of education. For example, new financial modelling by Ernst & Young estimates Catholic schools in NSW save taxpayers $480 million per year in recurrent funding.

No one is helped by pitting government against non-government schools

SOURCE  





Fresh explanations for Don’s Party syndrome

The disappointment when Leftists lose an election is comical.  They just can't load it.  It completely clashes with their conception of the world -- so they normally claim that the election was "stolen" in some way.  Check Bill Shorten in Australia and Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams in America.  And most of all check the devastation of nearly all of America's intelligentsia when Trump won

Post-traumatic intellectual disorder, or Don’s Party syndrome as it is sometimes called, is as old as intellectualism itself.

David Williamson diagnosed the condition with precision in his play about an election night party in 1969, when Gough Whitlam dashed Labor intellectuals’ hopes by coming second.

The failed referendum on the republic was a classic example of how the electorate dashes intellectual certainties and leads to uncontrolled national self-loathing, one of the commonest symptoms of PTID.

Lately, however, the frequency of outbreaks appears to be increasing. The Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump and Scomiracle, as the 2019 [Australian] election forever will be known, are just a few of examples in which the right vastly outperformed the expectations of the left, leaving commentators struggling for answers.

Why might these be? I discussed that question this week with Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind (2012) and co-author (with Greg Lukianoff) of The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), who will be visiting Australia next month.

Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, put forward two explanations.

“One is the media. The people who write and produce shows are increasingly concentrated in the most progressive parts of each country.

“In the United States there used to be journalists and newspaper reporters all over the country. But now there are very few newspapers and almost everybody is in New York or right along the Pacific coast — not even inland in California but right along the coast. And so as human beings, they’re just not exposed to different people.”

The second reason, Haidt suggests, is that conservatives are likelier to cover up what they believe for fear of social shaming. Social psychologists describe this phenomenon as preference falsification, the systematic hiding of certain aspects of beliefs by individuals unaware that almost everyone they meet is doing the same.

“In many public places, or let’s say in companies or in school, if you’re on the left, you can say what you believe. If someone were to say, ‘I’m pro-choice and I think we should have open borders’, you can say that and you will not lose your job.

“But if you’re on the right in the United States, there are many places where if you say what the normal conservative position is, you could be in big trouble. “If you say, ‘I favour border enforcement and I think we should really get control of the border’, you could be called a racist. You could be called somebody who is in favour of torturing children.”

The phenomenon has been studied by Sarah Sobieraj in The Outrage Industry (2013); she sought an explanation for why right-wing talk radio tends to succeed while left-wing talk radio fails.

“If you’re on the left in America, you can say what you think,” Haidt says. “You don’t have to find a community on the radio. But if you’re on the right in America, there’s a much greater attraction because you can’t say what you think in many settings, and so they congregate, almost like a church.”

Haidt draws from the work of founding French sociologist Emile Durkheim to explain the quasi-religious aspect to intellectual groupings, particularly on the left, where to dissent from the common creed means instant excommunication.

“Religion binds small groups together,” says Haidt. “If people worship a god together, then they trust each other, they’ll be loyal to each other, they can work together, they can fight as a team, go into battle. In modern society, as the actual God receded from public discussion, other issues (became) sacred. In the academic world, issues of race and gender are the most sacred issues. And if you contradict them, you’re committing blasphemy. You will be protested or shouted down.

“So it’s not the case that anyone who’s a conservative will be shouted down. Students don’t go around saying, ‘Where’s the conservative? Let’s go find them and kick them off campus.’

“It’s just that if anyone were to say anything against affirmative action or against abortion rights or if anyone were to say that prenatal hormones cause men and women to be different, if you say things like that, you are committing sacrilege. There’s a group of activists on most campuses that could get very angry. And even though it’s only a small number of people, everyone’s afraid of them and everyone’s afraid to contradict them.”

The rising intolerance within universities is explored in The Coddling of the American Mind by Haidt and Lukianoff.

As Frank Furedi does in What’s Happened to the University? (2016), Haidt and Lukianoff connect the increasing illiberalism in academe with the rise of safety fetishism in the wider community and the cotton-wool wrapping of children, the so-called “snowflake generation”. Fear of physical danger has been extended to fear of moral and intellectual danger. The rise of social media, meanwhile, creates a separate dynamic.

“Social media has immersed young people in an economy of prestige in which they get points either for being victims themselves, or for finding ways that other people victimise people,” says Haidt.

“It’s really bad for everyone, and it’s hard to live around people who are constantly looking for infractions and looking to punish somebody that tells a joke or wears an item of clothing that they disapprove of, but it’s really bad for the students themselves because they don’t learn how to actually do things or be strong or make something. “They get very skilled at tearing each other down.

“And so it’s kind of a descent into a sort of war of all versus all, and this is what we call a call-out culture, in which young people are really trying hard to find a way to take offence at something that someone else said.

“And so if you come out strongly against racism or sexism or anything else like that, especially in a left-leaning academic environment, you get points for that.

“And if everyone is anti-racist and anti-sexist, you have to really be strongly anti-racist and anti-sexist to get more points.”

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 June 2019

African youth gangs running riot in Sydney carry out six 'blitz-style' robberies of phone shops – as police launch special taskforce to bring them to justice

It's not only Melbourne

A special police taskforce will be set up to investigate a recent spate of robberies involving African youth gangs.

NSW Police has stepped up their investigation into blitz-style robberies targeting electrical stores such as JB Hi-Fi and Bing Lee across Sydney.

At least six robberies are being investigated, including three on Saturday and one at Eastgardens on Sunday.

The offenders are described as being of African appearance in all of the incidents.

It's understood thieves intimidated staff before taking off with popular items such as Apple watches, iPhones and MacBooks.

Ryde Police will take the lead in the taskforce investigation into the recent robberies and urge anyone with information to come forward.

'Ryde detectives are working with investigators from the State Crime Command Robbery and Serious Crime Squad to identify, locate and arrest groups of offenders, responsible for a series of recent thefts, including three on Saturday at retail stores in Artarmon, Castle Hill and Top Ryde,' a NSW Police spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia.

'Officers are already gathering evidence including CCTV from each of the crime scenes. 'No-one was hurt in the latest incidents but police are concerned about the threat to public safety.'

Other recent robberies occurred in Rhodes, Strathfield, Rouse Hill, Campbelltown, Carlingford, Chatswood and Burwood.

The police spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia it was too early to say whether the recent robberies are linked to an alleged attempted robbery of an Optus store in Sydney's south-west in April.

An innocent elderly bystander was seriously injured after a group of up to 15 African teens stormed an Optus store during the alleged attempted robbery at Casula Mall. 

Police alleged staff confronted the teens after they began pulling on items attached to the display by security cables, which was captured on store CCTV.

One teen allegedly stole a watch while another attempted to steal a mobile phone but dropped it as the group fled the store.

The group is captured on CCTV fleeing the shopping centre, as confused shoppers watch on and scramble to get out of their way.

An elderly woman suffered a broken pelvis bowled over by one of the teens. A teen was charged in relation to the incident on May 10 and police investigations are continuing.

SOURCE  






'We might be biased': New ABC chair Ita Buttrose admits broadcaster lacks diversity of views - after it is slammed for left-wing groupthink

ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose has conceded that accusations the national broadcaster has a political bias may have some merit.

Conservative critics have accused the ABC and its presenters of a left-wing bias and the chair has admitted some presenters may have let their own views show through and that there is a lack of alternative views.

Ms Buttrose joined the ABC in February following the resignation of her predecessor Justin Milne.

'Sometimes I think we might be biased,' Ms. Buttrose told ABC Radio Melbourne on Wednesday. 'Sometimes we could do with more diversity of views. I haven't got a problem with anybody's view but I think we need to make sure ours is as diverse as we can make it.

'People, without really knowing it, let a bias show through. I think we can all do that. But the way you deflect the critics that like to give us a tough time is by having a wider viewpoint.'

Ms Buttrose, a one-time Australian of the Year, was chosen to lead the ABC at a time when the broadcaster was going through turmoil following the sacking of former managing director Michelle Guthrie.

Ms Guthrie alleged she was pressured from above into firing chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici and political editor Andrew Probyn for allegedly criticising the Coalition government.

Mr Milne, however, denied allegations he sought to have journalists sacked.

Ms Buttrose asked the ABC staff to not worry about job losses in the wake of annual funding indexation freeze from July 2019, which will cost it $84 million over three years.

She said there were no plans to shut down the ABC radio and television branches. 'There are many things that can be cut. There are many things that can be changed,' she said.

Ms Buttrose will meet new Communications Minister Paul Fletcher to discuss the broadcaster's future next week and will seek funds, if required.

"It's no good bleating and whimpering,' Ms. Buttrose said. 'We've got to present a case as to why we need it, what it's for, where it'll take us, what our plans are for the future, what the digital impact will be on the way we do broadcasting,' she said.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) said almost $340 million has been cut from the ABC base funding since 2014.

SOURCE  






Bursting CSR virtue-signallers’ bubble

Many pundits have been forced to explain why middle Australia not only rejected Bill Shorten’s class war rhetoric but also spurned Labor’s enthusiastic embrace of identity politics and progressive ideology agendas.

To be fair, if you live in the insider bubble, it was easy to miss this story. All our key culture-shaping institutions — schools, universities, the bureaucracy, the media — have embraced identity politics and progressive ideology.

This also includes corporations; Australia’s big public companies, which have done so under the rubric of so-called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

The long march of the left is increasingly making our key business institutions inhospitable places for those with conservative and traditional views and values.

Understandably, many people stay silent and consent to progressive ‘social responsibility’ agendas to avoid the social and professional consequences that dissenters from the politically correct consensus can face in these increasingly intolerant and polarised times.

No wonder, therefore, that people working in big corporations prefer to stay quiet, especially given what is at stake: careers, mortgages, school fees, and superannuation.

What is missing is the sound and sensible cultural leadership that can convince people to not remain quiet and confidently speak up for traditional values that are genuinely under threat and at stake in the many-fronted culture war.

In Corporate Virtue Signalling: How To Stop Big Business from Meddling in Politics, I outline the apparent take-over of big business by politically correct lefties.

The book also warns companies that by endorsing progressive agendas, they risk politicising their reputations, and alienating from their brands the millions of conservative members of the community who do not subscribe to such agendas.

The problem is that many corporate leaders may not realise how divisive their CSR politicking is, because they live, work, and socialise with like-minded elites deep inside their inner city ‘bubble’.

Hopefully, the election result will burst this bubble and make corporate elites aware where the true centre of mainstream opinion lies in Australia. Surely, the only ones who won’t get it now are the truly tin-eared.

So now is perhaps an opportune time to introduce a new principle — the Community Pluralism Principle — into the management of companies.

This would hold directors and CEOs accountable for making sure CSR activities don’t stray into meddling in contentious political issues, and instead properly respect the pluralism — the different views and values — of the diverse Australian community.

If this principle was supported at shareholder meetings by the ‘mum and dad’ investors fed up with companies indulging in political activism, the Quiet Australians would send a powerful message to penetrate the dense bubbles of corporate boardrooms: business should halt the corporate virtue signalling — and stick to business.

SOURCE  






ScoMo’s immigration policy is to keep the migrants flowing

No matter how disruptive the huge flow is

THE ELECTION OFFERED no respite from Australia’s radical immigration economy. We could crank it up higher, under the Coalition. Even more so, via Labor.

In 2017 and 2018, net migration clocked about 240,000. The Budget grows that by 30,000. But permanent migration drops by 30,000. How good are bridging visas?

The long haul is real news. Only once since Federation has Australia surpassed 270,000 net migration. Before 2007, even 200,000 was unknown. Why are figures so high? How do they fly so low? Carry on regardless?

High population growth props up GDP growth

Net migration’s a mouthful. It means those arriving in Australia and staying (by whatever visa) for 12 months out of 16, less those (who are resident and) leave for 12 months out of 16.

Yet it best gauges the “mass” of overseas arrivals. Nowadays, net student arrivals swamp net permanents. Also, they swamp net temp-worker plus visitor arrivals. But about half of each year’s permanent-migrant tally is already onshore, on student or other visas.

In Treasury estimates, net migration plus a natural increase equals population growth. The population’s set to increase by 1.7% in 2019 and 2020. Over 60% is from net migration.

This past decade, population growth underpins more than half real GDP growth. The 2018-19 Budget had 1.6% population growth, for 3% GDP growth. This Budget downgrades the 3% by a quarter. It seeks 1.7% population growth, for 2.75% GDP growth.

Perennially, Treasury forecasts resurgent GDP growth: but that doesn’t happen. More reliably, population growth powers GDP. The Budget doesn’t have to square off infrastructure and service costs of rising population, traditionally state responsibilities. The 2019-20 sweetener was “$100 billion” of “congestion busting” over 10 years.

It’s not enough.

Budgets set the tone. Usually, Budget papers 1-3 mute population. The spotlight is jobs and growth, deficit or surplus. Crucial migration and population “parameters” tiptoe into Appendix A of Budget paper no. 3.

For the Budget 2019-20, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg hyped Morrison’s population plan and its migration “cap” of 160,000. His 270,000 migration sat in its Appendix A.

Labor and the Greens countered, saying that’s no way to bust congestion. What they said was: we’ll see you then we’ll raise you. All the while, the mainstream media recycled the Budget highlights and migration cap. One reporter noticed the net migration blowout, beneath the cap and its “congestion busting” fascinator.

Moreover, left-modernism has made any querying of immigration and population less welcome. Even unprecedented migration has its self-reinforcing cheer squad, including political parties, state and city governments, developers, media, academics and unions.

Disaffected parties if any are the environment (in Australia State of the Environment reports) and the electorate (in repeated surveys).

High population growth is steered not just “forecast”

Government wouldn’t presume to supervise a natural increase. Anyway, birth rates are low. How does the Government supervise net migration and thereby our turbo-charged (by OECD norms) population growth?

The current “Appendix A” format debuted 2009. Up to 2017, budget-night estimates (carrying time lags in migration and population data) may be compared with end-of-year outcomes.

Assumed net migration ranges from 175,000 to 246,000. Actuals seesaw between 169,000 and 264,000.  Average annual error of estimates is over 40,000; over 20%. Estimated population growth is 1.5% to 1.8%. Actuals range from 1.4% to 2.0%. Average annual error grazes 0.2%.

What about budget-night estimates versus end-of-following year outcomes? Assumed migration varies from 180,000 to 250,000. The average error is under 20%. Estimated population growth runs from 1.4% to 1.8%. The average error just tops 0.2%.

Home Affairs straddles diverse visa categories and applicant queues. It can’t control outward movements. It lacks real-time net migration data. Yet Treasury 12-24 month estimates are landing okay. Short term, migration and population are steered not just “forecast”.

Long term, can we manage the population? At 25 million, we’ve broken the 1998 ABS population forecast for 2051. But those extras didn’t fall like rain. Repeatedly, our sovereign Government has intensified net migration, counting big gains but discounting collateral costs.

Opposition Labor, during the mining boom, acquiesced to a big hike in permanent migration and “457” visas. By way of thanks, the miners gelignitedKevin Rudd’s tax on their super-profits. In a Coalition phase pre-GFC, and Labor-Coalition phase post-GFC, we’ve hugely increased overseas student numbers and deregulated visa pathways, at a cost to systemic quality and local aspirants.

It’s less that ABS can’t do the math. It’s more that government has decisively upped population. Average net migration 2007-2017 — 220,000 plus — is busting twice the quarter-century average to 2006.

With overseas student numbers possibly peaking, how does the Government confect the 270,000 net migration? One opinion rates this as heavily dependent on a strengthening economy, with extra chip-ins required from working holidaymakers, visitors changing status and the new temporary parent visa. So much for the spin, that migration primarily services skills in demand.

Net migration might slump under a significantly weakened economy. But we’ve trumped 170,000 ever since 2006. To shore up the “jobs and growth”, the Government could accelerate visa processing, tweak visa rules or categories, or unleash the parent visas.

Short term, should the Government keep scaling migration cliffs? The 21st Century population surges are political rather than popular. Surfing on immigration, Morrison might yet ballyhoo “30 years of growth”.

The ordinary wage-earners might wonder, did he really burn for us?

Long term, Treasury’s Intergenerational report assumes there’ll be 215,000 annual net migration annually. Obediently, today’s “illustrative” ABS projectionsalways assume elevated migration, at 175,000, 225,000 or 275,000. Even under their middle assumptions, the population will top 37 million around 2050.

Sydney and Melbourne might hit about eight million apiece.

If taken as normal, the 37 million skates round unsustainable land clearing, habitat loss, water consumption and uncontrollable greenhouse emissions. Sydney and Melbourne urban plans both work off the eight million. Elitist and “vibrant” mega-city vistas disdain manageable scenarios.

Forget the Canberra bubble. Consider the population bubble. The longer government inflates it, the more they disregard environment and electors, spruiking implausible infrastructure and decentralisation “catch ups”. That might only perpetuate our houses and holes (consumption and extractive) economy and its iron-coal-and-students trade. Net migration would better serve national — not sectional — interests if managed at its 1980s-1990s levels.

In conclusion

Net migration, Treasury’s population lever, is moved unobtrusively. Government has more than doubled it. Key political parties take this now as the natural order of things:

Traditional “permanent migration” is increasingly subverted by temporary visas seeking to flip. More than ever, the net is the reputable migration gauge.

Were the net the cynosure of migration policy, we might better perceive the frequent impacts of self-regarding (government, business or community) immigration ploys.

Treasury’s ever-steeper migration assumptions scaffold the required “GDP growth”. Sidelining environmental cautions, our ratcheting population chases a sputtering GDP.

Treasury’s 2019 and 2020 assumptions would push migration past 270,000, a high exceeded once only, and population growth to about 1.7%, last observed 2013.

In the opinion of incoming Labor leader Anthony Albanese, people build their way out of the extra-urban congestion, inevitably arising from these population surges. His opponent thinks likewise.

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 June, 2019

Brisbane ban on 'cookie-cutter' townhouses could be enforced by July

There can be conflicts between stability and economic efficiency and it is sometimes important to prioritize stability.  Money is not everything. People do value stability.  Change can be too much.  So a balance is needed.  And Brisbane people do value their reassuring streetscapes of old wooden houses.  They want them to stay

For many born-Queenslanders such as I am, those houses have a warm and comfortable feeling whereas a modern brick house seems cold and lifeless.  Hard to say why but there's probably more to it than familiarity.  Timber is from a living thing so that may have some influence. 

I have spent a lot of time and money restoring old Queensland houses and when I walk into an empty one of them I can feel all the families who have lived there before.  I can almost hear the children playing. Its a feeling of continuity with other people like myself in the past. It feels right.

I suppose I am a sentimental old fool but I am far from alone.  There is already in Brisbane a total ban on demolishing any pre-war house


A ban on townhouses and apartment blocks in Brisbane’s character suburbs could come into effect before the end of the financial year, after the state government gave the green light for public consultation.

In September last year, the council requested state government's approval to amend the council’s City Plan 2014, in a bid to prevent apartment blocks and townhouses from being built on blocks larger than 3000 square metres in low-density residential zoned suburbs.

On Wednesday evening, Infrastructure and Planning Minister Cameron Dick gave Brisbane City Council the go-ahead to progress to public consultation.

He said council was required to consult with the community on the proposed amendments for 20 business days.

“Once the council has completed the consultation they will be required to submit the proposed amendments, including feedback received during the consultation period, for my approval to proceed to adoption,” he said.

“It is now up to the council to consult with the community to test the adequacy of the proposed amendment with the broader community and industry.” The ban would last for two years, if approved.

Brisbane lord mayor Adrian Schrinner welcomed the government's tick of approval for council to progress its plans to halt "cookie-cutter townhouses".

“I am committed to building the infrastructure our city needs, while protecting the liveability of our suburbs and that is exactly what this proposed major amendment can achieve,” Cr Schrinner said.

“Brisbane is growing, but Council is committed to maintaining the character of our suburbs and ensuring any development fits in with the existing surroundings.

The opening of public consultation comes as nearly 6000 properties around Coorparoo have been rezoned to character residential under Brisbane City Council’s latest neighbourhood plan.

The rezoning means more properties will be protected to retain the typical Queensland house from being demolished or altered significantly.

