This document is part of an archive of postings by John Ray 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
This is a backup copy of the original blog. Backups from previous months accessible here
30 April, 2023
Customers hit back at new dining trend taking over Aussie restaurants
I find mobile phones very tedious so use them or anything like them only to a minimum. So I object to ordering food by using one. Unless I can order from a person, I walk out. That usually makes the place back down. But if not there are thousands of other places to eat. Quality of life matters
They were an ubiquitous presence at cafes, restaurants and bars during the pandemic, but love them or loathe them, industry insiders say QR ordering is here to stay.
While some expected it to fade away as the pandemic dissolved and check-ins were no longer relevant, the opposite has actually been true.
Not everyone is a fan. In fact many people appear downright hostile to QR ordering and restaurants and cafe’s not providing physical menus.
Social media is filled with people raging against it.
One person wrote on an angst-ridden Reddit stream that they just “hate it”.
“I hate paying for dinner on my phone,’ the person complained. “I hate navigating through menus to find food.”
Another said they disliked being forced to “give every-f***ing-detail about myself or sign up”, while another observed “having phones out was a terrible way to start dinner together”.
While one person claimed they often go to the counter and refuse to do it or threaten to go elsewhere: “I haven’t had anyone let me leave yet”.
Others pointed out it isn’t practical for some.
“My grandparents never really got onto the smart phones (and with dementia it’s not the time to start) and I have a friend who has fine motor skill issues so he struggles to control the scrolling function that’s required,” one person explained.
“It’s embarrassing for them to have the menu read to them or to have others decide what they have because they can’t use a menu in that format.”
Another noted it was difficult for families with kids with “everyone is fighting over mums phone to see what they can order”.
Despite not all Aussies being a fan of the new system, Square, which provides a range of technology for restaurants and other industries, says QR codes are here to stay saying sellers were increasingly turning to tech to run their business.
“QR code ordering has definitely become mainstream for restaurants,” said Colin Birney, head of business development at Square in Australia.
“As cost-of-doing-business pressures remain and staff shortages continue, restaurants are seeing technology as a non-negotiable and a way to find efficiency gains and unlock new ways to sell.”
**********************************************
Mum-and-dad landlords sell up amid housing reforms
Thousands of mum-and-dad landlords are selling off their rental properties in response to state Labor governments’ strengthening of renter protections and increasing interest rates, with the threat of more changes on the horizon.
New data from PropTrack has revealed a spike in the number of investors cashing out of the market, with sales remaining notably higher than pre-Covid levels for the past two years.
It comes as Anthony Albanese secured the support of state and territory leaders on Friday for changes to strengthen “renters’ rights” on a national level and committing an extra $2bn in the May budget for 7000 more affordable homes.
The nation’s housing ministers will present policy options to help renters by the end of the year, with the group set to examine programs regulating landlord decisions on the size and frequency of rent increases.
“What will occur over coming months is looking at different programs that are in place … Some of those are around the frequency of any rent increase that can occur. In at least one jurisdiction’s case, it’s also over the amount that can occur of any increase,” the Prime Minister said in Brisbane.
Leading investors and real estate experts on Friday warned Mr Albanese that governments had disincentivised “demonised” landlords who provide the markets with millions of homes, and further change threatens to shake confidence in the wider property market.
Fewer landlords have been in the buying market since 2017 when numbers peaked, which has caused the rental pool nationally to shrink. With fewer homes and heightened local and migrant demand, asking rents in Australia’s capital cities have surged $80 a week on average in the past 12 months to sit at a weekly rate of $520 as vacancy rates hover at 1.5 per cent – half of what is considered a “healthy” level.
PropTrack’s director of economic research Cameron Kusher said it had become much harder for investors to park their money in property.
“Investors are charged higher interest rates, borrowing capacities have reduced quite dramatically because interest rates have risen so fast so quickly and it is generally less attractive for investors,” he said.
Landlords have become the main target of government policies aimed at providing relief to tenants facing rapidly rising rents and intense competition.
National cabinet on Friday agreed to develop a plan with housing ministers from each state and territory to strengthen housing growth and rental rights across the country, while also increasing housing supply.
Founder of investment buyers agency Propertyology Simon Pressley said investors were sick of being demonised by governments and were choosing to put their money elsewhere. “Investing in real estate is an enormous financial outlay, so you’re not going to put out this big financial decision unless you’ve got confidence,” Mr Pressley said.
“We’ve had eight years of a heck of a lot of regulatory change, all of which has been targeted at causing harm to the investor.”
Real Estate Institute of Australia president Hayden Groves agreed that a strategically aligned approach to tenancy laws between jurisdictions was productive but urged an examination of supports rather than targeting landlords. “There’s been successive housing policies that are all looking to disincentivise this very, very important cohort of the investor pool that is continuing to supply Australians with homes,” he said.