SOURCE  






Freight costs win for miners in Qld budget

The Leftist Queensland  government is trying to "buy" Queensland's North.  In the Federal election they got NO seats outside the Southeast corner

Miners in north Queensland will be given millions of dollars in discounts on freight charges in next week's budget in a win for the state's resources industry.

Deputy Premier and Treasurer Jackie Trad announced the $80 million scheme in Townsville on Sunday, saying the plan will boost mineral exports from the state's northwest.

She said the state Labor government had also promised $30 million for construction of a new freight terminal at the Townsville port, with another $18 million to come from the Port of Townsville.

It comes after a $350 million commitment to upgrade the Mount Isa rail line over the next five years.

The line connects industries and communities in some of the most far-flung corners of the state, and underwent extensive repairs after 300km of track was damaged or washed away by floodwaters in February.

About 75 per cent of the Queensland's base metal and mineral deposits are located in the state's north west, making up some of the $44.5 billion in coal and minerals exported in the year to April 2019.

"The commitment underlines our commitment to backing regional communities and regional jobs," Ms Trad said.

Ms Trad says government investment plays a major role in stimulating regional economies, and plans to keep spending to create jobs rather than cutting back to address soaring debt.

A bulk of the spending in Tuesday's budget will be done in the bush.

While the government chooses to stay the course on its investments, it must also balance a massive cut to its share of the GST, recovery costs for a string of natural disasters and billions of dollars in promises.


SOURCE  







Review pension income test rates: Labor

They are right about this one

Part of the pension income test should be reviewed to better reflect Australia's record low interest rates, according to federal Labor.

The opposition is urging the government to review pension deeming rates, which are used in the income test to assume how much people are earning on their financial investments.

The deeming rates for the pension are as high as 3.25 per cent.

They haven't been updated in more than four years, when the Reserve Bank of Australia's official cash rate was 2.25 per cent.

The interest rate, which reflects what the central bank charges commercial banks on overnight loans and influences other interest rates, was reduced this week to 1.25 per cent.

A lower rate, aimed at stimulating the economy, is typically considered good news for mortgage holders but not so great for savers.

Labor's human services spokeswoman Linda Burney says with standard term deposits now earning two per cent or less, it's clear the deeming rates aren't keeping up with what pensioners are earning.

SOURCE  







Big new wind farm heavily opposed

Proponents of the southern hemisphere’s largest wind farm say it is a “game changer” for energy securit­y and prices, but are facing community headwinds as fierce as the Roaring Forties it seeks to harness­.

The $1.6 billion project is ­proposed by Hong Kong-based UPC Renewables for two sites in Tasmani­a’s northwest, Robbins Island and Jim’s Plain, with a 170km transmission line to connec­t it to the grid.

Chief executive Anton Rohner said if the company’s vision was fully realised, it would combine with Tasmania’s hydro storages and proposed new Marinus interconnector under Bass Strait to substantially address Australia’s energy woes.

“It is an absolute game changer for not just Tasmania, but for Victoria, South Australia and NSW,” he said. “It works beautifully with the (state’s) hydro scheme.

“Our power can be used to pump hydro or to effectively hold the (hydro) electricity. Being able to provide a dispatchable renewable energy — 1000MW — through the Marinus link to the mainland is worth everything … More supply leads to cheaper energ­y for everyone.”

However, the project faces local and federal regulatory hurdles and unrest about the citing of both the Robbins Island wind farms and the transmission line.

Some living near the 9900ha Robbins Island are concerned about the noise and aesthetics of up to 200 wind turbines, and their impact on thousands of resident and migratory shorebirds, some critically endangered.

Mr Rohner said expert studies using tracking devices showed the birds generally flew around the periphery of the island, not over it, but this was contested by some local­s and BirdLife Tasmania.

“The area around the island at low tide is around 100 sq km of exposed mudflat and wetland and it supports more migratory shorebirds than the rest of Tasmania combined,” said Eric Woehler, the BirdLife convener. “We know from work that has been done … that some of the migratory shore birds fly across the island.

“Those radio tracking studies have only been done for one ­species. We have no information about the extent or frequency of flights across the island for the 20 or so (other) species. Birds that are already critically endangered run the real risk of flying into some of these turbines.”

Dr Woehler and some locals fear a walled causeway to the island­, as part of the project, would interrupt tidal flows, damaging the vital sandflat ecosystems.

“What they are proposing is going to kill this beautiful wetland area that is absolutely amazing,” said resident Colleen Murfitt.

Mr Rohner and the owners of the island, the Hammond Wagyu beef farming family, said expert modelling suggested several bridge sections in the causeway would avoid adverse impacts.

“We are cattle people, we love the environment,” said Alex Hammond. “Part of our brand, which sells our beef around the world, is that we are in the cleanest, greenest area in the world. “So we certainly don’t want to do anything to impact on that.”

The transmission line that is taking the power to the grid near Sheffield is causing outrage among some farmers, tourism operato­rs and residents who fear a significant scar on the landscape and compulsory acquisition of land.

Beef farmer and vegetable grower Darren Gibson said the 60m-wide corridor appeared set to blight the southern and eastern boundaries of his Nietta farm, ending his plans for a tourism develop­ment.

“Having six transmission lines cutting across the beautiful views we have here, of snow-capped mountains, just isn’t going to cut it for high-end tourists — it’s ruined our plans,” he said.

Mr Rohner conceded that the company had mishandled public engagement on the transmission line, which was being revised.

He hoped the new plan would avoid crossing the Leven Canyon tourist attraction, an issue of major concern.

Circular Head Mayor Daryl Quilliam said the “vast majority” of locals were “very excited” about and supportive of the project and the jobs and economic stimulus it would bring.


SOURCE  





When unions and bosses gang up on the working class

Union fat cats rob their members

A shout out to all those federal Labor types who are on their “listening” tours, trying to understand why union members and people they may romanticise as “working class” no longer show mass, blind allegiance to the ALP.

Labor types profess to be concerned about working people and, in particular, the wage theft occurring in our economy.

There are two types of wage theft: the first is sporadic and often accidental, usually occurring in small businesses. The second is deliberate, premeditated, highly organ­ised and widespread, affecting entire industries, done via dodgy enterprise bargaining deals or “side letters” signed between companies and unions. In these types of arrangements, money usually changes hands.

This type of wage theft, the vast extent of it and the way it is made possible only with the agreement of unions, is the ALP’s shameful secret.

In September 2017, this column told the story of wage theft victim Ken Holland and his quest for justice. Holland worked for Cleanevent from 2003 until 2015.

Cleanevent was owned by Spotless Group. Holland and his friend Robert Vertigan are part of a group of about 5000 workers who experienced wage theft worth an estimated total of $400 million, thanks to deals signed with people in the Australian Workers Union.

The deals included a 2006 EBA signed while Bill Shorten was AWU national secretary and a 2010 memorandum of understanding signed by Shorten’s successor, Paul Howes, who now holds a senior position with KPMG Australia.

As part of the arrangements, Holland and his workmates were joined up to the union as members, without their knowledge or consent. Julianne Page, a general manager at Cleanevent’s parent company, Spotless Group, approved a $25,000 annual payment to the AWU.

This payment was kept secret from the workers, and so was an email from Cleanevent HR manager Michael Robinson that read: “For a saving of $1.5 million we could make a donation of $20k to the union in some way, shape or form (tables at the AWU ball, paying our level 3 casuals membership, etc)” and that the deal created a “massive competitive advantage”.

The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption examined the issue, and heard that the competitive advantage was real; Cleanevent saved about $2m a year in penalty rates in return for the $25,000.

Ultimately, both Shorten and Howes were not really held to account but Holland and Vertigan, as part of a small group of 14 former workers, have continued to fight for their back pay.

The 14 contacted the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, industrial relations ministers (Eric Abetz and Michaelia Cash), the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, the Queensland parliament wage theft inquiry, the AWU, union United Voice, the ACTU, the Victorian Minister for Major Events (John Eren), the federal opposition industrial relations spokesman (Brendan O’Connor), WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW, to no avail.

However, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (privacy and FOI matters) was able to assist. As a result, Spotless has been ordered to pay a total of $60,000 to the workers.

In the decision just handed down, Commissioner Angelene Falk said Spotless “interfered with the complainants’ privacy … by improperly disclosing, through its related entity Cleanevent, the complainants’ personal information to the Australian Workers Union”.

The royal commission, Falk said, concluded that “in substance, what occurred was that Cleanevent, at the time of payment, provided a list of employees to the AWU Vic without regard to whether they were already members of the AWU and without regard to whether they wished to become members”. Although the fine is welcomed, the workers are still out of pocket to the tune of many thousands of dollars, and it is unlikely that any other person or agency will ever assist.

Holland and Vertigan would have loved to be at Anthony Albanese’s “listening tour”. They would like to ask what Labor will be doing to look at wage theft and whether the Opposition Leader “realises that a significant part of the problem is unions doing deals with companies that lower the wages and conditions of employees”.

The Coalition, too, has been fairly silent on its industrial relations agenda and seems to be at a loss on how to address wage theft. But it must do more for victims and stamp out the deals that allow the practice to continue.

New Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter should order an audit of all current enterprise agreements that have been signed with a few key unions.

In fact, the FWC should be tasked with the job. It won’t be too hard to uncover all agreements that fail the “better off overall” test — these are the deals that allow for wage theft to occur. Any agreement that fails the BOOT is underpaying workers compared with what they would earn on the award, allowing wage theft.

The signatories, unions and employers, must then be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the income flowing to unions as a result of these deals should be publicly revealed and prohibited in new legislation.

Because while the ALP is running around listening to what they did wrong, the government can use the time to implement real actions that actually help working people.

SOURCE  





Cholesterol drug stops the deadly box jellyfish sting

Researchers at the University of Sydney have discovered an antidote to the deadly sting delivered by the most venomous creature on earth – the Australian box jellyfish.

The Australian box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri) has about 60 tentacles that can grow up to three metres long. Each tentacle has millions of microscopic hooks filled with venom.

Each box jellyfish carries enough venom to kill more than 60 humans.

A single sting to a human will cause necrosis of the skin, excruciating pain and, if the dose of venom is large enough, cardiac arrest and death within minutes.

Associate Professor Greg Neely and Dr Raymond (Man-Tat) Lau and their team of pain researchers at the Charles Perkins Centre were studying how the box jellyfish venom works when they made the discovery.

They uncovered a medicine that blocks the symptoms of a box jellyfish sting if administered to the skin within 15 minutes after contact.

The antidote was shown to work on human cells outside the body and then tested effectively on live mice. Researchers now hope to develop a topical application for humans.

“We were looking at how the venom works, to try to better understand how it causes pain. Using new CRISPR genome editing techniques we could quickly identify how this venom kills human cells. Luckily, there was already a drug that could act on the pathway the venom uses to kill cells, and when we tried this drug as a venom antidote on mice, we found it could block the tissue scarring and pain related to jellyfish stings,” said Associate Professor Neely. “It is super exciting.”

Published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications, the study used CRISPR whole genome editing to identify how the venom works. Genome editing is a technology that allows scientists to add, remove or alter genetic material in an organism’s DNA.

In the study, the researchers took a vat of millions of human cells and knocked out a different human gene in each one. Then they added the box jellyfish venom - which kills cells at high doses - and looked for cells that survived. From the whole genome screening, the researchers identified human factors that are required for the venom to work.

“The jellyfish venom pathway we identified in this study requires cholesterol, and since there are lots of drugs available that target cholesterol, we could try to block this pathway to see how this impacted venom activity. We took one of those drugs, which we know is safe for human use, and we used it against the venom, and it worked,” said Dr Lau, who is the lead author on the paper. “It’s a molecular antidote.”

“It’s the first molecular dissection of how this type of venom works, and possible how any venom works,” Dr Lau said. “I haven’t seen a study like this for any other venom.”

“We know the drug will stop the necrosis, skin scarring and the pain completely when applied to the skin,” said Associate Professor Neely, who is the senior author on the paper. “We don’t know yet if it will stop a heart attack. That will need more research and we are applying for funding to continue this work.”

Found in coastal waters in northern Australia, from Queensland to Western Australian and into the waters around the Philippines, the box jellyfish is extremely dangerous. They don’t just float, they can actively swim, gaining speed of 7.5 kilometres an hour when they are hunting. They feed in shallow waters, mainly small fish and prawns.

There are two types of box jellyfish, the Irukandji, which is tiny, and the Chironex fleckeri, which is about three metres long. “We studied the biggest, most venomous and scary one,” said Associate Professor Neely. “Our drug works on the big beast. We don’t know yet if it works on other jellyfish, but we know it works on the most-deadly one.”

The venom used in the study was collected from a box jellyfish off the waters of Cairns by Associate Professor Jamie Seymour at James Cook University.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the only current treatment for a sting is dousing the area with vinegar for 30 seconds or running very hot water over the affected area for 20 minutes. If it’s a major sting, continuous CPR is needed to keep the heart beating.

“Our antidote is a medicine that blocks the venom,” said Associate Professor Neely. “You need to get it onto the site within 15 minutes. In our study, we injected it. But the plan would be a spray or a topical cream. The argument against a cream is when you are stung it leaves lots of little stingers in you so if you rub the cream on it might be squeezing more venom into you. But if you spray, it could neutralise what’s left outside of your body.”

Associate Professor Neely and his team are now looking for potential partners to work on making the medicine available to the public.

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 June 2019

Dirty Rotten Climate Scandals

Tony Thomas

Shakespeare’s monster, Caliban, dreamed of clouds opening to  show riches ready to drop upon him. Climate scientists don’t have to dream about it – honors, awards and cash prizes rain down in torrents. Other scientists try to help humanity, but while climate scientists may kid themselves and others that they share that goal, their practical intent is to raise energy costs and harm nations’ energy efficiency via renewables. While they posture as planet-savers in white coats, some of them pocket awards of half-million dollars, even a million, and notch up more career-enhancing medals than a North Korean general.

A couple of local prizes are the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science ($A250,000) for ex-President of the Australian Academy of Science Kurt Lambeck last October, and in January UNSW Professor John Church pocketed a $A320,000 half-share of the 400,000 Euro BBVA Prize.

Both have done science work of international repute and their reputations in their specialist fields are deservedly high. However, Lambeck is a long-standing smiter of “deniers” and Church propagates via the ABC such lurid scenarios as  this: “… if the world’s carbon emissions continue unmitigated, a threshold will be crossed which will lead to the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet. This, with melts from glaciers and ice in Antarctica will lead to a sea level rise in the order of seven metres.”

There are many mickey-mouse awards in Australia for climate science and I’d be amazed if any post-doc climate person hasn’t won a gong. It’s particularly obnoxious that even schoolkids are incited to compete for climate awards by regurgitating climate doomism.

On the global stage, my tally of warmist cash awards to US climate doomsayer Paul R. Ehrlich is about $US2.6 million. For the climate scare’s originator, ex-NASA scaremonger James Hansen, about $US2 million. These rewards are not for getting anything right – their doom deadlines have proven to be utter tripe.

If you’re a climate scientist you can blot your copybook horribly but the prizes keep coming. You might not have heard of California’s Dr Peter H. Gleick, but read on. He’s been creaming it with prizes lately, $US100,000 from Israel’s Boris Mints Institute in April for the “Strategic Global Challenge of Fresh Water” and the Carl Sagan Prize last year for “researchers who have contributed mightily to the public understanding and appreciation of science.”  He’s scored more than 30 honors and awards all-up including a $US500,000 MacArthur “Genius” award for 2003.

Nice work, Gleick, but you’re the same man who in 2012 raided e-documents from the minor sceptic thinktank Heartland Institute.  Its CEO Joe Bast said that Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo.” Gleick denied forging the document. The forgery, among other fabrications, showed Heartland receiving  $US200,000 from the Koch brothers’ Foundation, when the reality was a mere $US25,000, and even that sum was actually for a health-care study.

Gleick confessed he committed the thefts because he believed Heartland was preventing a “rational debate” on global warming, even though he had refused a Heartland invitation to a fee-paid after-dinner debate shortly before he stole the documents.  Gleick said

“in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received … materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues…My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists .., and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.”

As for Heartland being “well-funded”, its budget that year was $US4.4 million, of which maybe a third went on climate work, funding one conference, a blog and half a dozen climate reports. That compares with, say, WWF’s current budget in the US of $US230 million (Heartland’s, $US6 million), or the Australian Conservation Foundation’s current $A14 million.

The ironies about the much-honored Gleick didn’t stop there.  In 2011 he was founding chairman of a science ethics committee of the 60,000-member American Geophysical Union (AGU) and he immediately resigned membership when outed by Heartland. AGU president Mike McPhaden issued a toe-curling statement. The global community of earth and space scientists, he said, had

witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

 His transgression … is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public… It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.

This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of AGU… How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery … These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.

Within three weeks of Gleick’s confession, I kid you not, water tech company Xylem awarded him a “Water Hero” award. Thereafter he won a Lifetime Achievement Award from a  Silicon Valley Water Group (2013), was honoured by the Guardian newspaper in 2014 as a world top-ten water guru, and in 2015 he received the Leadership and Achievement Award from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. The same year he received an Environmental Education Award from the Bay Institute. The major Carl Sagan and BMI Prizes followed in 2018 and 2019. Transgressions by warmist scientists are soon forgotten and readily forgiven.

While the Gleick case is one of horror, other climate-award material goes into the comedy file. The Climategate emails exposed two of the climate world’s top “experts”, Phil Jones and Mike Mann, horse-trading for new honors for themselves, via reciprocal recommendations. Jones, at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, ran the HADCRUT4 global temperature data series underpinning the IPCC warming scare. He managed to literally lose raw data (failure to back-up) and hid incriminating emails subject to FOI demands.[1] Michael Mann authored the infamous  “Hockey Stick” paper used as a logo by the 2001 IPCC report as proving current warming is CO2-caused and unprecedented in the past 1000 years. Mann’s paper also managed to ‘disappear’ the Medieval warming[2] and the 300-year Little Ice Age to 1850. Mann’s sceptic foe, Mark Steyn, published an entire 320-page book, A Disgrace to the Profession comprising rejections of Mann’s findings, not by sceptics but by orthodox climate scientists. [3]

Here are two climateers at work. (emails from 4/12/2007). Mann to Jones:

By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like me to investigate…

Jones selects his own award:

As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.

Mann then lets Jones know that he (Mann) himself happens to lack a Fellowship of the AGU and adds in brackets, “(Wink)” to inspire Jones to do something about it. (pp105, 118).

The matey honors system at the AGU continues to this day. The selection committee last year for the AGU’s annual $US25,000 Climate Communication Prize (won by Mann last year) included prominent warmists Katharine Hayhoe, Stefan Rahmstorf, Richard Somerville and Kevin Trenberth. Recipients included the same Katharine Hayhoe (2014), Stefan Rahmstorf (2017), Richard Somerville (2015)  and  Kevin Trenberth (2013). A network clearly operates.  Winners Gavin Schmidt (2011), Mann (2018) and Rahmstorf (2017) jointly contribute to their realclimate.org blog. The AGU seems aware of incestuousness and has these unusual guidelines for the prize-winner selection:

Nominators and potential nominees…are urged to restrain from contacting members of their respective award selection committee while the AGU nomination and selection process is in progress…Persistent or frequent contact on topics related to the award nomination could potentially be viewed as an attempt to influence…

In the big global league, climate bureaucrat Christiana “Tinkerbell” Figueres, who oversaw the 2015 Paris pseudo-agreement from her UN perch, staggers under the weight of honors. They include the  Shackleton Medal, the Grand Medal of the City of Paris, the Legion of Honor, the German Great Cross of Merit, the Guardian Medal of Honor, the 2015 Hero of El Pais award, the Global Thinker Award, Four Freedoms Award and the Solar Champion Award from the woke folk of California. Quite a haul considering she still can’t distinguish between weather and climate. She achieved perpetual quotability with this ripper from  February 2015, in an official UN press release:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

A champagne socialist from the top end of town in Costa Rica, she views a halt to growth in the West with equanimity: “Industrialised countries must stop growing — that’s fine. But developing countries must continue to grow their economy in order to bring their people out of poverty…”

Paul R. Ehrlich, now 87, has been showered with lucrative prizes. He has spent the past 50 years making horrific predictions about planetary and human doom. None of these have remotely been fulfilled, such as his 1969 prediction of disastrous global famine by 1975, requiring compulsory birth control via sterilising agents in food and water. 

As a close-to-my-home example, he gave an address at Perth’s Murdoch University on October 2, 1985, concluding that unless Western countries went into wealth-sharing with the Third World, there would be lethal consequences for civilisation such that “the handful of human beings that survive the resultant collapse may, if they are lucky, be able to eke out a livelihood hunting and gathering.” He warned that by 2000, we could have a billion people perishing from hunger, with those famines leading in turn to a thermonuclear war that “could extinguish civilisation”. He continues to this day to be sought out by the media for yet more doomsday mayhem.

Ehrlich big-money prizes for ecological brilliance have included

# 1990: MacArthur Fellows “Genius Grant”, currently $US625,000. At the time the award range was $US155,000 to $US600,000. Ehrlich would have been at the high end.

# 1990: Sweden’s Crafoord (OK) Prize, currently $US745,000. He shared the award with biologist E.O.Wilson. As a guesstimate, $US200,000-plus at the time.

# 1993: Heinz Foundation Award, $US250,000

# 1993; The Volvo Environmental Prize. Currently $US170,000.

# 1998: Tyler Prize, $US200,000.

# 1998: Heineken Prize, $US200,000

# 1999: Asahi Glass’s Blue Planet Prize, 50 million yen (about $US420,000 at the time).

# 2009: Ramon Margalef Prize, 80,000 Euros (about $US110,000 at the time).

# 2013: BBVA Frontiers Award, 400,000 Euros (about $US530,000 at the time).

Total, about $US2.6m ($A3.75m).

James Hansen is known as the father of the CO2/global warming  campaign. He produced, concurrently with Syukuro Manabe,  the first crude computer models of C02 warming. The successor models despite decades of ‘refinements’ continue to significantly exaggerate actual warming.[4]  Hansen’s cash awards total about $US1.5m, including $US800,000 from Taiwan’s Tang Foundation last year. The Tang  citation read

Undaunted by the gravity of high government and the powerful doubts of business, this former NASA climate scientist attended a government hearing in 1988 … His brave, farsighted testimony before congress has since been known as the Hansen Hearing.

The reality was that the 1988 hearing was stage-managed by his pal and Democrat senator Tim Wirth. Wirth timed it for the predicted hottest summer day in Washington, and he also sabotaged the building’s air conditioning to ensure everyone would be sweating for the TV cameras.

Hansen while at NASA in 2001 accepted a $US250,000 award from Theresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat luminary John Kerry. In 2004 Hansen endorsed John Kerry as presidential candidate, a doubly contentious act as he was still a government NASA director. Hansen at NASA  also admitted in a 2003  issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue. He’s referred to coal trains as “death trains” (annoying Holocaust survivors) and was arrested twice at climate demonstrations.
Among his windfalls:

# 2001: Heinz Award: $US250,000

#2007: Dan David Prize: $US330,000

# 2008: PNC Bank Common Wealth Award: $US50,000

# 2010: Sophie Prize: $US100,000

# 2012: Stephen Schneider Award: $US10,000

# 2016: BBVA Award:  $US450,000

# 2018: Taiwan’s Tang Prize. $US800,000.

Total $US1.99m.

Climate and environment prizes, honors and awards have flowed to those who are not merely catastrophists but million-dollar fraudsters. Canada’s Maurice Strong, for instance, built some of his huge wealth from stockmarket insider deals and oil developments. He was the godfather of the global environment from when he organised the 1972 Stockholm Environment Conference. He was founder and executive director of the UN Environmental Program which joined forces with the World Meteorological Organisation to create the IPCC. He chaired the 1992 Rio summit and openly advocated for world governance under the UN, financed by a 0.5 per cent tax on global finance to raise $US1.5 trillion a year.

In his 1999 autobiography, Strong predicted that in 2031 nation states will implode, with a breakdown of international order, food and energy scarcity, more climate deaths than from WW1 and WW2, and Americans dying like flies from heat because there is no electricity for air conditioners. Global  population falls to the level of 2001, “a consequence, yes, of death and destruction – but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration,” he wrote.[5]

In 2005 the FBI, investigating the Iraq “Oil for Food” program’s prolific corruption, turned up a 1997 cheque to Strong for $US998,000 from a corrupt  South Korean businessman who later proved to be a bagman for Saddam Hussein. Strong in 1997 was working for UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, and had organised the UN’s Kyoto climate treaty that same year. When the cheque came to light, Strong lit out for Beijing (China has no extradition treaty with the US) and lived out his days there, still honoured as an honorary professor at three Chinese universities. He said later, “I didn’t just run away to China, I already had an apartment here.” 

In 2003, just two years before the cheque scandal went public, the US National Academy of Sciences gave Strong its highest honor, its Public Welfare Medal, for “extraordinary use of science for the public good”. This was its first-ever Medal award to a non-US citizen. “Very few individuals have contributed so much to the path toward a sane and sensible future for world society,” the Academy said. “He is an idealist who is truly a citizen of the world.”

He was “very special guest of honor” at the 2012 Rio second climate summit. When he died in 2015, the esteem continued with Canada’s governor-general attending his funeral. No attempt was ever made to prosecute Strong over the cheque.

Strong’s 50 or more honors (apart from his 52 honorary doctorates) included Commander of the Golden Ark (Netherlands), Order of the Southern Cross (Brazil), Order of the Polar Star (Sweden) and Companion of the Order of Canada. In his Beijing era he got a Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Cataloguing all the climate prize stuff going on would involve an essay the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannia. I need to wash my dog so I’ll stop here. To all past and future climate prize winners, my sincere congratulations.

SOURCE  









The Adani coalmine and its Leftist enemy: Jackie Trad

For a politician on the make, there is no better place to be than Brisbane’s Suncorp Stadium on State of Origin night.

Jackie Trad was there on Wednesday, lapping up the hospitality in the National Rugby League’s well-appointed viewing box. So was her boss, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, and Trad’s friend and mentor Anthony Albanese, a lonesome Blue among all those one-eyed Queenslanders.

But as willing as the football was in the famed “cauldron”, it had nothing on what has been playing out inside the state Labor government since that other boil­over, the May 18 federal election.

Queensland swung harder against the ALP than any other mainland state, with voters in its regions and on the suburban ­fringes of Brisbane rejecting Bill Shorten’s big-spending and high-taxing agenda with a vehemence that delivered two additional seats to the Coalition, taking it to a high-water 23 of the 30 up for grabs north of the Tweed.

This is where Trad comes in. She holds far more than the purse strings as Deputy Premier and Treasurer to Palaszczuk. As leader of the parliamentary Left, Trad also controls the numbers in the caucus and state cabinet; she revels in her reputation as being the power behind the throne, the driving force in a government that was cruising until federal Labor came a cropper, and which now threatens to be consumed by recriminations over its drift to the left and the electorate’s brutal verdict last month on that positioning.

Sharp-tongued, vigorous and whip-smart, 47-year-old Trad is the face of progressive politics in Queensland. She is as inner city as you can get, holding the state seat of South Brisbane in the area in which she grew up, the daughter of Lebanese migrants who spoke Arabic at home. Where Palasz­czuk, a product of the ALP’s right wing, is reserved and cautious, seemingly lofty in wielding power, Trad has worked in the weeds, championing formerly lost causes for state Labor such as abortion law reform and tree clearance controls on farmers. Admirers and detractors alike acknowledge her zeal. But if there is one issue that has bedevilled Labor at both the state and federal levels in Queensland it is the Adani coalmine, the pressure point where demands for ­action on climate change intersect with real-world concerns about jobs and investment.

Shorten dithered, sending a message to green-minded voters in latte land in central Sydney and Melbourne that Labor was leery of the planned project, while assuring struggling regional communities in Queens­land that it wouldn’t stand in the way of the new open-cut mine if it won state approval.

That’s the trouble with trying to walk both sides of the street: you get hit by a bus.

Adani became emblematic of federal Labor’s disconnect from its traditional blue-collar base and those “quiet Australians” who broke for Scott Morrison, an epic misjudgment of the mood of the nation. Albanese’s test as Shorten’s successor as Opposition Leader will be to craft a new narrative to reconcile — or at least neutralise — this lethal paradigm for the ALP.

That means there is no avoiding Queensland for Albo.

When Kevin Rudd won handsomely in 2007, it was on the back of picking up 15 seats in his home state. Labor went into that election with only six MPs from Queensland, the same precarious position in which it now finds itself. It was also in power at the state level under another female premier, Anna Bligh.

A woman of the Left, she headed a government in which the Right factions notionally had the numbers but where Bligh unambiguously called the shots. The situation couldn’t be more different today as Palaszczuk, aligned with the Australian Workers Union-backed Labor Forum group, moves to reposi­tion her party with an eye to the state election locked in for October next year, to usher in an expansion of the parliamentary term from three years to four.

If Labor’s base vote is anything like last month’s dismal 26.68 per cent federal showing in Queensland, Palaszczuk’s two-term outfit will be toast. In that event, the ALP would hold office in only two states, Victoria and Western Australia, making the road back for Albanese all the more arduous.

No pressure, then, as Trad prepares to hand down her second state budget on Tuesday. The infrastructure cash that she had counted on from a Shorten government is in the wind, GST revenue is down, and stamp duty will take a hit from the softening Brisbane property market. Queensland, she claims, is being dudded by the Prime Minister of $840 million in funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and, oh yes, the time bomb of the Adani approval is ticking louder than ever, with the state environment agency due to sign off on the critical groundwater management plan for the mine two days after the budget is released.

For the first time in her fast and seemingly assured rise, Trad is feeling the blowtorch. The complex challenges she faces embody some of those confronting Labor at the federal level. In addition to massaging a set of books that is drowning in red ink — Queensland’s gross debt was forecast in last year’s budget to hit an eye-watering $83 billion over the forward estimates — she must hold the line in her marginal seat against the Greens now that the Liberal National Party has announced it will preference them over her.

The list goes on. She needs to contain the factional tensions that have erupted in the state caucus since the federal election to preserve her leadership ambitions; accommodate heavy spending on health, education and other ser­vices plus the ballooning wage bill mandated by the government’s cosiness with the public sector unions; and address the nagging suspicion in Labor ranks that so much she has worked for and represents is out of step with what voters actually want.

Then there is Adani. It all comes back to Adani.

Rightly or wrongly, Trad is seen as the architect of the state Labor government’s woefully inept handling of the project and its Indian proponent, the Adani ports, shipping and energy conglomerate. Her critics say it has been a case of “Jackie first”, with Trad putting her survival in South Brisbane ahead of the interests of the state and, yes, the Labor government to get the mine up and running in economically battered central-west Queensland.

The spiel is that she went rogue, not for the first time, to deploy the Left’s numbers in cabinet and her command of the machinery of government to drag the chain, if not block the mine. Trad rejects this, telling Inquirer: “I would say that criticism is from people who have an unrealistic view of what happened in cabinet and don’t actually understand what happened in the government … I would probably suggest or back my hunch these are people who are unprepared to put their names to such comments, these are people who are so out of the loop but think that their relevance is far more than it actually is.”

Still, the government’s approach to Adani is mystifying. The mine has been in the works for eight years as the linchpin to develop a vast new coalfield in the Galilee Basin, 1000km northwest of Brisbane. The investment was initially welcomed by Bligh, who predicted ore would be rolling out by 2014, backed by the LNP when it came to power under Campbell Newman, and embraced so enthusiastically by Palaszczuk that on a trade mission to India in March 2017 she met the company’s billionaire owner, Gautam Adani, and urged him to buy into food production and renewable energy projects in Queensland.

Adani believed it had a commitment from the Premier to waive state royalties worth $320m in the start-up phase, and to support its bid for a $1bn loan from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build a rail link to port.

But then something extraordinary happened. In the last week of May 2017, Trad came out publicly against the “royalties holiday”, citing an election commitment that no public money would go into the mine, which had to stack up financially and meet environmental standards. This was in line with the position of the federal party.

Trad’s intervention had been preceded by a devastating media leak. Emerging from a meeting with then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in Brisbane on May 17, Palaszczuk was blindsided by a question from an ABC reporter on the supposedly secret royalties deal. Her office was incensed, blaming Trad for the breach.

After an emergency cabinet meeting on May 26, Palaszczuk, Trad and Curtis Pitt, the state treasurer at the time, announced a revamp of the tax regime to cover all future greenfield mine developments, capturing Adani. “There will be no royalty holiday for the Adani Carmichael mine,” the Premier insisted. Any deferred royalties would be paid with interest after a security deposit was stumped up by the company concerned. But there was a kicker.

“Consistent with our election commitments, cabinet has determined that any NAIF funding needs to be between the federal government and Adani,” Trad said in the joint media statement. This seemed unremarkable: under NAIF rules the federal money is dispensed to a loan recipient by the state, which has no financial exposure to the transaction. On May 29, Pitt declared that Queensland “would not stand in the way” of those arrangements for Adani.

Only later would the penny drop. Beset by anti-Adani protests during the opening phase of the 2017 state election campaign, Palaszczuk performed a backflip and said the government would veto the NAIF loan, citing a purported conflict of interest involving her then partner, who had consulted on the project. By then, Adani was a word Trad could barely bring herself to utter in public. Witness this exchange with The Australian’s Sarah Elks from May 2017:

Q: “Can I just ask you personally, can you state your support for the Adani Carmichael coalmine?

Trad: “Like every other member of this government, I support resource sector jobs. I know how important they are for our regions, for our regional economies and I know how important they are for the economy of Queensland.”

Q: Is there a reason why you can’t say you support that project in particular?

Trad took a question from another reporter.

Fast forward to the hushed aftermath for Labor of its election drubbing three Saturdays ago. Having initially played down the impact of Adani on the result in Queensland, Palaszczuk did another about-face, declaring she was “fed up” with the delays in the environmental approvals process and it would be fast-tracked by the state co-ordinator-general. If, as expected, the ground­water plan is ticked off next Thursday, the company is geared up to begin full-scale site works within weeks.

Trad took to social media last Sunday to clear the air on Adani, complaining the issue had been “weaponised” by the political Right and the Left. “For those opposed to the mine it has taken on the status of the only test of commitment to action on climate change,” she wrote on Facebook.

“For those supportive of the mine, this project is the only proof of a commitment to resource sector jobs in regional Queensland communities. Both arguments are exaggerated and wrong. And we now find ourselves divided.”

SOURCE  






Can you REALLY say that at work? The common phrases deemed inappropriate for the office revealed - including 'love', 'mate' and 'darl'

A psychologist has revealed some of the common words used in a workplace and why they are deemed inappropriate in most office spaces.

Jim Bright, who specialises in organisation psychology, spoke to the ABC's Phillip Clark about the ways we chat to our coworkers and why it's getting easier to offend people.

'I think people have always been offended by sexiest behaviour and camp jokes but we're now in more of a position to speak up about it,' a caller said on the Nightlife show.

So what is and isn't okay to be saying within the confines of your job? 

Men calling their female colleagues 'love'. While this is not 'wrong', particularly if the woman herself uses the phrase back, it should be said with caution. 'It can be patronising and belittling when used in certain contexts, namely if there is animosity between the two colleagues,' Mr Bright said.

The word is also very personal in nature and can be seen as more than just a friendly term of endearment. While some people will enjoy being called 'love' you should read the room before engaging with the word.

What else is inappropriate in the workplace?

* Touching the shoulders of a person, male or female

* Hugging someone as you enter a meeting room

* Calling women 'Sheilas' - unless of course that is someone's name

* Jokes of a sexual nature

Calling someone 'mate'. This is a term used most often when someone can't remember a name but ultimately should be avoided in a corporate setting. 'I've heard it used as quite a sledge on the cricket field so I think it can be said in a harsh and friendly manner,' Mr Bright said.

Instead of saying 'mate', try to talk to the person until they either mention their name, put on a name badge or are called using their official moniker. 

Talking to the elderly in like they're a child and using 'darl'  While some may see it as a term of respect, older people find it condescending and see it as though they are being labelled like a child. It might make you seem more intelligent than they are by using the word 'darl' but it has the potential to hurt their feelings. Instead avoid all manner of 'darl' or 'sweetie' options and call them by their first name.

Referring to a group of mixed-gender people 'guys'. Using 'guys' as a collective word to describe both men and women can be deemed a sexist remark in formal settings, although more colloquial places like the classroom can be suitable. Presuming everyone is okay with being called a 'guy', 'man' or 'bloke' is disrespectful and this type of language should be traded for 'can you all'.

To be safe, avoid any term that singles out one gender. 

SOURCE  







Mould, overflowing bins and broken locks: Angry students post pictures of 'disgusting' toilets in a bid to shame their school into improving them

A Principal who couldn't give a stuff, it appears. But government employees can be like that

An Adelaide school has been forced to improve the conditions of 'dirty toilets' after its students launched a social media campaign to shame the school.

Students from Gawler and District College started a Facebook group, GDC Toilet Situation, last week and posted pictures of unclean toilets, mould, overflowing bins and broken locks.

One student claimed a teacher suggested them should use the toilets at 'Coles because they are more hygienic.' A second student wrote there is no soap provided in the toilets.

'I'm sick of the disgusting toilet facilities we're expected to use, the soap is rarely filled up, the mould is only growing and some toilet doors don't even lock, major health and safety issues,' the student said. 'Some cubicles don't have doors that lock or even doors at all.'

More than 240 students have joined the Facebook group since May 28.

A third student complained about the overflowing bins. 'Pretty much how this area of the girls downstairs bathroom looks everyday... sometimes worse,' a student said. 'Don't even know the last time I saw the bin empty'.

A fourth student said the toilet seat in girls bathroom was broken and it could hurt anyone.  'Can't go [to] toilet at all unless you want your butt cut up,' she said.

She said there is no soap dispenser in the toilet, but their bathroom looks much better than the boys toilet.

A school spokesperson said the school is aware of the conditions of the toilets and was working to improve them. 'As part of the school's $10m major upgrade there are two brand new toilet blocks being built,' the spokesperson told Seven News.

'We are working with students and staff to ensure our new and existing facilities receive the utmost respect by everyone who uses them. 'We're also looking at how other schools manage toilet breaks during lesson time and develop a strategy to minimise any opportunities to cause damage.'

The school has begun improving the conditions of the toilets following the social media backlash. 

'That’s awesome!! Glad to see that the voices are being heard and met with results!! Well done,' said a student. 'After a discussion with the principal today I can assure you all that our issues are being heard, and fixed,' a group admin wrote.

'Already the toilets look cleaner, and are stocked up. Our page has made, and will continue to make a positive impact on the school. They will have an even deeper clean on the pupil free day next Friday.'  

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 June 2019

The song sucks': An Indigenous rapper insults the national anthem as he explains it why nine State of Origin stars refused to sing Advance Australia Fair before series opener

An Aborigine makes a case that the words in the Australian national anthem do not apply to Aborigines.  There is some point in what he says but many others could say the same thing.  I, for instance, am not "young and free" (in the words of the anthem).  Old and decrepit would be more like it!  An anthem is not a history lesson.  It is just a few highlights of our history

And by deliberately alienating themselves from the rest of Australia, Aborigines certainly do themselves no favours.  People are a mirror and disrespect tends to get disrespect in return.  So if aborigines want respect -- which they often say they do --  disrespecting Australian traditions is exactly the wrong way to go about it


An Indigenous rapper has explained why Advance Australia Fair is offensive to Aboriginals in response to the boycott of the anthem by a string of State of Origin stars.

Adam Briggs, who performed on stage at Suncorp Stadium in Queensland ahead of the Game One on Wednesday, revealed why he thinks the national song 'sucks'.

'I want to help you understand what the Australian anthem sounds like when black fellas listen to it,' he said on a video posted by The Weekly before the game.

Briggs played through the song until he got to 'For we are young and free'.

'Now, since all children in Northern Territory detention are Aboriginal and we are the most incarcerated people on Earth, we don't feel particularly free,' Briggs said.

'And as for young, we've been here for 80,000 years but I guess we don't look a day over 60,000.'

Playing on until he got to 'we've gold and soil and wealth for toil' in our anthem.

'We don't see much of that wealth. Only one in 10 of us are financially secure,' he said.

He continued on until he reached the line that mentioned 'our land' which he said is exclusionary. 'You see that just reminds us that our land was our land before our home was girt by you lot,' he said.

'We'll toil with hearts and hands,' the anthem continued.

'See, we're still fighting for half a billion dollars in stolen wages so we did the toil part, but we're still waiting for the pay cheque - I guess its in the mail, he said referencing a class action launched in 2016.

Briggs then continued until he stopped at the line: 'We've boundless plains to share.'

'Hold up there, sharing? We can't even share our opinion about a song without the whole country freaking out so that's when it's played, some of us don't feel like standing up or singing along,' Briggs said.

'The song sucks,' he said finally.

The explanation comes as the anthem continues to polarise.

Drawing attention to one of the same lines Briggs did, Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek and Liberal MP Craig Kelly recently called for the line 'young and free' to be removed from the anthem.

Instead the pair proposed the line be changed to 'strong and free' to acknowledge Indigenous history.

Nine players, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, chose not to sing at the State of Origin Game One in protest of the anthem they believe to be offensive.

Blues trio Cody Walker, Josh Addo-Carr and Latrell Mitchell vowed to abstain from singing the national anthem, along with Maroons rival Will Chambers, ahead of the first clash on Wednesday evening.

Indigenous player Justin Hodges gave his opinion before the game and said he chose to sing but respected those that didn't.

'I've never really had a problem singing with it because I always thought about the guys that have put their life on the line for us in terms of of the soldiers and all those people,' Hodges said. 'That's why I sung it, for those guys who give us the freedom to play rugby league.' 

SOURCE  






No doubt Israel Folau was sacked by Qantas: Latham

Biffo seems to have the goods on this.  The Qantas chief is after all an outspoken homosexual

One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham has accused Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce and other corporate sponsors of Rugby Australia of forcing Israel Folau’s sacking in comments under parliamentary privilege this morning.

Mr Latham says that Qantas’s views on Mr Folau’s comments on homosexuals going to hell on a social media post resulted in Rugby Australia fearing lost sponsorship revenue and forcing Mr Folau’s departure.

He read from a witness statement by Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle from the Folau hearing which mentioned her concern at losing Qantas’s sponsorship because of Mr Folau’s comments.

Qantas provided a comment from Mr Joyce on the issue last month where he said: “We don’t sponsor something to get involved in controversy. That’s not part of the deal. We expect our partners to take the appropriate action. It’s their issue, they have to deal with it.”

Quoting Ms Castle this morning, Mr Latham said: “I calculated … at least $10 million of annual sponsorship revenue … was at significantly greater risk as a result of Mr Folau’s conduct.”

Mr Latham added: “The head of Rugby Australia is putting a commercial value on the religious freedom of Israel Folau. “That just shows the fix was in. Qantas knew Folau was going to get punted.

“Ms Castle was acting as the slave of [Alan] Joyce within her organisation. “She knew what he wanted without even a direct conversation with him.”

Mr Latham said: “75 years ago today young men from across the free world stormed the beaches of Normandy … to fight for the freedom of all mankind”.

“How in 2019 are so many Australians worried about the loss of religious freedom?” Mr Latham said. “How in 2019 do we look at Israel Folau and wonder how a football player and resident of NSW has lost his job?

“We’re fighting dictatorial corporations who purchase … control of sporting codes. “These big corporate chiefs preach diversity . . but they’re trying to impose uniformity.”

Mr Latham quoted Ms Castle’s written evidence which said days before Folau’s post Rugby Australia had commenced commercial negotiations with Qantas on further sponsorship.” She said corporate partners including Qantas had approached her at a meeting to “express their concerns”.

Mr Latham rose later and said “There’s no doubt Israel Folau was sacked by Qantas.”

He asked Labor members of the Legislative Council whether they wanted to support Qantas, or the worker in Israel Folau.

Mr Latham said it was outrageous Mr Folau had been sacked for comments he made well away from his workplace and it was not like he had made them in a post-match interview.

SOURCE  





Feminist fatwa a disgrace

Thank you, Meryl Streep, and no wonder countless men around the world are singing your praise. When speaking last week at an event to launch the new series of Big Little Lies, Streep made herself a target for the sisterhood by suggesting the label “toxic masculinity” unfairly disparaged men and boys.

“We have our good angles and we have our bad ones,” she said. “I think the labels are less helpful than what we’re trying to get to, which is a communication, direct, between human beings. We’re all on the boat together. We’ve got to make it work.”

And it’s not just Streep, as American feminist Camille Paglia makes the same point while arguing the politically correct label demonstrates a “peevish, grudging rancour against men” where “men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment”.

Paglia goes on to argue in Free Women, Free Men: “Feminist theory has been grotesquely unfair to men in refusing to acknowledge the enormous care that most men have provided to women and children.”

Australia’s Bettina Arndt in her book #MenToo also rails against what she describes as the unfair “demonisation of men” by radical feminists convinced that all men are inherently misogynist and ­violent towards women.

As a child I had to stand by helplessly watching my mother being physically assaulted by a cruel and violent husband, so I’m the first to admit that violence against women is totally unacceptable and an issue that must be ­addressed.

There is no worse crime than violating a woman, and any man involved is guilty of a heinous and unforgivable sin. At the same time, man-shaming is unfair and counterproductive as it falls into the politically correct trap of portraying all men as a threat and all women as victims.

Such is the power of the PC movement and the pressure to conform to cultural-left groupthink that even men are joining the sisterhood in its fatwa against masculinity and manhood.

In response to the appalling and distressing death of Courtney Herron in Melbourne, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius appeared to suggest all men were guilty, saying: “Every time I hear about a woman being attacked — for me as a man — it gives me some pause for reflection about what it is in our community that makes men think it’s OK to attack women.” And: “The key point is (that) this is men’s behaviour, it’s not about women’s behaviour.”

Suggesting collective male responsibility for a crime allegedly carried out by one deranged individual not only lacks reason, it is also symptomatic of how those in positions of authority now virtue-signal to gain acceptance.

Even though there are areas in major cities men would avoid because of fears about safety, especially if isolated and at night, Cornelius goes on to say: “Women and men are absolutely entitled (to) and should feel safe to go about their normal day-to-day activities.” They are indeed entitled to, but aren’t the police obliged to remind the public of real-world risks?

And although it is true that domestic violence mostly affects women it is also true, as detailed by Arndt and acknowledged by the 2016 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, that men too can be victims.

Instead of stereotyping men as dangerous and painting society as misogynist, it is far better to accept that women and men are uniquely different and that it is wrong to stigmatise ­either.

As Paglia argues, “freedom in the gender realm means the freedom of each sex to define its history and destiny without blame or harassment. If women seek freedom, they must let men be free.”

A good place to start would be robust scrutiny of school programs such as Respectful Relationships being implemented across Australia that teach children gender and sexuality are social constructs and that masculinity is inherently violent.

SOURCE  






Students at one of Australia's top universities call to pull down a statue of a renowned Australian explorer because they claim he was a 'known racist'

This is just a pathetic aping of the American extreme Left.  By modern definitions, EVERYBODY in the distant past was racist

Students at a top Australian University are fighting to have a statue of a renowned explorer removed as they claim he was a 'known racist'.

The students say they are trying to 'decolonise' the University of Sydney and have launched a campaign to pull down the 2.4m marble statue of Australian explorer William Wentworth.

Himath Siriniwasa and Georgia Mantle claim the campaign is a 'process of historical rediscovery'. 'We seek to decolonise at large, and platform the colonialism Wentworth represented,' they wrote in student newspaper Honi Soit. 'The immediate aims are symbolic – but there is power in symbolism.'

The 'Wentworth Must Fall' campaign also calls for the Wentworth building to be renamed after an Indigenous Warrior.

However, the campaign has been met with backlash by historians who have said that removing the statue would be 'whitewashing history'.

'Rewriting history is ignorance, if you try to whitewash out history how do you correct it?' Wentworth’s great-great-great-grandson Stephen Wentworth told The Daily Telegraph.

'It could be said, that if he hadn’t crossed the mountains when they did, the colony would have been abandoned and Australia would not be the country that it is today,' he said.  He said Mr Wentworth had done a lot for Australia.

Historian Geoffrey Blainey told the Daily Telegraph Mr Wentworth was one of the main founders of the university and was one of the crucial promoters of civil liberties in 19th century Australia.

'There is a chance of only one in 100 million that any of these Sydney University students will do as much as Wentworth did for Australia.'  

SOURCE  






Amusing statue removed

A blunder but at least it gave a few people a laugh



An unfortunately posed statue of a saint which had to be removed from a Catholic boys' school has been replaced with a park bench and sculptures of animals.

The statue at Blackfriars Priory School in Adelaide's inner northern suburbs was unveiled in November 2017 and almost immediately became the subject of ridicule.

St Martin de Porres was depicted with his hand wrapped around a loaf of bread which from some angles appeared to emerge at groin-level from his robes.

A boy in the sculpture stood beside St Martin with this arm outstretched and hand under the bread as he looked up into the 17th Century Peruvian friar's face.

Now where the suggestive statue once stood there is a park bench and a cluster of fibreglass animals including a wombat, kookaburra, koala and labrador.

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 June 2019

Facts vs. fearmongering in Australia

Forget GetUp, It’s Corporate Climate Bullies We Should Fear

If there was a gold medal for corporate climate change hypocrisy, the American company Ben & Jerry’s Holdings Inc. would be hard to beat.

Ben & Jerry’s is a wholly owned subsidiary of the giant foreign multinational corporation Unilever, and during the recent Federal election they ran a marketing campaign: “Let’s make sure Climate is the #1 election issue in Australia”.

Their advertising campaign was full of the typical climate lies and deceptions, with this foreign multinational effectively calling for Australians to vote for Labor and The Greens.


However, the first thing that anyone that really wants to ‘vote for the climate’ should do is to stop buying Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

Firstly, dairy cows are one of Australia’s largest single sources of Co2 emissions. In fact, Australia’s herd of dairy cows (nine million tonnes) emit more Co2 than the Liddell coal-fired power station (around 7.5 million tonnes) does.

Therefore, you are part of the climate cult that believes we can stop bad weather, it should be just as important to you that dairy products (including ice-cream) come off the menu, as it is to close down coal-fired power stations.

Secondly, the manufacturing, distribution and retailing of ice-cream products are highly energy intensive, especially since frozen Ben & Jerry’s ice cream must be kept at temperatures of -10°F (-23°C) throughout the distribution chain.

Thirdly, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is manufactured in the USA and it has to be shipped in special refrigerated transport all the way to Australia (thank you fossil fuels).

Advertising gurus at foreign multinational corporations like Ben & Jerry’s are playing with fire.

With their deceptive, misleading and breathtakingly hypocritical advertising campaign, they are holding hands with anti-capitalists that would seek to destroy them at first opportunity.

They are effectively feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last.

But in the meantime, what a better way for the sanctimonious to virtue signal on the climate (and those opposed to hypocrisy and foreign interference in Australian election campaigns) – give up buying imported foreign-made Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream.

SOURCE  







Shouted down by the crusading voice of division

Are we becoming a country divided by race? In the lead-up to tonight’s State of Origin game in Brisbane, some indigenous rugby league players have said they will not sing the Australian national anthem. That is their right in a free country. But their actions might liberate some non-indigenous people to boycott the recently invented “welcome to country” routines that precede so many events these days, from board meetings to school assemblies. Respect is a two-way street.

The racially charged actions of a few league players also will be noticed by Australians curious about the increasingly zealous push for an indigenous Voice to Parliament. It is dividing Australians into two classes instead of unifying us a nation. It confers a special class of governance privileges on a small group of Australians. Whereas the Senate is a house of review for the interests of all, the voice is a house of review for one class of people only.

Worse, it divides Australians on racial grounds. The criterion for these special governance privileges depends on the colour of a person’s skin. To repeat my favourite quote from US Chief Justice John Roberts, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. Advocates of the voice want to entrench permanent discrimination on the basis of race in our Constitution. They have no answer to that fundamentally retrograde step.

The forces behind a voice ignore two big lessons from the 2019 election. First, Scott Morrison’s quiet Australians see through bad policies. Second, inner-city elites and corporate virtue-signallers who try to ram bad ideas through the Australian public by pretending those ideas are inevitable or morally irresistible will fail. The noisier activists become, the more sceptical quiet Australians will become of them and their cause.

The voice is growing into a crusade, its moralising language thrusting us forward to the promise of “a better future”. The proposal, relying on emotion, not empirical analysis, is becoming a textbook case of good intentions that will be brought asunder by dreadful outcomes. Proponents will not be able to plead unintended consequences because many are foreseeable right now.

It would be bad enough if the voice were temporary, designed to last only until the gap in living standards was addressed, or if it could be amended, repaired or replaced if it did not work as intended or if it became unnecessary. But constitutional entrenchment means that for all intents and purposes it cannot easily be changed or replaced. Racially entrenched discrimination will become a permanent feature of Australian life because social justice activists will portray any attempt to reform the voice as the manifestation of evil.

That we have already tried an experimental voice, and it was a dreadful failure, won’t be forgotten by quiet Australians. Who can forget the Australian and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the rorting, dysfunction and chaos? The voice could be worse because it will be legally entrenched; ATSIC on constitutional steroids.

While we don’t yet have the foggiest idea of the proposed powers of the voice, voters are right to be sceptical. The voice will clog up the arteries of our system of government because legislation will have to go through three bodies, not two. Though proponents say there will be no veto power over legislation, the likelihood is a de facto veto power because no government will be brave enough to say no to the voice. What recourse then will voters have to fix this dysfunction? It is hard enough to get major reforms through the House of Representatives and the Senate — adding the voice is a recipe for paralysis.

An elected body based on race necessarily puts a premium on Aboriginality. Fraught questions then emerge about who is entitled to vote and who is entitled to be elected to the new race-based body. As more indigenous Australians intermarry and integrate, will tiny percentages of indigenous heritage suffice? The great risk is we end up, in effect, with an indigenous House of Lords that confers power and privilege on some Australians, and it becomes ever more unrepresentative and privileged over time.

Australians will likely see through a proposal that creates two classes of people. A bad idea is a bad idea no matter how warm and welcoming it appears at first glance. And those quiet Australians who re-elected the Coalition are a sobering reminder not to mistake noise for numbers.

Last week, the noise came from a small group of Australia’s leading corporate virtue-signallers, led by the likes of BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Qantas, Lend Lease and IAG, which published full-page ads in national newspapers proclaiming in huge type, “We support the Uluru Statement from the Heart”.

The Uluru Statement asserts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander co-sovereignty with the Crown over Australia and demands a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution, as well as a Makarrata Commission to supervise agreement-making between governments and First Nations. It is a big call to offer an unqualified, unambiguous expression of support for Aboriginal co-sovereignty, a constitutionally entrenched voice and a Makarrata Commission.

It is also reckless given that none of the signatories to the ad has the slightest idea about issues such as the powers of the voice, its composition, term, size, method of election or appointment, eligibility for membership or voting, funding or termination.

To be sure, the advertisement includes some weasel words in fine print about the need to develop specific proposals, but the headline makes it clear that the signatories are on board for whatever pops out at the end. Australians who own shares will understand that these companies are spending shareholders’ mon­ey to sign them up to whatever pig in a poke emerges from the process. These boards have made it near impos­sible for the company to object in future, as the proposals are more carefully scrutinised for intended and unintended consequences.

What if the final proposal is a disaster for resource companies such as BHP or Rio or an oil and gas company such as Woodside?

What if the voice has even a de facto veto power over new exploration or production or over legislation governing exploration or production? How can these companies give such a level of support to this undeveloped, unknown mirage? Committing this level of support to an unknown model, no matter what its implications for shareholders, looks potentially negligent or in breach of fiduciary duty, or both. And all this from companies conspicuously silent about the disastrous proposal to strip rebates of franking credits from many of their pensioner shareholders.

With its new-found vigilance on governance, one can only hope the Australian Securities & Investments Commision will investigate board processes of these companies to see what due diligence they did, and how they complied with their duties, in deciding to give unqualified support to an unknown body that may decimate shareholder value.

Thank god the final say on the proposal for a race-based body in parliament will rest with Morrison’s quiet Australians going into a little booth and casting their secret ballot. The activists can’t reach them there.

SOURCE  






Labor faces key test in religious discrimination bill

The introduction of a religious discrimination bill will be a precedent-setting moment for the Australian parliament and is an early priority for the Morrison government, posing a test for the Coalition and a moment of truth for Labor.

The bill, an election pledge from Scott Morrison, follows the Prime Minister’s commitment last December — this involved an act to make religious discrimination unlawful, to create a new statutory position of freedom of religion commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission, and to require the AHRC to emphasise the importance of religious freedom. These are historic steps. They address a significant defect in our law — the failure to prevent discrimination against religion in the way there are laws to prevent racial and sexual discrimination.

The bill will be introduced by Attorney-General Christian Porter in the opening sitting weeks of the new parliament.

It is designed to implement the central recommendation of the Ruddock review into religious freedom. The government has a mandate for the law. Porter said it was an issue during the election campaign and the pledge is “obviously one we’re going to fulfil”.

The Labor Party has made no commitment to a religious discrimination law. During the same-sex marriage debate it refused to concede any problem, inhibition or discrimination against people holding religious views. It opposed every effort to protect religious freedom during that debate. In recent years its public rhetoric has been overwhelmingly directed towards protecting LGBTI rights and not religious rights.

The many statements from Christian and Catholic leaders highlight their lack of trust in Labor’s stance on religious freedom. Asked about Labor’s position on the proposed law, legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said: “Labor will examine any legislation the government puts forward. We will fully consult with people of faith — as we always have done on any issue concerning religion — through this process.” On May 27, appearing on the ABC’s Q&A program, Dreyfus said: “The Ruddock review concluded that religious freedom in Australia is not in imminent peril. Now, I agree. I don’t think that there is any present great risk to religious freedom.”

The new law will be seen as testimony to Morrison’s politics, beliefs and election victory. Labor in recent years has displayed not the slightest interest in any such religious protection law. Will the party now change its mind? This is going to be a difficult internal debate for Labor, given the extent to which progressive opinion in recent years has been hostile to or uninterested in fresh measures to bolster religious rights.

This is a benchmark issue for Labor — it must stand its ground or shift. It is a test of Labor values on an issue basic to people of faith and to multicultural communities. Recent remarks from a line of ALP frontbenchers — mainly from western Sydney, where they suffered anti-Labor swings — assert that Labor must now decisively demonstrate to people of faith that the party is their friend.

Former Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said it had often been raised with him “that people of faith no longer feel that progressive politics cares about them”, adding that Labor needs “to tackle this urgently”. Any Labor decision to oppose the law or foment resistance or seek amendments such as eliminating the new post of religious commissioner would confirm the party’s inability to change despite the election warnings. In this sense the new law is an opportunity — the chance for Labor to prove it is rethinking.

Being realistic, Labor is going to be wedged. Have no doubt about the pressure Labor will face from the progressives. The Greens issued a media statement last week repudiating “radical” action to bolster religious rights as a “barefaced attempt to write a blank cheque” to discriminate against LGBTI people. The Greens called on Labor “to stand with us against expanding discrimination under the guise of religious freedom”.

Much depends on the nature of the law. The Morrison-Porter six-page joint statement from December last year gave a firm signal about its direction. This is a moderate approach founded in orthodoxy. It will not satisfy the best hopes of the conservative wing of the Liberal Party.

It does not, as Porter made clear last week, address the Israel Folau issue, with the government interfering in terms of employment contracts. With his election victory Morrison will have the authority to carry the day within the Coalition parties and uphold his strategy of governing “from the middle”.

In their December statement, Morrison and Porter flagged the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” They quoted the Ruddock review, saying: “It is not a protection for religions. It is a protection, a human right for the religious, the non-­religious and those who subscribe to other systems of beliefs.”

They identified two issues. First, to proceed in an orthodox way and treat religion as an attribute to be protected — as sexual orientation, age and race are currently protected — by putting into the law a range of circumstances where it would be unlawful to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Second, they said freedom of religion is “one right among many others and so, in practice, this right coexists with a broad suite of other human rights”. The crucial point, however, is that “freedom of religion is not subordinate or secondary to other rights”. Much progressive opinion rejects this position.

From this conclusion flows the need to confront the inferior place religious protection occupies in the law and, to uphold this principle, there must be “enhanced” legal protection for religious freedom by giving it “more weight in our community than it currently receives”. While the previous parliament was partly dominated by the struggle over same-sex marriage and the eventual passage of the law, the coming parliament will focus on the related need to bolster legal and administrative processes for religious freedom. This will extend over two stages.

Porter’s 2019 religious discrimination bill will be followed by a 2020 bill resulting from the government’s reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission for advice on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure students cannot be locked out of school on the basis of sexual orientation, while also reconciling this with ­retaining the right of religious schools to pursue the ethos of their faith.

This follows pledges both sides made during the Wentworth by-election. Yet the Morrison government and the Shorten Labor Party were deadlocked on this question at the end of last year. Their inability to find a legislative solution between competing rights revealed the chasm separating the parties on their values and how to balance competing rights. This was despite their professed adherence to the same goals — religious freedom and the rights of LGBTI students and staff. This conflict overhung the election campaign. It was not raised explicitly — thankfully — but remains a ticking political time bomb. Ultimately, Morrison’s position will be simple and practical. He will say he wants bipartisanship. He will say, as he did last December, that our laws must reflect our values — that means while discrimination against students is unacceptable, religious educational institutions must be able to “teach and maintain rules consistent with their faith”.

The schools cannot accept a situation where a teacher becomes an activist and, relying on anti-discrimination law, openly undermines the faith of the institution. This means, of course, accepting the right of religious schools to teach a view of marriage now different to the law of the land, and accepting their right to employ staff to further their mission.

Labor has marched a long way down the road of becoming a progressive party on cultural issues. Turning around will not be easy. But the religious discrimination act will constitute the first such test on the cultural front. It is true that religion is in decline — but at more than 50 per cent, there are more religious believers in the nation today than people casting a primary vote for the Labor Party.

SOURCE  






'Key growth area': Sydney to get a new selective school

Leftists hate selective schools.  It conflicts with their insane belief that all men are equal.  But selective schools do ensure that the kids in them get full access to the available educational materials and opportunities, something that is often less so in chaotic mainstream schools

A new selective school will be built in south-western Sydney to help meet "strong demand", with fewer than 30 per cent of applicants currently getting a place at NSW's academically selective high schools.

The new school is to cater to families in the "key growth area", Premier Gladys Berejiklian said.

"We know many students are travelling long distances to attend selective schools," Ms Berejiklian said.

"There is strong demand for selective schools, with around 15,000 applications for only 4200 places. This new school will provide another convenient local option for these students and their families."

There will be 49 fully and partially selective schools in NSW once the new school is built, the highest number in any Australian state or territory.

The announcement of the new school comes as the government begins overhauling the selective school entry test to make it less coachable and more equitable for students from lower socioeducational backgrounds and other groups that are under-represented.

The latest entry test results show minimum entry scores are at their highest for most selective schools, meaning that it is harder than ever to get into these schools.

Jae Jung, a senior lecturer in the University of NSW's school of education and a lead researcher of gifted education, welcomed the announcement.

"It's great that the government is promoting selective schooling in a comparatively disadvantaged area,'' Dr Jung said. ''The message is that we're going to look after gifted students across all socioeconomic backgrounds, who may not have the opportunities that other students may have.''

However, president of the NSW Teachers' Federation Maurie Mulheron said opening a new selective school is "a disgraceful decision".

"Selective schools have had an adverse impact on secondary schools wherever they exist,'' he said. ''They impact enrolments, social integration and broader curriculum options in many schools.

"For the government to announce this with no evidence on the benefit of selective schools and in the face of how negative these old-fashioned institutions are is incredible."

Labor's education spokesman Jihad Dib also said a new selective school "is not the way to go".

"It reinforces a two-tiered education system and ultimately, it's an exclusive school, so kids living in that suburb might not be able to go to that school," Mr Dib said.

"I want parents to be confident that their children will receive the best education at their local school."

NSW Education Minister Sarah Mitchell's predecessor Rob Stokes, was also critical of selective schools and told the The Sydney Morning Herald's Schools Summit in February that "segregating schools according to labels has created more of a problem that we have to deal with rather than resolving the fundamental problem".

The NSW government has also announced two new initiatives aimed at lifting academic performance across all public schools.

The high-potential and gifted program will promote personalised learning for students who show talent in particular areas and "give them a chance to learn above their age".

The ''bump it up'' program will be expanded to all government schools and will give each school tailored targets for improving literacy, numeracy, wellbeing, equity and attendance.

The program is in 137 schools and more than one-quarter of those have achieved their targets in the first year.

Ms Mitchell said the two state-wide programs will support all students in reaching their potential.

"NSW is the largest provider of public education in Australia, and we are committed to [ensuring] that every student, from Gunnedah to Gordon, has access to a top-quality education," she said.

Dr Jung said having a high number of selective schools as well as initiatives in comprehensive schools will mean all gifted students are able to perform to the best of their abilities.

"I applaud these initiatives,'' Dr Jung said. ''It's great that all these options are being provided for gifted students, so you've got them catered to in selective school settings and you've also got opportunities for gifted students to be catered to in comprehensive schools.''

SOURCE  

SOURCE  






Australian brewery in hot water over "homophobic" Facebook post - before company issues grovelling apology

An Australian brewery has been forced to apologise after sparking fury over an 'incredibly offensive' Facebook post.

Southern Bay Brewery, in Victoria, posted the 'beer meme' on Monday night, but within an hour they were forced to remove it.

The post read: 'Non-alcoholic beer - you mean gay lemonade?'

Social media users flooded the Facebook page, calling the brewery a 'disgrace' for the homophobic image.

The company then issued a grovelling apology, where they begged for forgiveness.

'This was posted without any thought whatsoever and no offence was intended. I apologise unreservedly,' the post read.

SOURCE 

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






5 June 2019

Realism not allowed in terrorism drill

NSW Police has apologised for using headscarves on two officers playing the part of terrorists during a training exercise after it was found it racially vilified Palestinians and Arabs.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in May said it was unreasonable and unnecessary to wear the scarves during the drill at Sydney's Central station in October 2017.

The exercise involved about 200 people - including police and other emergency services - to test the co-ordination and response to a terrorist or high-risk incident.

The drill included two "active armed offenders" using what looked like semi-automatic firearms holding "hostages" and wounding some with knives.

The tribunal said balaclavas or masks could have been used on the officers acting as the perpetrators instead of clothing identified with particular cultural communities in Australia.

"We find that NSW Police Force, by allowing the two police officers portraying the armed offenders to wear keffiyehs associated with Palestinian and Arabic people, racially vilified Palestinians and Arabs," the tribunal found.

The tribunal said that using the headscarves in the drill had the "capacity" to incite hate or serious contempt of Palestinians or Arabs but acknowledged NSW Police didn't intend to vilify any racial group.

NSW Police on Tuesday issued a statement, as ordered by the tribunal, acknowledging the decision.

"NSW Police Force apologises for the use of these headscarves in the exercise," it said.

SOURCE  






Millennials shun home ownership

To their long-term detriment

“Failure to launch” is a term used to describe offspring who can’t leave the family home and go on to create their own. Less than half of our millennials (49 per cent) say they want to own a home, and only 39 per cent want to have children and start families — compared with 45 per cent of Gen Zs.

Only 52 per cent have a desire to earn a high salary and strive for financial security, meaning almost half of all millennials are happy to remain poor. Their No 1 desire, though, is to travel the world.

When it comes to getting ahead, millennials have no interest but, regardless, they don’t think the responsibility for this lies with them anyway. Instead, “government is clearly considered by millennials as having the most responsibility for improving social mobility”, defined as achieving their full potential and moving into “higher income or social status groups”.

Government, though, has let millennials down in a bad way. Even though millennials have embraced socialism and prefer it to capitalism, they now see government is “an unfulfilled promise”. Only 19 per cent of millennials see political leaders as having a positive impact, and 45 per cent say they have absolutely no trust in these leaders at all. Sixty-three per cent say politicians have no ambition beyond retaining or increasing power, and only one in four say improving social mobility is a high priority for government leaders.

Millennials have a long list of concerns but struggle to see the obvious solutions. Even though they don’t want higher incomes, 43 per cent are dissatisfied with their pay. Thirty-five per cent say they don’t have enough opportunities to advance and there are so many other things to worry about, such as climate change, which is their No 1 concern. They worry about all of their problems mainly on social media, which sucks up their time and prevents them from taking practical actions to improve their situation.

Social media, too, makes millennials unhappy. Sixty-four per cent said they would be physically healthier if they reduced their time tweeting, Facebooking and Instagramming.

“Those who have a negative opinion of their use of digital devices and social media are more likely to say they would be healthier and happier if they stopped. They are twice as likely as others to want to stop using social media and less likely to say this would make them anxious. Yet they don’t stop, even when 81 per cent of them believe their use does more harm than good.”

Despite the fact four in 10 millennials wish they could stop using social media completely, 44 per cent said not being able to check it for a day or two “would make them anxious”.

In terms of the next 12 months, positive economic sentiment among millennials is at its lowest in the six years Deloitte has been recording it.

Only 26 per cent expect the economic conditions to change in the coming year and slightly more than half are convinced their personal financial situation will worsen or stay the same.

But more than any time in recent memory, it will be easier to enter the property market in Australia. Interest rates are low and may go lower, banks have loosened lending criteria, house prices have fallen and the Morrison government is going to introduce a scheme to help first-home buyers purchase with a 5 per cent deposit.

On top of this, there are various state schemes to assist with stamp duty exemptions or reductions and first-home buyer grants.

We are a nation obsessed by property, but it is a fact that home ownership remains the foundation stone of personal financial security. Buying a home is never easy, but the longer it is delayed the harder it becomes.

Take heart, millennials, and do your utmost to get into the market now, and don’t be too proud to start at the bottom. We have all had to do it.

Sheer willpower will not prevent the millennials from ageing, and when one is elderly, the security, stability and comfort a home provides cannot be over-estimated.

SOURCE  






Inside the Opal Tower debacle

Despite all the duck-shoving and foot shuffling, those responsibe are clearly the builders and those who supervised them.  They should be made jointly and severally responsible for full redress

A brand new residential tower cracks, sending residents running and panicking high-rise dwellers everywhere. How can this happen in Australia?

Incredibly, although the daily headlines have ceased, nearly half of the tower’s apartments are still not fit for reoccupation and hundreds of ­people remain in temporary digs. After initially being given the all-clear to return just after midnight on Christmas Eve, residents were evacuated again days later when the full extent of the ­damage was discovered. They were told they’d be out for 10 days. That was on December 27, and the homecoming timeline remains hazy. Some, like Bryan Tan, a 32-year-old owner-occupier living out of a serviced apartment in Chatswood with his wife and his mother, have now been off-site longer than they spent in their brand new home.

Stabilisation work began almost immediately back in December, with the owner’s corporation engaging independent engineering firm Cardno as overseer. No fewer than 900 solid steel girders, each a foot wide and weighing 300kg, were installed on the first 10 floors and in the basement. On Feb­ruary 19, three engineering experts engaged by the NSW Department of ­Planning wound up an ­eight-week investigation, delivering a 36-page report that asserted the building was “overall structurally sound”. It wasn’t about to ­collapse in a pile of dust and rubble. And yet…

That report contained disturbing revelations in light of the high-density development boom currently sweeping through the nation’s capital cities. It found that a number of design and construction issues, including “non-compliance with national codes and standards”, had caused major damage to the tower. Some precast walls were constructed of “lower-strength concrete”, with “under-designed” horizontal support beams, called hob beams, prone to bursting under extreme pressure. Changes made after the initial design meant some joints between the hob beams and internal panels had been only partially grouted, significantly raising the levels of stress in the building. There were photos, too: mint-green plaster crumbling off walls, broken and exposed concrete, cracked floor slabs and reinforcement bars bowing under pressure.

The findings sent a jolt through NSW’s $25 billion construction sector and beyond. How were these defects possible? This was an expensive apartment complex, with prices starting at $800,000 and ranging up to $2.5 million for the dual-level penthouses. If buyers couldn’t trust developments at the top end of the market, what could they trust? Urban consolidation is changing our ­cityscapes at breakneck speed; Opal Tower’s ­problems have given plenty of people the jitters.

Urban Taskforce chief executive Chris Johnson is a former government architect and former executive director at the NSW Planning Department who has been tracking the Opal Tower saga closely. He finds it “staggering” that cracks could appear in a four-month-old building that would have had to pass checks by the Sydney Olympic Park Authority and the NSW Department of ­Planning, as well as obtain sign-off from a ­structural engineer and a private certifier. The much-criticised practice of private certification — a system rolled out nationwide since the 1990s to hand private, developer-appointed ­contractors an authority that was once the domain of government or council inspectors — has come under fire again in light of Opal Tower’s woes. Johnson, however, considers Opal’s cracking a one-off that no degree of oversight could have caught. “We are a first-world country and our systems are very tight, the checks and balances vigorous,” he says. “Something weird has happened with Opal.”

People who’d poured their life’s savings into the building didn’t find it funny. Eskander tells me one body corporate member had an apartment up for sale for $800,000 prior to Christmas Eve. “Afterwards, someone made an offer of $400,000,” he says. “Then, as the saga unfolded, they backed out altogether.” Andrew Neverly, 59, bought an apartment off the plan with his wife five years ago for $840,000. “I don’t think it’s worth anything now,” he told 60 Minutes. “We’re up shit creek.” Eskander says NSW Fair Trading told tenants they had legal grounds to break their leases as the building was “uninhabitable”. “If you’re an owner-investor you’ve lost your tenant, and when you’ve lost that rent how are you going to pay your mortgage?” he says. “Your whole life starts to unravel and it’s very hard to get another [tenant] in. Even the ones that are in there are renegotiating their leases, saying ‘I’ll pay 40 per cent, take it or leave it’.”

Those hollering for a scapegoat would have been disappointed with the government-commissioned investigative team’s report, which stopped short of pinning blame on anyone. Not Icon, a ­reputable company backed by multibillion-dollar Japanese firm Kajima Corporation. (Icon’s managing director Julian Doyle had addressed reporters gathered in the tower’s forecourt after the second evacuation and told them: “No, we didn’t make a mistake. No, this wasn’t a rush job.”)

Not the design and construction engineers WSP, whose ­Australian CEO Guy Templeton had stood next to Doyle and insisted there was never any risk of the building collapsing.

Not any of the subcontractors involved, nor McKenzie Group, the private certifiers who had final sign-off. And not Opal’s Australian-based developer Ecove, which has four other towers in the Olympic precinct, including the 38-storey ­Boomerang Tower under construction a block away. Ecove director Bassam Aflak has called the cracking “a rare case of ­structural defect” and continues to maintain the building is of “high quality”. (Ecove and Icon declined to comment for this story.)

Nevertheless, the debacle has led to a wave of recriminations and further dented public confidence in Australia’s construction industry. According to last year’s benchmark Shergold Weir Report, that faith was already much shaken — and with good reason. The damning report, by Western Sydney University chancellor Professor Peter Shergold and lawyer Bronwyn Weir, outlines ­“significant and concerning” problems with compliance and enforcement systems across Australia. “Those involved in high-rise construction have been left largely to their own devices,” the report states. A 2012 study by researchers from UNSW’s City Futures Research Centre surveyed more than 1000 NSW strata owners and found 72 per cent (85 per cent in buildings built since 2000) knew of at least one significant defect in their complex, with leaks and lack of fire safety most common.

Dramatic, alarming and impossible to ignore, the cracking in Opal Tower, along with recent ­disasters such as the cladding-fuelled fires in ­Melbourne’s Lacrosse and Neo200 apartment buildings, have highlighted a systemic problem. “Successive parliaments throughout the country have focused more on procurement of housing stock than on how it’s been constructed and the safety of people within it,” says Stephen Goddard, strata solicitor and spokesman for advocacy group Owners Corporation Network of Australia. Problems in the industry, he says, can be traced back to the deregulation of the late 1990s. “For the last 20 years you’ve had more consumer protection purchasing a fridge than a million-dollar apartment. What sort of stupid breed of people are we, that we could live like this? That it takes something like Opal for people to suddenly notice?”

The NSW Government finally addressed the Shergold Weir recommendations in February by announcing a regulatory overhaul of the state’s construction sector, starting with the appointment of a building commissioner. Under the shake-up, every party in the construction chain, from the design drafts to the final build, will be required to be registered and qualified, and builders will not be allowed to make changes during the construction process without submitting a revised plan to the building commissioner for approval. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle in terms of private certification, but the government has vowed to crack down on “dodgy certifiers”.

Laws will be clarified to remove any doubt that building practitioners owe a duty of care to homeowners. “It’s critical that good ­public policy be ­created around this issue,” ­Goddard says. “The NSW Government has to ­follow through on its commitment and the other states need to follow suit or we’ll have more and more Opals. I would advocate in the strongest possible way that people not purchase off the plan until we have that ­statutory duty of care that allows owners to sue if there’s a breach.” Former planning department chief Chris Johnson agrees Opal’s troubles were the wake-up call the industry needed. “We don’t need to overreact and expect all these towers to collapse,” he says. “But I think all developers will now want to be conservative rather than radical in terms of processes. No doubt a few more checks and balances will come into play and that’s not a bad thing.”

SOURCE  






Wacky theories yet another turn-off for jaded voters

Jennifer Oriel

The federal election campaign was extraordinary in many aspects, but the emergence of conspiracy theory as mainstream politics was especially notable.

There were conspiracies about the Port Arthur massacre, 9/11, vaccinations, Muslims, conservatives and, the perennial target, Jews. The conspiracies were endorsed by candidates from across the political spectrum. Even former leaders of Australia’s major parties have contended that powerful conspirators plotted against them in secret. It is a political trend that should be corrected.

The dismal decade of federal politics broke the bond of trust between government and people. The media is viewed as more or less trustworthy to the degree that it is perceived as powerful in shaping election outcomes.

Former Labor leader Bill Shorten held sections of the media culpable for his side losing. At a caucus meeting, he said “powerful vested interests” had targeted Labor in the media. He said: “Neither of these challenges disappeared on election night. They’re still out there for us to face.”

Shortly after the Liberal partyroom voted against him, Malcolm Turnbull offered a similar view of events, saying: “There was a determined insurgency from a number of people both in the partyroom and backed by voices, powerful voices in the media really to, if not bring down the government, certainly bring down my prime ministership.”

ABC political editor Andrew Probyn alleged a media conspiracy drove Turnbull out of office. Gerard Henderson exposed the problem with the allegation: “The ABC has told The Australian the alleged comments by (Rupert) Murdoch to (Kerry) Stokes that Turnbull had to go, were relayed to the broadcaster by Turnbull. In short, it’s hearsay — in that Turnbull told Probyn what Stokes ­allegedly told Turnbull about what Murdoch allegedly said.”

It is convenient for politicians to hide behind fantastic conspiracies of corporate leviathans and media monsters out for their heads. In the case of Shorten and Turnbull, however, the unfavourable coverage came after the fact of their failure to lead in the ­national interest.

Turnbull was ousted after a series of serious policy missteps and political blunders. He did not create a convincing case for corporate tax cuts. He did not correct the Gonski education plan that many perceived as punitive to the Catholic sector on per capita funding terms. He overplayed his hand on environmental policy by ignoring backbench calls to decouple the national energy guarantee from the Paris target. He had no reply to the criticism that Australia’s economic health would be compromised by onerous environmental obligations to international institutions.

Most important, Turnbull failed to meet the standards he set for himself when he took office from Tony Abbott. He should hold himself to account.

Like Turnbull, Shorten ended his term as leader by taking pot shots at the media. It is easier to shift blame than face the reality of millions voting against your leadership, your party and your vision.

But Shorten was unpopular with voters, politically inept, a lacklustre policymaker and arrogant under attack.

He promoted a big-taxing, big-spending agenda. He refused to reveal the full cost for Labor’s environmental reforms. He was vicious in the face of dissent and smeared independent analyst Brian Fisher for trying to cost the ALP’s green agenda.

In addition, Labor failed to defend freedom of speech and religion. And Shorten stepped way over the mark in the lead-up to the election by offering the ABC more funding if the party won office. A politician aspiring to lead a democratic state cannot behave like an autocrat favouring state-controlled media and expect the free press to give him a free ride.

The pressure brought to bear on politicians is undeniable. It is perhaps understandable that following a shock defeat, they might attack the media for exposing their faults. But leaders ought to resist the casual erosion of studied reason by conspiratorial thought.

Conspiracy theory provides a sense of refuge in uncertain times. As noted by political scientists ­Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, lab experiments have found that “inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see non-existent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations”.

Academics Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt isolated five elements of conspiracy theory: a hypothesised pattern between people, objects or events; a belief that alleged conspirators act with intent; a belief there is a coalition or group behind the conspiracy; an element of threat such as harm or deception; and an element of secrecy that makes the theory difficult to disprove.

Research demonstrates that external shocks such as unemployment or natural disasters can lead people to think that powerful and secret coalitions are working against them. Of course, sometimes people truly are victimised by a mob. However, conspiracy theorists stand out for their consistent failure to establish a causal relationship between events or acknowledge when they get it wrong.

Conspiratorial beliefs can be harmless and transient, or very dangerous. In Africa, for example, a conspiracy theory about the CIA creating AIDS resulted in people refusing to seek treatment.

During some Ebola outbreaks, locals attacked medical facilities because they believed Western powers were spreading the virus deliberately. Health conspiracies once confined to disadvantaged populations are becoming evident in the West, where highly educated people are refusing potentially lifesaving treatments such as ­vaccinations.

Traditionally, outsiders and fringe-dwellers were considered especially vulnerable to conspiratorial thinking.

However, it is becoming more common. Research suggests it cuts across partisan lines and the Australian election campaign adds to the weight of evidence.

The media exposed candidates from the left-wing Greens and right-wing One Nation who believed in conspiracies about the Port Arthur massacre.

An investigation by news.com.au found that candidates running for senator Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party posted conspiracies about vaccinations and gay people. Posters of Liberal MP Julian Leeser were defaced with dollar signs, an allusion to the old conspiracy about an international cabal of Jewish financiers running the world. Other conservative candidates were likened to Nazis.

In enlightened societies, the revelation of truth creates the momentum for human progress. Conspiratorial thought frustrates the discovery of truth. As such, it must be resisted.

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 June, 2019

Living on the dole

Yesterday, in response to calls to raise Centrelink unemployment payments by $75 a week I wrote briefly:

In my youth I lived on the dole for a time.  It was then  £2/7/6 pw., if that notation means anything to anybody these days. Equal to $70.00 these days. I lived well and even saved money on it.  But I spent nothing on beer and cigarettes and I ate exclusively at home.  I could even afford an egg or two with my breakfast porridge.  Eggs, porridge and milk are very cheap to this day and form a very solid  foundation for a day's nourishment. And you can generally get day-old bread for a song. Good for toast. I don't think it is hard at all if one is not spoilt by uncompromising expectations

My comments that in my youth I lived on an unemployment dole of $70.00 pw evoked some incredulity. The current dole in Australia is $200 more than that. Why the difference?

For a start, I initially gave the actual dole I received: £2/7/6.  I then used the Reserve Bank's online calculator to translate £2/7/6 in 1960 to current dollars.  And $70 was the answer.  The Reserve bank calculator was based on official price indices so is a very scholarly figure which makes allowances for just about anything  that might distort the answers that it gives.  So I think we might have to live with the fact that I really did live on that little.

So how?  A revealing part of the answer is that before I went on the dole I had a job as a junior clerk -- in which I was paid around £6 pw So ALL young sprouts at that time had to live on very little by modern standards.  I was 17 in 1960.

Note the age factor.  As a junior I did not get the full dole.  The full dole was the equivalent of about $100 pw in terms of current purchasing power. But it's still not much, is it?

So how come?  I am afraid the explanation is pretty simple.  We ALL were a lot poorer 60 years ago.  The vast influence of international capitalism has been incredibly enriching for us all over time.  Back in 1960 we did have a lot of the things that people now do but we had to work a lot longer for them.  We did for instance have motor cars but only the well-off had new ones. My father never had a new car in his life.

Eating out was almost unknown but most people could afford a square meal at home at dinner time.  But it was a VERY square meal. Day after day, month after month and year after year it consisted of the same thing: Meat and 3 veg.  Australia has great herds of beef cattle so even working class people could often afford steak a lot of the time but when that failed there were always sausages or minced beef. And it was amazing what you could do with mince. The 3 veg. that came with the meat ALWAYS included some form of potatoes (usually boiled) plus a selection of boiled beans, cabbage and carrots. If you were a bit fancy you might get cauliflower. 

So EVERYBODY lived very economically in those days. They had to.  But there were also people who were really poor -- people who spent half their money on beer and cigarettes mainly.  They had to live the way I did: feeding themselves mainly off milk, porridge, eggs and day-old bread with plum jam on it.  Day-old bread was generally available for half price or less and made very good toast.  And you bought plum jam in big tins to keep the price down. Most houses had a substantial backyard where you could grow most of your fruit and vegetables if you were thrifty.

Food aside, unemployment was less than 2%.  You could get on a steam train and go interstate to visit family and friends at vacation time. There was always the family car for local trips. The newspapers had lots of interesting news, particularly from overseas. You could hear all the latest songs on the radio. The ladies could buy pretty dresses occasionally and even in small towns there were several bars where one could drink cold beer after a hard day's work.  What else is there?  So it wasn't too bad, all told. And there was a lot less obesity!

What I have writen above is a very abbreviated account  of working class life in Australia in 1960 but I think it still has the lesson in it that unemployed people today have lots of scope to cut back rather than raiding the taxpayer for money that will keep them in the style that they aspire to.

And there are some unwise people for whom no dole would ever be enough.  There is a story here of a "struggling" Sydney single mother who spends two thirds of her dole on rent.  And where does she live?  On Sydney's prestigious and very expensive North Shore.  And she feels hard done by! I lived in a small Queensland farming town when I was on the dole. For people with "expectations", that would not do at all at all, of course






Australia to avoid Trump aluminium tariffs

Being old friends with America pays off.  It usually does

US President Donald Trump says he will not be slapping tariffs on Australian aluminium and other products, despite reports his administration was contemplating the potentially volatile move.

The New York Times reported the tariff proposal was supported Robert Lighthizer, the US trade representative, and Peter Navarro, director of White House trade and manufacturing policy, but faced fierce opposition from US military officials and the State Department.

Australia was one of the few nations to avoid Trump's tariffs on aluminium and steel last year after then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull intensely lobbied the president.

"The Australian situation is interesting," Trump told reporters on Sunday before boarding Air Force One for trip to England.  "But the relationship is very strong. "No, we're doing a very, very special relationship with Australia."

The pro-tariff advisers reportedly urged the president to hit Australia in response to a surge of Australian aluminium in the American market over the past year.

The New York Times reported the US Defense and State Departments told Mr Trump the move would alienate a top ally and could come at significant cost to the US. Australia is a key military ally in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr Trump hit allies and foes last year with 25 per cent tariffs on imported steel and 10 per cent on aluminium, while avoiding Australia.

The president is also engaged in an escalating trade war with China and in recent days threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico if they did not stop illegal immigrants entering the US from their nation.

SOURCE  






Media led astray again by delusions of the Left

History tells us we should not expect journalists and media companies to learn any lessons from the election result but, clearly, they should.

Chris Kenny writes in The Australian:

"Personal embarrassment is the least of the worries that spring from political journalists and commentators misreading elections, events and issues; of more concern is what it says about the fissure in our nation and the disconnect between media and the public they serve.

As we have seen through their demeanour and social media truth bombs, leftist voices are bitter about Labor losing, doleful about their diminished prospects for government patronage, embarrassed about their pre-election boasting, humiliated by their political predictions and angry that News Corp newspapers, Sky News and Macquarie Radio dared to question Labor’s tax and climate overreach.

On top of this, they are apoplectic that many people among those very same media rivals read it correctly.

Woke commentators love to deride and slander The Spectator Australia editor Rowan Dean and 2GB host Alan Jones but they both put their judgment on the line before the election, emphatically calling a Coalition win. The leftist journalistic groupthinkers like to rail against this newspaper as an influential shaper of national debate but surely no one who had read all the news, analysis, polling and commentary in The Australian could have written off the Coalition.

Cry as they might at the ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Guardian about alleged anti-Labor bias in some commercial media, they cannot escape the brutal reality that their jaundice let their audiences down. The News Corp paper, Sky News and Macquarie Radio did not.

Newspoll favoured Labor marginally but any close analysis, taking into account state by state variations, showed an uncertain outcome. Hence, serious analysis focused on the tightness of the contest.

Sky News and Macquarie Radio were dominated by opinionated hosts, many arguing the Coalition could win. They did, however, routinely include a wide range of commentary from all political perspectives leading to a variety of predictions covering a range of potential outcomes. Again, the unpredictable closeness of the result was a predominant theme.

Yet the bulk of the Canberra press gallery got it wrong, making us question their field of expertise or whether basing them full-time in the rarefied atmosphere of the nation’s capital is wise.

Perhaps they spend too much time in nebulous dialogues with the spinmeisters — with Labor’s Young Turks eager to prematurely connect themselves to a glorious victory and the Liberals more disciplined about talking down expectations.

The failure of the Love Media is not a new phenomenon. Over the past decade this newspaper has often examined the false narratives of the political/media class and how consumers of so-called progressive media (including the ABC) would have been dumbfounded by Kevin Rudd’s demise, confounded by Julia Gillard’s travails and shocked that Tony Abbott could win government.

Just last year the gallery consensus was telling us Malcolm Turnbull was safe and there was no problem with the National Energy Guarantee.

Even after the leadership change they couldn’t work out why it had happened and took up Labor’s game of trying to embarrass a rationale out of Scott Morrison. The gallery groupthinkers said the Coalition had no prospect of holding government and would face a defeat so decisive it would force a rethink of conservative political structures.

Remember these people are paid — often handsomely — to be experts on national affairs. Yet here we are again. And don’t forget that in between times, from a distance, most of this cohort also were wrong on Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.

You might be tempted to think they report and comment based on their wishful thinking rather than reality. As usual, there are only two possible ways to explain the bipolar media interpretations of our politics.

You can have a low opinion of voters and hold delusional and conspiratorial views about media influence. In that case you might argue that News Corp, Sky News and Macquarie Radio somehow had a pernicious influence over the minds of voters, who were gullible enough to be convinced to vote against their own interests.

Or you might believe commercial media organisations, who rely on engagement with audiences for their very survival, might actually employ reporters and commentators who are plugged in to the aspirations, priorities and values of mainstream Australians, and are therefore able to more accurately report, analyse and speculate on political ebbs and flows."

SOURCE  






Kristina Keneally is trolled by Peter Dutton as she U-turns on 'embarrassing' comments about turning back asylum seekers

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton took to Twitter to troll

Leftists have no real principles or beliefs.  In their typically psychopathic way, they will say whatever suits them at the time

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has taken a stab at Kristina Keneally after she backtracked on her stance on asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat.

Mr Dutton slammed Labor's new home affairs spokeswoman because she claimed she supported turning asylum seeker boats around and offshore processing - despite labelling both as 'cruel' in the past.

'It’s not for me to offer KK advice, but it might be a good idea to get a security briefing from the Dept before she makes any more embarrassing statements or policy on the run,' he tweeted on Sunday about Senator Keneally.

The former NSW premier and said that offshore processing would remain a key element of Labor's asylum seeker policy.

'It ensures that we are clear: if you come here by boat you will not be settled in Australia,' Senator Keneally said.

The 50-year-old had previously expressed her dislike at boat turnbacks and even called for a royal commission into the treatment of asylum seekers in a series of Guardian Australia columns.

In a July 2015 opinion piece, Senator Keneally wrote that turning back the boats went against Australian values.

'Such action dishonours our past commitments to compassionate welcome and ­violates our international treaty obligations.'

In a February 2015 column, she put out a call for a royal commission into asylum seekers and offshore detention.

The comment followed after the Australian Human Rights Commission’s report into the offshore processing of children.

Then in a January 2017 column, Senator Keneally suggested then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull bring refugees to Australia over doubts of a US and Australia refugee swap deal.

At the time, the US agreed to take in asylum seekers intercepted at sea, and in turn, Australia would accept asylum seekers being held at the US naval base Guantamo Bay.

'There is a solution to [Malcolm] Turnbull’s Nauru and Manus Island problem that doesn’t depend on the whims of an idiotic and unpredictable US president: bring the refugees to Australia,' Senator Keneally wrote.

She has since defended her previous stance and said she is not opposed to boat turnbacks, The Australian reported.

'Let’s be clear, Labor fully supports boat turnbacks when safe to do so, regional resettlement and offshore processing. 'Boat turnbacks are an essential part to making sure people don’t drown at sea.'

Senator Keneally explained that her opinions on border control had changed since she made the comments.

She said she no longer believed a royal commission was necessary as all the children had been moved off Nauru and Manus Island. She also explained she supported the US and Australia refugee swap agreement and only had reservations about the deal.

'Boat turnbacks looked to be a cruel instrument,' she told The New Daily. 'But the conclusion of that article is actually that it is the right thing to do. 'One, it disrupts the people-smuggling trade and, two it prevents people dying at sea.'

Senator Keneally said she also backed a deal with New Zealand to resettle refugees. 'I would strongly urge the government to sit down as soon as possible with New Zealand — there is a solution that can be reached regarding the special visa class (to ban them from then entering Australia),' she told Daily Telegraph.

Senator Keneally's run-in comes moments after new Labor leader Anthony Albanese unveiled his shadow frontbench.

Mr Albanese has divided his shadow cabinet between 12 men and women, all of whom he says, were given the role based on merit. 

SOURCE  






In the war on waste, could the hanky be making a comeback?

As a long-term handkerchief user, I rather warm to this idea

In the year 2019, nothing puts one at risk of an audible "tut tut" quite like the public presentation of a single-use product.

Whether it's the rustle of a thin plastic bag on the street ("Do they buy their asparagus at some sort of back alley supermarket?"), to the guilty possession of a disposable coffee cup ("Why haven't they brought a keep cup? Or fashioned a mug out of their bare hands?"), there is a uniquely modern tinge of shame – call it Reucassel Regret – that now comes with failing to make a sustainable choice.

Jokes aside, moving towards reusable items is, of course, good for the planet. So, one can hardly begrudge the early flickers of a trend that is sure to make your gran quite happy: the resurgence of the handkerchief.

As cold and flu season hits, more people seem to be carrying hankies. Before you ask: No, I have no data to back this up. I haven't been papping snotty-nosed strangers in cafes, or polling people in doctors' waiting rooms. But, I am just saying that it seems like hankies are happening. They are around. People are using them.

And, those people are onto something. Used tissues are not recyclable, and facial tissues made out of recycled materials are pretty rare because it can be difficult to make them soft enough (unlike toilet paper and paper towel, of which there are recycled varieties a plenty). It has been estimated that Australians use 273,000 tonnes of tissue product (including toilet paper) each year.

    Hanky use is a natural progression from other 'cool' sustainability movements which require a committed laundry schedule.

While there are some more sustainable options out there – cheeky toilet paper subscription service Who Gives a Crap sells "forest-friendly" tissues made from bamboo, and (if you were feeling particularly diligent) you could also compost your old snotty nose napkins – the reality is that most tissues end up in landfill, where they will take an extremely long time to biodegrade because of the additives used to make them stronger. Hence, hankies.

But will this cool behaviour actually just leave you with a cold? With nine million cases of the cold and flu in Australia each year, you have to wonder if hankies are as hygienic as tissues.

Dr Kirsty Short, influenza virologist at the University of Queensland, says she is not aware of any research directly comparing the germiness of tissues and handkerchiefs, but warns the influenza virus can survive on both for 12 hours.

"Probably the most important thing is washing your hands after using a tissue or hanky to ensure you don't spread the virus to other surfaces," she says, adding that, once transferred onto a plastic surface, for example, the virus can survive for up to 48 hours.

Dr Harry Nespolon, president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, says he has not personally noticed any uptake in handkerchief use among his patients. He would generally recommend people with a cold or flu use tissues.

"There's no doubt tissues are the preferred way to go because you do dispose of them after you use them," he says. "But there's a question about disposing of them properly; just leaving them on a table or desk is not the right way to dispose of them, putting them in the bin is the right thing to do."

However, Dr Nespolon says the main issue for the spread of bugs is what happens after you blow your nose, adding there is no reason why rubbing a used hanky rather than a fresh tissue on the nose would prolong an infection.

To reduce the chance of giving your cold to someone else, Dr Nespolon recommends measures such as washing your hands after you've blown your nose (ideally with disinfectant), covering your mouth when you cough, staying away from work when you're sick, and not keeping used tissues or hankies in a pocket with other items, like your mobile phone.

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 June, 2019

'It's not a new start - it's degrading': Calls to raise Centrelink unemployment payments by $75 a week as jobseekers say they can't find work - but some don't agree

In my youth I lived on the dole for a time.  It was then  £2/7/6 pw., if that notation means anything to anybody these days. Equal to $70.00 these days. I lived well and even saved money on it.  But I spent nothing on beer and cigarettes and I ate exclusively at home.  I could even afford an egg or two with my breakfast porridge.  Eggs, porridge and milk are very cheap to this day and form a very solid  foundation for a day's nourishment. And you can generally get day-old bread for a song. Good for toast. I don't think it is hard at all if one is not spoilt by uncompromising expectations

There are renewed calls to increase Newstart unemployment benefits by $75 a week as many job seekers remain unemployed for years - but not everyone agrees.

Melbourne grandmother Caryn Hearsch, 62, has been unemployed for 10 years despite applying for over 750 jobs. 

'Newstart - who came up with that word? It's not a new start, trust me, it is not. It's degrading,' she told A Current Affair.

She is on the Newstart allowance of $40 a day - which has not changed for 25 years.

'It's like you apply for these jobs, and within a day or two, you get an email saying, "oh, we're really sorry but you're not the preferred candidate",' Ms Hearsch said. 'And it just gets really depressing and frustrating.'

Ms Hearsch relies on a friend to give her bread and milk since she barely has money for food after spending her allowance on bills and her mortgage.

The grandmother is not eligible for the aged pension for another four years and is eager to work in the meantime. 

An online poll of over 33,000 Australians revealed that 67 per cent of people support a $75 raise to the allowance. 

'It’s highly competitive job market out there. So just telling someone "get a job" is simply cruel and insensitive,' a Sydney man said.  'Try living on Newstart when your getting older but not old enough for age pension,' a grandmother said.

'The highest number of those that are on Newstart are over the age of 40 and many would love to be working. Age is one of the biggest problems with gaining work.'

The poll also revealed that 33 per cent of people oppose a raise to Newstart. 'No, go get a job. Raise the payment for families,' a Brisbane mother said. 'I just don’t agree if our taxes rise because of this,' a Melbourne father said.

'If the government wants to give extra to people on benefits that’s fine but it will impact on everyone else.'

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated that he thinks the allowance is fine as it is. 'We have one of the best safety nets, if not the best, of anywhere in the world in our country,' he said.  

The Greens have a policy to increase the allowance by $75 a week while Labor has supported increasing the allowance by an undisclosed amount.

The Project was recently branded 'shameful and nasty' for a segment about living on Newstart which depicted a welfare recipient splurging $16 on avocado toast.

SOURCE  






Catholic schoolgirls are being taught that God is GENDER-NEUTRAL and are banned from using the words 'Lord', 'Father' and 'Son' in prayers

This is theologically unobjectionable but repudiates church tradition.  And church tradition is very important to the Catholic church.  It undermines church claims to authority

Catholic schoolgirls are being taught that God is gender-neutral and banned from using the words 'Lord', 'Father' and 'Son' in prayers.

A number of elite Catholic schools in Brisbane are making moves to teach their students to use inclusive language when referring to God.

Top schools including All Hallows, Stuartholme, Loreto College and Stuartholme School are leading a push towards a feminist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

Students at Stuartholme School in Brisbane's inner-city, which charges upwards of $40,000 a year, are taught to use the word 'Godself' instead of 'himself'.

'As we believe God is neither male or female, Stuartholme tries to use gender-neutral terms in prayers … so that our community deepens their understanding of who God is for them, how God reveals Godself through creation, our relationships with others and the person of Jesus,' a spokeswoman told The Sunday Mail.

Loreto College in Coorparoo has taken the word 'Lord' from their prayers as it is a 'male term'.

The school's principal Kim Wickham said prayers written for use within the college didn't assign God a gender.

Ms Wickham said the school had a commitment to inclusive language, but admitted there were instances where gendered language is appropriate.

St Rita's College Clayfield tries to use gender-neutral terms but for traditional prayers still uses gendered language.

The assistant principal Richard Rogusz said context is important and helps decide what language is appropriate.

The Catholic Office for the Participation of Women director Andrea Dean told the publication that she was 'thrilled' and it was 'terrific' schools were moving towards inclusive language.  

The Queensland Catholic Education Commission  does not provide guidelines for what language is appropriate but the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference did suggest schools use gender-neutral terms where appropriate.

Brisbane's top Catholic boys' school St Joseph's College has replaced the term 'brothers' with 'sisters and brothers' and 'brotherhood' with 'international community'.

'This has been an area of growth for us in recent times,' a spokesman told Sunday Times. 'We have made changes to a number of prayers to be more gender-inclusive.'

SOURCE  






You wait and you wait and you wait:  The glories of "free" government medicine

A 12-year-old girl with tonsillitis has revealed she's been on the waiting list for nearly half her life just to get an appointment with a throat specialist.

Maddie More, from Adelaide, was diagnosed with the rare infection at the age of six where she suffers from frequent bouts of tonsillitis every couple of months.

Speaking to 9News, the girl said she struggles with eating and ingesting food. 'I feel like there's a rock stuck in my throat,' Maddie told 9News. 'It's going to bother me for the rest of my life. I just want to get them out.'

Maddie said her repetitive episodes of tonsillitis has even taken a toll on her school and social life. 'I can't do that when I'm sick,' the young schoolgirl said. '[I want] to live my life and not have to wake up every three weeks knowing that I would be sick with tonsillitis.'

Maddie has been prescribed a course of antibiotics and other preventative medications in an attempt to prevent the passing of the virus to her toddler siblings.

She was referred by a GP to see a specialist more than four years ago but in February this year, they received a text confirming Maddie was still on the waiting list.

'We're literally just waiting for either her throat to close up so it becomes a life-threatening emergency where they'd take them out or we have to go private,' her mother Courtney said.

SOURCE  






GREENIE ROUNDUP

Four current articles below

Labor’s Shayne Neumann backs Adani, says party must get behind coal mining

Labor frontbencher Shayne Neumann says he would be happy for more coal mining, including the $2 billion Adani Carmichael coalmine, to take place in Queensland if it generates jobs.

“I’m happy for more mining generally to take place, can I just say in Queensland,” he told Sky News on Sunday morning.

“As long as these things are done in an environmentally safe way and as long as it stacks up environmentally, commercially, and I’ve said all along and Labor’s said all along there shouldn’t be any federal government funding towards it.”

Mr Neumann’s comments clash with those made by new Labor leader Anthony Albanese, who last week continued to question the economics around the Adani mine and said the markets would ultimately decide.

Construction is expected to start on Adani within weeks, after Queensland’s environment department approved its plan to protect the endangered black-throated finch.

The final barrier to the controversial mine in the Galilee Basin, in central Queensland, is approval of the company’s groundwater management plan, which will be decided on June 13.

Mr Neumann said the Adani coal mine will be a “good” thing for Queensland, because it will bring jobs and economic development to the state.

“Well, if it brings jobs to Queensland of course it’s good,” Mr Neumann said.

“There’s a couple of steps to go. The Queensland government’s looking like its taking through a process that involves getting advice from Geoscience Australia, from CSIRO. There’s a groundwater management plan that they’re working with Adani in relation to. My understanding is that process will be completed in June sometime. And if jobs arise from this and if the proposal of Adani stacks up, if the environmental concerns are addressed by the Queensland government, if that’s the case then it brings jobs in Queensland then of course it’s good for Queensland.

“If there’s jobs and if there’s economic development and financial security it’s essential to North Queenslanders.”

.@ShayneNeumannMP on the Adani coal mine: If jobs arrive from this, Adani's proposals stack up, and if the environmental concerns are addressed by the Queensland government then, of course, it's a good thing.

Mr Neumann said Labor had to be supportive of the mining industry in Queensland if the party wanted to win the next election. He said the party needs to “listen to the voice” of central and regional Queenslanders.

“Royalties underpin the Queensland government budget and they will when the budget is announced very shortly. So it’s important. It’s not just in mining, it’s tourism, it’s service industries, it’s primary production. These things are important.”

Mr Neumann said the party needs to rebuild and reconnect with the state.

“We just can’t think that we can win government when we’re giving away 20 seats to the LNP, it’s a reminder that Queensland is the third biggest state in terms of population. The number of seats we have in federal parliament, in Queensland for example is almost equivalent to Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia combined. It’s a great reminder to us that we’ve got to do better in Queensland if we think we can win government.”

Mr Neumann wouldn’t speculate on what portfolio he would be given when Labor announces its frontbench reshuffle later today.

SOURCE  

Morrison win boosts support for climate solutions, not slogans

On the second anniversary of Don­ald Trump’s decision to pull the US from the Paris Agreement, the world is becoming more polarised on climate change action.

The re-election of the Morrison government and the rejection of Labor’s Paris-plus agenda follow a pattern now familiar in the US, Brazil and parts of Europe.

The outcome means there will be no further financial support from Australia for the Green Climate Fund, a centrepiece of the Paris Agreement to help developing ­nations. Carryover permits from the Kyoto process will be used to meet our Paris targets and business will not need international carbon trading ­permits.

A returned Morrison government preserves the status quo and provides further evidence of the difficult political path of meeting, let alone expanding on, the Paris Agreement.

The news from Europe and elsewhere is mixed. A promised clean energy transition in Germany is faltering over its high cost and failure to reduce emissions, and investment in renewable energy has stalled across the EU, where major wind companies are in financial trouble.

The EU elections punished centre-focused parties, delivering strong gains to the Greens at one extreme and nationalist leaders at the other. The makeup of the new European parliament may make it easier for the EU to deliver a strengthened climate program.

But in India a landslide election victory by President Narendra Modi promises an acceleration of that country’s modernisation, which will draw much of its energy from coal. Brazil also has prioritised development over conservation. And China, the biggest emitter, remains the driving force and banker for new coal-fired power station developments around the world.

As Trump prepares to make good his promise to complete the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the spotlight has turned to the credibility of the science that underpins the call to climate action.

A front-page article in The New York Times on Monday reports: “In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr Trump’s hard-line views on other nations” — leaving the Paris deal and insisting climate be deleted from communiques issued by world leaders on issues such as the Arctic.

“And, in what could be Mr Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests,”the article says.

The Trump administration wants science advisers to shorten the horizon on climate predictions to 2040 rather than the turn of the century and not to include worst-case scenarios, which the UN report already considers to be unlikely. After months of wrangling, former Princeton professor William Happer has been promoted to chair a climate review panel, causing alarm among climate activists.

Australia’s election result has been projected at least in part as a Hi-Vis revolution that will act as a safety valve to defuse the sort of community tensions that have erupted in France as regional centres rebelled over the expensive climate demands of the capital.

In Australia, the division has been between jobs-hungry coal centres in Queensland and NSW and demands for action from wealthy urban electorates.

As the coal centres celebrate their win, momentum is building behind a grassroots movement to bolster demands for change and broaden the UN agenda past climate to biodiversity and sustainable development. The schools strike movement that has been organised behind the figurehead of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg is one high-profile example.

A concerted push to build a mass movement of civil disobedience under the banner Extinction Rebellion is likely to be a more potent expression of the frustrations being felt by climate groups. For long-time climate activists such as British writer George Monbiot, Extinction Rebellion is a natural precursor to system change.

“The political class is chaotic, unwilling and, in isolation, strategically incapable of addressing even short-term crises, let alone a vast existential predicament,” Monbiot says.

Superficially at least the movement is getting results. Britain, preoccupied by Brexit, has declared a climate emergency, which protest groups believe has put the country on to a warlike footing. The declaration was made after a protracted series of protests by Extinction Rebellion that aimed to paralyse the City of London.

There has been a couple of ­Extinction Rebellion protests in Australia. Thousands have marched or “played dead” in protests in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Hundreds are gathering at meetings in regional centres to bolster a protest movement that claims to be decentralised and without formal leadership.

The goal of Extinction Rebellion is to install a nonpartisan citizens assembly to reshape the global economy. Members of the assembly would be selected at random and educated by expert scientists, the group says.

Extinction Rebellion projects a crisis with a pitch that is calculated to alarm. “We are in the middle of an ecological crisis,” the group says.

“Our course is set for mass species extinction, and societal collapse. Our future looks bleak and our children are not safe.”

It is a message falling on fertile ground. Queensland MP Warren Entsch says he has experienced first hand the passions surrounding the Great Barrier Reef, which for many has become a proxy for climate change. Entsch asked Scott Morrison to be appointed envoy to defuse two of the hottest environmental issues, plastics and the reef.

“I met with a lot of young people who had been counselled by local activists on what to say,” Entsch tells Inquirer. “Some were so scared about the situation they were moved ­almost to tears, but none of them had actually seen the Great Barrier Reef.”

Entsch arranged for briefings from marine biologists and reef operators to give them another perspective but says they were quite hostile to alternative views.

“What concerned me the most was that all the kids could do was quote slogans,” he says. “In my view it was almost akin to child abuse.”

Entsch says he has been inspired by the actions of 11-year-old Molly Steer, who had rejected advances from activists to head the school strike movement in Australia. Instead, Steer has focused on plastic straws. “Molly is not into slogans, just solutions,” Entsch says.

SOURCE  

Build dams or we damn farmers to unrelenting hardship

By Graham Richardson -- a big wheel in the Labor Party

If you live in one of our great cities you probably know nothing of the drought gripping large chunks of eastern Australia. You can still go down to the shops safe in the knowledge the butcher will have the meat you want and the fruiterer will stock the fruit and veg required for a healthy diet.

A touch of reality forced its way into my head yesterday when I ­interviewed Nationals leader Mich­ael McCormack. This bloke really cares about the people he represents and you could almost hear the pain in his voice as he talked about the struggles of the farming communities he tries to protect and foster. In the driest continent it beggars belief to think no new dams have been built here in more than three decades. While I remain a strong supporter of protecting our natural beauty, I can no longer handle the idea that saving a rare frog should hamper our citizens getting safe, clean water.

The trend is to rely on saltwater conversion facilities. They are expensive to build and run. Last time I looked, this is a pretty big country and there ought to be the space for a few more dams. Anyone who has turned on a tap in Adelaide knows I am on the right track. Water policy caters for environment-friendly flows, and that seems to outweigh concerns for those people who rely on our ­rivers for drinking water as well.

The Nationals have made the running on this, but I wonder how keen they will be when they tell a group of Australians their homes and their way of life will be flooded and washed away. I can recall the efforts of a past Queensland gov­ernment to dam the Mary River. The people in the valley there started a revolution that saw the authorities beat a hasty retreat.

Maybe it just seems like it but droughts seem to take our country in their arid grip more often than they did in the past. Eastern Australia has had a few showers but the constant rain for days on end required to break a drought of the dimension we are experiencing has not come. As a counterpoint to this, though, Townsville has just survived the worst flooding in its history. As Dorothea Mackellar wrote, this is a country that pro­duces “droughts and flooding rains”. Whenever I think of these phenomena, I find my ­admiration for our farmers and graziers ­expanding rapidly.

While I rarely find myself agreeing with Barnaby Joyce, he, like McCormack, has long been a champion of building more dams in a country that just lost interest in building them after the last one was built more than three decades ago. There is no cheap way to provide extra water for drinking or agriculture. Once there has been a maximised allowance of water to be taken from our rivers, we have nothing to fall back on.

Labor has no real history of making water policy front and centre and the Liberals have not given it much prominence either. When the crunch comes, it has to be conceded the Nationals have grimly hung on to a policy that the major parties have ignored. But now water policy has, if you will pardon the pun, gone mainstream.

SOURCE  

Coal royalties will not be increased in next Queensland budget

The recent pro-coal vote in the Federal election has got the State Leftists running scared

Coal royalties would not be increased in Queensland's next budget “in exchange” for millions of dollars in contributions from mining giants to a regional infrastructure fund, Treasurer Jackie Trad has promised.

Ms Trad, the deputy premier, said she met with "some of the biggest coal miners in Queensland" on Wednesday to devise a strategy to boost regional infrastructure, without increasing the rate of royalties.

The move could save coal companies as much as a billion dollars a year, Queensland Resources Council chief executive Ian Macfarlane said.

The announcement comes days after Ms Trad said she would not speculate on a change to the rate of royalties before the June budget was handed down.

“I have put on the table a period of time in which royalties would not change here in Queensland in exchange for ... a bit more of a contribution by companies into this fund,” Ms Trad said.

“So, a three-year freeze on any changes to Queensland's royalty regime, but I want these companies to think about making an additional contribution through this fund to the regional communities in which they operate."

Mr Macfarlane welcomed the freeze and said he would spend the next 24 hours speaking with about 150 gas, coal and mineral companies to decide whether to accept the deal. “It is the Treasurer's offer, we are prepared to consider it,” he said.

The government would contribute $30 million to start the infrastructure fund.

Ms Trad said she hoped miners would chip in $70 million to bring the fund to $100 million, but stressed the contributions were voluntary.

"I want to put on record the fact that many mining companies already contribute quite significantly to the local communities in which they operate. "That is their social licence. But we know that regional Queensland is still doing it quite tough and we can make a bit more of a contribution if we work together."

Mr Macfarlane said companies already gave “tens of millions of dollars” to regional community groups.

The rate of royalties, set in each state budget, had not increased in seven years, Ms Trad said.

Adani has until the end of June to settle its royalties agreement with the government for its controversial central Queensland mine to go ahead.

Adani Australia chief executive Lucas Dow said all mining companies wanted was a "stable" mining royalties regime. When asked whether the Carmichael mine would still be viable if coal royalties were increased in the budget, Mr Dow said: "Certainly, our position would be that we think it would be unwise to increase royalties."

Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the regional infrastructure fund was a dressed-up mining tax and accused the state government of trying to kill off new coal mines – even though contributions to the fund were voluntary.

“Queenslanders won’t be fooled by Jackie Trad, who today told the resources industry that her new mining tax was voluntary, but if they didn’t pay it, Labor will raise mining royalties anyway,” Ms Frecklington said.

“Queensland Labor is already getting an extra $1 billion dollar from coal royalties. They should be investing more of that into infrastructure.

“These mining companies are already bound by community service obligations and this is quite simply double-dipping.”

Mr Macfarlane said if the Treasurer had raised the rate of royalties by 2 per cent, it could have cost mining companies an extra billion dollars a year.

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 June, 2019

Wealthy white parents are turning away from selective schools because they fear their children will be an ethnic minority

This is mainly a NSW concern as only NSW has much in the way of government funded selective schools.  It is also about Chinese students -- who star in selective schools -- which can be demoralizing for all but the very smartest white kids. In some years ALL the top students are Chinese, many from selective schools.  Their combination of hard work and high IQ is unbeatable.  Their talent makes it easier for them to get into selective schools in the first place.  So they get a high quality education for free.  Why would they go elsewhere?  White parents are more aware of the important social advantages of private schools


Wealthy white parents are avoiding sending their kids to selective schools because they fear they will be an ethnic minority, according to an expert. 

Christina Ho, a social scientist from the University of Technology, says Anglo families were choosing to send their kids to private schools while migrant families are choosing selective schools. 'We do have this self-segregation going on,' Dr Ho said.

And part of the reason appears to be based on the fear of being a minority.  'A lot of Anglo families are saying, 'I would be a minority if I went to a selective school,' Dr Ho said.

The same concern impacts the schooling choices of rich migrant families, who previously preferred private schools. As with Anglo families, they were now choosing selective schools because they were worried about being a conspicuous minority in private schools.

'We do have a lot of wealthy migrants in this country who are living in the eastern suburbs and north shore, who could potentially afford to send their kids to private schools but they are not.' said Dr Ho.

In NSW, more than 80 per cent of students in fully selective schools came from language backgrounds other than English (LBOTE).

Of the 99 schools with fewer than 10 percent LBOTE students, over half were private and in affluent areas.

Dr Ho's research indicates that the process of self-segregation is leading to a wider problem across Sydney where many schools are more ethnically divided than the suburbs in which they are located.

'The increasing diversity of our communities is not reflected in our education system,' Dr Ho told msn.com.  

The process of self-segregation worries Dr Ho who argues that when schools no longer reflect their local communities, students have less opportunity to develop cultural understanding.

She adds that the reason for the ethnic divide lies in policies that encourage parents to shop for schools, over selecting their local school.

Pranay Jha, the son of Indian migrants, had the choice of attending a selective school or attending the King's School in North Parramatta on a scholarship.

His parents decided on the private school option, and Mr Jha, admits he felt isolated, and suffered from some cultural shame. 'I was surrounded by white people, and so to socially succeed in the school you needed to play down your ethnicity a lot,' he said.

Mr Jha also remembers being racially abused while playing sport and believes that if there had been more diversity at the school it would provide students from migrant backgrounds with a greater sense of solidarity.

However, the ethnic make-up of The King's School has changed since Mr Jha's graduation in 2015. At that time 31 per cent of students were LBOTE. By 2018 the number had risen to over 40 per cent

SOURCE  






Our annual coffee scare

We seem to get these around once a year -- generally followed by a glut.  See here (Scroll down)

Australian coffee-drinkers could soon pay $7 for a flat white because coffee farming has become so unsustainable, one industry expert has claimed.

Mark Dundon, 57, co-owns Seven Seeds cafe in Carlton, an inner-north suburb of Melbourne, and has been a part of the cafe scene for 18 years. He says climate change is making it harder for farmers in South America and South-East Asia to grow coffee and once they sell their product to major companies, the price they receive is often below the production costs. 

He believes the price of coffee could explode because producers are abandoning the industry for better work. 'Coffee is going to become really expensive - maybe $7 a cup. There'll be a shortfall, prices will spike and cafes will go out of business,' Mr Dundon told The Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr Dundon believes people will be forced to change their coffee habits to drinking two cups a week rather than two or three a day. He said the entire coffee-drinking culture is likely to change and cafes will employ less staff to help cut costs.

The cafe boss said climate change is making it extremely difficult for farmers who are turning away from the industry in droves. 'They will look at avocados, bananas, coca, depending on where they are, or they'll just walk off the farm and sell cigarette lighters in Bogotá,' he said.

Most coffee is grown in poor countries with the biggest producers being Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia and Indonesia. Out of around 25 million coffee farmers, the vast majority, are small and own only a hectare or two of trees.

The biggest importers of coffee from these countries are the US and Germany, who purchase the product for well under the production cost.

Companies within the US and Germany, such as Nestlé and Starbucks Corporation, dictate the price they will pay for the coffee leaving farmers struggling to survive.

Future coffee traders are looking to lock in low prices for coffee before the small farmers have had a chance to grow it, so they are already far behind before they've started production.

The current system hugely benefits large corporations by maintaining a supply of cheap, mass-market coffee.

Small farmers are finding the coffee industry unsustainable and they don't have the power to set their own prices or access companies who will pay more for better quality coffee.

'The price is the lowest it's ever been. Farmers don't see a future in coffee. If farmers don't get more for their efforts, the industry is at risk,' Mr Dundon said.    

SOURCE  






Folau’s faith compelled him to shout a warning: repent

Israel Folau criticised several groups in his Instagram post, but only one of them has complained.  Guess which one

On April 10, Israel Folau posted on his Instagram account the following message: “Warning: Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolators: Hell Awaits You. Repent! Only Jesus Saves.” Next to this big, bold statement was the message: “Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

This eye-catching text was from the Bible, a loose paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

If someone else had posted this it would almost certainly have slipped under the radar. But Folau was being watched. Partly this is because of his brilliance as a footballer. He holds the record for the most tries scored in Super Rugby. In 2007 he won rugby league’s Dally M Rookie of the Year award for having scored the most tries in his debut year. In that same year he was the all-time youngest international player (he was 18 at the time).

But it looks as though Folau was also being watched for an opportunity to punish him for being a Christian; indeed, for being a blunt defender of the classic, conservative Christian faith.

The attack on Folau provoked an unexpected reaction: many Aussies were unhappy. They flooded open-line radio with calls in support of the right of Folau to hold and express his faith. This support was not limited to the 52.1 per cent of Australians who called themselves Christian in the 2016 census. A bucket load of callers took the line of “I don’t support what he said or the way he said it, but, hey the bloke’s obviously sincere so why is he being bashed up like this?”

Whether articulated or not, the underlying feeling of much of this response was: Australia is a free country. There was a distinct unease about the possibility of losing at least some degree of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of belief and freedom of religion in this wide, brown land.

Tone deaf to the electorate Bill Shorten came down on the wrong side of this debate in the election campaign. Ignoring section 116 of the Constitution, which says there shall be no religious test for public office, Shorten demanded to know where Scott Morrison stood on the “gays/hell” issue. This blunder won him no friends (apart from the inner-city crowd, who were already on his side).

For Rugby Australia this is a lose-lose debate. The religious test they applied to Folau’s employment looked so unfair to him that he bypassed their internal appeal process as pointless and announced his intention to test them in the courts. So Rugby Australia now will either lose the court battle or lose its major sponsor. It has already lost its best player.

This is no storm in a tea cup: this is central to Australia’s character as a nation and raises three questions:

 *  Why should there be penalties for defending classical Christianity?

 *  Why do the rights of one group trump all other rights?

 *  What is the actual content of the view he is defending?

Let’s tackle them. First, why should there be penalties for defending classic, conservative Christianity? It’s not as though Christianity is an eccentric, minority belief system. It’s the largest faith on earth with 2.3 billion followers.

Some will say people can believe what they like in private but the views of classic Christianity do not belong in the public arena. The problem is that Jesus ruled out that option when he said: “Everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33)

So according to Jesus there is no such thing as private Christianity — there is only whole-of-life Christianity (public and private). Being a Christian means speaking about it. The Christian faith is part of our community and not a private matter.

Some politicians will say, “Well, we have to balance the rights of Christians to speak their faith aloud with the right of homosexuals not to be offended.” But from the words of Jesus it is clear that telling Christians they are not permitted to speak their faith aloud is telling them they are not permitted to be Christian.

Which brings us to the second question: why should the rights of one group trump all other rights? In this case it appears that the right of homosexuals not to be offended trumps the right of Christians to be as Christian as Jesus intended. It is especially interesting to note that Folau included eight groups in his post — none of the others has complained.

Surely the issue is that none of those seven other groups is demanding approval from everyone. On the whole, drunks, adulterers and the rest don’t care whether you approve or disapprove of them.

The homosexual community, however, appears not to be willing to accept disapproval. They may say all they want is tolerance. But that’s looking increasingly like a dishonest claim. They won’t, it seems, settle for anything short of complete approval.

Devout Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, atheists, Christians or Calathumpians don’t expect you to approve of them. They think they’re right, and if you believe differently you’re wrong — and they’re quite happy to debate this with you. But they don’t demand that you be legally compelled to approve of them, and legally silenced and punished if you disapprove.

Which brings us to the third question: what is the actual content of the view Folau is defending? Is it simply a system of morality? Folau lists eight behaviours that with the support of the Bible he says are proscribed — unacceptable to God — so it could certainly look like a question of morality.

In part this is a problem created by the brevity of social media posts, which don’t allow for nuance. But Folau himself is pointing beyond simple moral judgment when he writes that “Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him”.

He is drawing attention to the fact that classical Christianity is certainly about judgment, but it is also about sacrifice and forgiveness. For 2000 years Christians have been calling it “good news” because the news that God loves you despite your behaviour and offers forgiveness can only count as very good news, indeed.

This good news Folau is talking about addresses the fact of death. The Christian world view says “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

The point is that life is a journey and, like every journey, it has an end. It would be intelligent to give some thought to how and where the journey of life might end. You might protest: but we can’t know! It’s not possible to know what death will be like and whether we might survive it, and, if so, what that survival might be like.

Picture it as being like a group of travellers walking down a long country road. They fall into an argument about where the road will end. One of them may claim it ends at a steep cliff face and that’s it. Someone else may suggest it ends at a railway station where a train is waiting to take you back to the beginning so you can do the journey all over again. Yet another may suggest the road of life ends in a garden and, just like Christmas, everyone will get gifts and be happy. Another may argue there are two cities at the end of the road: a comfortable one (“heaven”) and a bleak one (“hell”) and that we can be switched from the bad option to the good option as a free gift because the lord of the road loves the travellers and has paid for the gift.

That is pretty much the state of the debate in the modern world, and that brings us back to Folau’s warning that we should avoid hell.

Cartoonists have had a lot of fun will hell through the years, picturing comic demons in red tights with pitchforks prodding hapless condemned souls into furnaces. However, all the amusing things, or silly things, that have ever been said about hell, or thought about hell, spring from our reluctance to seriously consider death — what it is and what it means.

Here’s a practical definition: death really means separation.

For a start, death is the separation of the mind (or soul if you prefer) from the body. Most human beings who have ever lived, from Plato to now, have believed that the mind (or soul) will survive this separation. If it doesn’t, then that answers our question of destination. But if it does it means we are on the right track in thinking about death as separation.

But there is another separation that counts as death: separation from God. In classical Christianity separation from God is spiritual death. This separation from God shows itself in a wide range of behaviours, including the eight behaviours listed by Folau in his Instagram post, but not limited to those eight. Because, according to the classically Christian world view, we are designed to function plugged in to God; once we are unplugged (separated) we are like an unplugged appliance — we don’t function properly or we don’t function at all.

That’s the danger Folau believed he was warning people against. He thought he was warning his followers that those people who ignore God, choose to be separated from God, are sending a message; are saying to God, “just leave me alone”. The danger is God will take them at their word: they will be cut off from God forever.

That being “cut off” is what hell is. Not the funny cartoons of demons with pitchforks but being cut off, isolated, exiled, expelled, separated. When Jesus himself pronounces judgment on people the words he says are “depart from me”, adding, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23).

But as Folau’s short post indicates, there is more to the story. Here’s the completion of those words from the Bible quoted above: “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:27-28).

There is the offer of God’s love and forgiveness and restoration: switching at life’s end from the bad option (separation, isolation, “hell”) to the good option (connection, community, “heaven”) as a free gift. From the point of view of classical Christianity, Folau saw people in danger and shouted out a warning. In other words, the intention of his message was the exact opposite to how it has been portrayed. And for that Folau is being punished.

SOURCE  

That's pretty good theology above. In Matthew 25:46 the word translated as "punishment" is in the original Greek "kolasin" and it simply means "cutting off". It is the word a Greek gardener might use to describe the pruning of a tree. So it would be a superior translation to say that the goats would be cut off and thrown away -- and maybe burnt -- like the unwanted branch of a tree. So, when properly translated, we see that Christ was, as usual, offering the alternatives of life and death, not heaven and hell -- exactly as he does in John 3:16. The sheep get eternal life and the goats get eternal death

 




'Watch your back': Deb Knight warns Anthony Albanese that the 'ghost' of Shorten may haunt him - as Bill's excuse for losing the election is slammed as 'pathetic'

In Turnbull's memorable phrase, Shorten is a "miserable ghost"

Labor's new leader Anthony Albanese has been warned to watch his back amid suggestions Bill Shorten wants his old job back.

Sources within the Labor Party have confirmed to Daily Mail Australia Mr Shorten still has ambitions to be Opposition Leader again, although he has strenuously denied this.

A day after being unanimously endorsed by the Labor caucus, Mr Albanese appeared on the Today Show. Host Deborah Knight suggested his job was already in danger.

'And you better watch your back too because reports this morning that Bill Shorten has told allies he wants to return as Labor leader,' she said.

Ms Knight reminded Mr Albanese of the period between June 2010 and June 2013 when Kevin Rudd was replaced as prime minister by Julia Gillard, only for him to return to his old job.

Mr Shorten was behind both leadership coups as a Right faction powerbroker from Victoria.

This led to Mr Albanese becoming deputy prime minister in 2013 for three months in the second Rudd government.

'You were there for the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years,' Ms Knight said. 'How can you lead effectively, Albo, with a ghost of leaders past haunting you like this?'

Mr Albanese said the Labor caucus had elected him unopposed.  Look, we will be a united team. I've been elected unanimously by the Labor Party to lead,' he said.

Mr Shorten's office described any suggestion he wanted to return to the Labor leadership as 'bulls***', even though Labor figures have suggested to Daily Mail Australia and Nine newspapers he still had ambitions to be prime minister.

The former Opposition Leader tweeted a denial on Friday morning.  'The report in the SMH and the Age today is just wrong,' he said.

'As I said yesterday, I have and will work hard every day to keep our party united and make the case for Labor under Albo's leadership at the next election.'

Addressing the Labor caucus for the last time in Canberra on Thursday, Mr Shorten blamed corporate interests for the Opposition's surprise election loss.

'Obviously, we were up against corporate leviathans, the financial behemoth, spending unprecedented, hundreds of millions of dollars, advertising, telling lies, spreading fear,' he told the party room meeting at Parliament House in Canberra.

'They got what they wanted. Powerful, vested interests campaigned against us through sections of the media itself.'

Asked about Mr Shorten's comments Mr Albanese, who hails from Labor's hard Left faction, agreed with the sentiment. 'There's no doubt that vested interests did play a role but we also have to accept our responsibility that some of the policies that we put forward clearly didn't connect with enough people,' he said.

Following the May 18 election loss, Mr Albanese criticised the Shorten Opposition's plan to stop share owning retirees, who receive dividends, from receiving franking credits.

Labor was also punished electorally for vowing to scrap negative gearing tax breaks for existing properties, from January 2020, and halve the capital gains tax discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

Influential Sydney radio 2GB breakfast broadcaster Alan Jones slammed Mr Shorten for blaming Labor's election defeat on vested interests and suggested he should have apologised to voters on election night.

'Bill, sorry mate, if you really wanted to get people back on side you'd say a simple thing,' he said. 'You'd say: "Can't argue with the electorate, they rejected us. They rejected me. So, this is what we've got to do. I think we have to change direction. '"I think the electorate said we're going up the wrong road and I've taken us up the wrong road and I'm sorry about that. '"We’re going to turn back and change the road we’re travelling on".

'People would have said: "How good is that?"' 

Mr Shorten this month became the first Opposition Leader to lose two consecutive elections since Kim Beazley in 2001.

However, Mr Beazley returned to the Labor leadership in 2005, after Mark Latham lost the 2004 election. Mr Rudd overthrew him in late 2006, and went on to win the 2007 election.

SOURCE  




‘They never learn’: Why senior figures believe Labor’s factional system is broken

While Labor should be licking its wounds from an embarrassing election defeat it didn’t see coming and reflecting on how it can rebuild, the party instead is at war with itself, insiders say.

Senior figures tell news.com.au that they’re fed up with the latest illustration of the Opposition’s toxic factional system, which has seen infighting for almost two weeks over the leadership and the frontbench.

And the party’s New South Wales branch is at the centre of their ire, where the powerful Right faction has been attempting to spark a civil war since Bill Shorten’s failed campaign. “Labor never learns,” one prominent figure said in frustration. “The party is broken — especially in NSW.”

Another, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was “purely a miracle” that Labor hasn’t imploded over the past fortnight, adding: “This is why so many voters hate us.”

It’s been up to a small number of individuals to take it upon themselves to act as peacemakers between brawling rival factions, it’s understood.

Labor’s political corpse was barely cold when a war began over who would replace Bill Shorten as leader, with opposing sides posturing for their man to succeed. Former Treasurer Wayne Swan, in his new capacity as federal president of the party, instructed Chris Bowen to put his hand up to see someone from the Right prevail.

He was then supported by Mr Shorten, who was accused of plotting against long-time foe and Left faction powerbroker Anthony Albanese, in a bid to firm support for Mr Bowen.

A Labor MP told news.com.au that concern started to build just days after the leadership contest commenced that a two-horse race would lead to a month of savage fighting. “It was clear that Bowen’s camp should try to do a deal with Albo to see off what would be four week of chaos,” the source said.

Had two candidates run, a ballot of the rank and file membership would be required, due to changes to rules about electing a leader that were implemented after the disastrous Kevin Rudd-Julia Gillard revolving door.

After an energetic effort from a handful of battle-wary MPs, Mr Bowen eventually decided to quit the race, leaving Mr Albanese as the sole candidate. But there was no time to breathe a sigh of relief over avoiding an embarrassing cannibalisation, with a new fight erupting over who would sit in the shadow Cabinet.

While the average punter would assume it’s the new leader’s prerogative to choose his team, it is — of course — the factional powerbrokers who throw their weight around to call the shots.

Kristina Keneally was an obvious choice to many, given her front-and-centre role in the campaign and effective media performance.

But Senator Keneally’s own Right faction was against her receiving a frontbench position, seen as retaliation for her endorsement of Mr Albanese’s leadership over Mr Bowen, from her side.

Mr Albanese was adamant that the former NSW Premier sit in his shadow Cabinet — partly to hit gender parity and partly because of her high public profile. “That there was push back against Kristina from her own supposed allies tells you everything you need to know about NSW Labor,” one party figure said.

An all-out scrap was only avoided when western Sydney MP Ed Husic, also from the Right, fell on his sword and asked not to be considered for the frontbench so Senator Keneally could take his spot.

“While I’ve loved being a Shadow Minister, I won’t be running for re-election to that role,” the popular Chifley member said.  “Instead I’ll be backing my great friend Kristina Keneally for that spot. We need to ensure someone of Kristina’s enormous talents has the opportunity to make a powerful contribution on the frontline, in the Senate.”

The loss of Mr Husic has been felt widely by his colleagues, with Joel Fitzgibbon describing him as “potentially a future leader of the Labor Party”. “He took one for the team yesterday but there is not one person elected yesterday who is a better performer than Ed Husic and on that basis, he will be back, I have no doubt,” Mr Fitzgibbon told 2CC radio today.

Even yesterday, after outgoing deputy leader in the Senate, Don Farrell, also took one for the team so Senator Keneally could replace him, her foes were backgrounding media.

A report in The Australian today described her as “Teflon Keneally” and implied she has a “kiss of death”, given her stunning state election defeat in 2011 and failed bid to win the seat of Bennelong in 2017. “Why do we see the resurrection of Saint Kristina again and again?” a Labor MP told the newspaper.

On top of all the drama, reports emerged today that Mr Shorten has told allies that he still holds ambition to be leader one day — a claim he has since denied.

But it all paints a picture of a party more concerned with its own longstanding rivalries and grudges than with figuring out a path to be a viable alternative government in three years.

The frustrated senior figure summed it up to news.com.au, saying: “At the end of all this, we’ve lost real talent in Farrell and Husic because of the bullsh*t system that once again does little more than damage our image … as a viable alternative.”

The figure said that Labor’s election campaign platform of strong unity over the Coalition’s several years of infighting and chaos was now “deeply ironic and depressing”.

Yesterday, addressing Caucus for the first time since the election, Mr Shorten said Labor should continue to be the “party of progress”. “We in Labor are not going to waste time feeling sorry for ourselves because we are not in it for ourselves,” he said.

After the past fortnight, many inside Labor believe that sentiment has never rang more hollow.

SOURCE  

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




Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.





Most academics are lockstep Leftists so readers do sometimes doubt that I have the qualifications mentioned above. Photocopies of my academic and military certificates are however all viewable here


For overseas readers: The "ALP" is the Australian Labor Party -- Australia's major Leftist party. The "Liberal" party is Australia's major conservative political party.


In most Australian States there are two conservative political parties, the city-based Liberal party and the rural-based National party. But in Queensland those two parties are amalgamated as the LNP.


Again for overseas readers: Like the USA, Germany and India, Australia has State governments as well as the Federal government. So it may be useful to know the usual abbreviations for the Australian States: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), WA (Western Australia), VIC (Victoria), TAS (Tasmania), SA (South Australia).


For American readers: A "pensioner" is a retired person living on Social Security


"Digger" is an honorific term for an Australian soldier


Another lesson in Australian: When an Australian calls someone a "big-noter", he is saying that the person is a chronic and rather pathetic seeker of admiration -- as in someone who often pulls out "big notes" (e.g. $100.00 bills) to pay for things, thus endeavouring to create the impression that he is rich. The term describes the mentality rather than the actual behavior with money and it aptly describes many Leftists. When they purport to show "compassion" by advocating things that cost themselves nothing (e.g. advocating more taxes on "the rich" to help "the poor"), an Australian might say that the Leftist is "big-noting himself". There is an example of the usage here. The term conveys contempt. There is a wise description of Australians generally here


Another bit of Australian: Any bad writing or messy anything was once often described as being "like a pakapoo ticket". In origin this phrase refers to a ticket written with Chinese characters - and thus inscrutably confusing to Western eyes. These tickets were part of a Chinese gambling game called "pakapoo".


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


On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


I am an army man. Although my service in the Australian army was chiefly noted for its un-notability, I DID join voluntarily in the Vietnam era, I DID reach the rank of Sergeant, and I DID volunteer for a posting in Vietnam. So I think I may be forgiven for saying something that most army men think but which most don't say because they think it is too obvious: The profession of arms is the noblest profession of all because it is the only profession where you offer to lay down your life in performing your duties. Our men fought so that people could say and think what they like but I myself always treat military men with great respect -- respect which in my view is simply their due.


The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody. And I have NO investments in oil companies or mining companies


Although I have been an atheist for all my adult life, I have no hesitation in saying that the single book which has influenced me most is the New Testament. And my Scripture blog will show that I know whereof I speak.


The Rt. Rev. Phil Case (Moderator of the Presbyterian church in Queensland) is a Pharisee, a hypocrite, an abomination and a "whited sepulchre".


English-born Australian novellist, Patrick White was a great favourite in literary circles. He even won a Nobel prize. But I and many others I have spoken to find his novels very turgid and boring. Despite my interest in history, I could only get through about a third of his historical novel Voss before I gave up. So why has he been so popular in literary circles? Easy. He was a miserable old Leftist coot, and, incidentally, a homosexual. And literary people are mostly Leftists with similar levels of anger and alienation from mainstream society. They enjoy his jaundiced outlook, his dissatisfaction, rage and anger.


A delightful story about a great Australian conservative


Would you believe that there once was a politician whose nickname was "Honest"?

"Honest" Frank Nicklin M.M. was a war hero, a banana farmer and later the conservative Premier of my home State of Queensland in the '60s. He was even popular with the bureaucracy and gave the State a remarkably tranquil 10 years during his time in office. Sad that there are so few like him.


A great Australian wit exemplified



An Australian Mona Lisa (Nikki Gogan)


Bureaucracy: "One of the constant laments of doctors and nurses working with NSW Health is the incredible and increasing bureaucracy," she said. "It is completely obstructive to providing a service."


Revered Labour Party leader Gough Whitlam was a very erudite man so he cannot have been unaware of the similarities of his famous phrase “the Party, the platform, the people” with an earlier slogan: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer". It's basically the same slogan in reverse order.


Australia's original inhabitants were a race of pygmies, some of whom survived into modern times in the mountainous regions of the Atherton tableland in far North Queensland. See also here. Below is a picture of one of them taken in 2007, when she was 105 years old and 3'7" tall




Julia Gillard, a failed feminist flop. She was given the job of Prime Minister of Australia but her feminist preaching was so unpopular that she was booted out of the job by her own Leftist party. Her signature "achievements" were the carbon tax and the mining tax, both of which were repealed by the next government.


The "White Australia Policy: "The Immigration Restriction Act was not about white supremacy, racism, or the belief that whites were higher up the evolutionary tree than the coloured races. Rather, it was designed to STOP the racist exploitation of non-whites (all of whom would have been illiterate peasants practicing religions and cultures anathema to progressive democracy) being conscripted into a life of semi-slavery in a coolie-worked plantation economy for the benefit of the absolute monarchs, hereditary aristocracy and the super-wealthy companies and share-holders of the northern hemisphere.


A great little kid



In November 2007, a four-year-old boy was found playing in a croc-infested Territory creek after sneaking off pig hunting alone with four dogs and a puppy. The toddler was found five-and-a-half hours after he set off from his parents' house playing in a creek with the puppy. Amazingly, Daniel Woditj also swam two creeks known to be inhabited by crocs during his adventurous romp. Mr Knight said that after walking for several kilometres, Daniel came to a creek and swam across it. Four of his dogs "bailed up" at the creek but the youngster continued on undaunted with his puppy to a second creek. Mr Knight said Daniel swam the second croc-infested creek and walked on for several more kilometres. "Captain is a hard bushman and Daniel is following in his footsteps. They breed them tough out bush."


A great Australian: His eminence George Pell. Pictured in devout company before his elevation to Rome





MY OTHER SITES

Alternative (Monthly) archives for this blog



DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism"
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:

"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)


Alt archives
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2



Selected reading

MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM

CONSERVATISM AS HERESY

Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Pyszczynski et al.





Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)



Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20151027-0014/jonjayray.com/

OR: (After 2015)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160322114550/http://jonjayray.com/