The Greens put the removal of negative gearing and two-year rental caps back on the table this week by withholding support for the federal government’s $10bn housing bill. Over the past two years, state governments have sought to introduce rental reform. NSW will soon introduce no-grounds evictions, following Victoria, which introduced the same policy in 2021 alongside a suite of changes. Queensland also recently brought in once-a-year rental increases after rolling back proposed land tax changes.
Mr Pressley said: “We don’t go and punish the farmers because the cost of the produce goes up; the cost of rent has gone up because we don’t have enough supply of rental accommodation.”
Federal Housing Minister Julie Collins also announced on Friday that May’s budget would look to increase housing supply, with extra funds and taxation changes for the development of build-to-rent projects, which was supported by the Property Council of Australia and Master Builders Australia.
Governments have been selling off social housing stock for decades, said Mr Kusher.
In the 1981 census, a quarter of renters were living in a government-provided home, with that number falling to 8 per cent today. He said increased housing stock – whether privately owned or commercial – would help to ease the escalation in rent.
***********************************************
University of Queensland forced to apologise over ‘white privilege’ medical assignment
The University of Queensland has been forced to apologise and scrap the results of a controversial “white privilege” medical assignment after students feared they could be expelled for failing.
First year UQ medical students had been asked to write about their own “white privilege” and institutional racism in a two-part assignment.
The Sunday Mail understands when students received their grades last week the majority of the cohort received a fail mark.
One medical student told The Sunday Mail, on the condition of anonymity, they believed the ones who had passed had effectively lied about admitting to being racist.
“The people who did well have frankly lied, they played into the notion that they’re racist, even if they’re not,” they said.
Following backlash from the medical cohort, the prestigious university has been forced to apologise and remove the results of the assignment from end-of-year grades.
Prior to the decision, students had been concerned that the university was at liberty to expel them from the program if they failed.
The medical student said that the passing grade on the assignment was required for an overall passing grade of the year.
The student said the cohort had feared that a fail on this subject could be the difference between getting an overall high distinction or a distinction which could impact postgraduate employment.
“UQ has a very good reputation internationally but students with all As in assignments are looked at better than B,” they said prior to UQ’s announcement. “You could be the best doctor in the world but fail on this.”
A UQ spokeswoman said there was no suggestion that students could be expelled for failing the assignment as the university took a “whole of approach” to progression.
The spokeswoman did not respond to questions about how many students failed the exam.
A leaked email from UQ’s dean of medical school Professor Stuart Carney to students, seen by the Sunday Mail, confirmed the results of the assignment had been removed from the final component.
**********************************************
Albanese is making life harder for mainstream Australians
He is hitting people from all angles
While Australians were ensconced in the Easter long weekend, the Albanese government announced that would not be extending the low- and middle-income tax offset (LMITO) in the upcoming budget.
LMITO was stage one in a three-phase tax reduction plan legislated by the previous government.
This revelation should not come as a surprise as the current policy agenda of the federal government is making the livelihoods of mainstream Australians more difficult. Everything from tax policy, red tape, and immigration to energy policy is making life harder for mainstream Australians.
This tax rise could not come at a worse time for Australian families struggling with the crippling cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, and inflation all contributing to a lowering of our standard of living. Analysis aired by Channel Nine revealed that the LMITO tax hike will take up to $1,500 from the back pockets of lower- and middle-income Australians.
It also follows the federal government abandonment of a promise to reduce household energy bills by $275 a year.
While considering energy, research by the Institute of Public Affairs previously found that the emission reduction policies pursued by the federal government will prevent the creation of approximately half a million jobs, the majority of which being in regional Australia.
Worse still, Australian households can expect retail electricity prices to double by the end of the decade due to the implementation of these policies.
Increasing household electricity prices have been accompanied by a shortage of houses themselves, which has driven an increase in their purchase value. This shortage is set to exacerbate with the recent announcement that there will be an increase in immigration of over 650,000 people over the next two years.
The federal government have justified this massive increase in immigration because of the unprecedented worker shortages in Australia. Yet, in a rush to open the front gate to new arrivals, absolutely no consideration has been given to what is going on in our own backyard.
IPA research has found this worker shortage could be alleviated by reducing red tape faced by pensioners, veterans, and students who wish to enter the labour force but cannot because of prohibitive tax and social security penalties.
This red tape is costing Australia $32 billion in forgone wages alone, all of which could be going into the back pocket of Australians.
Instead of increasing taxes on Australians who are already working, the government should increase the amount of Australians working and paying tax.
While it has been argued by some economists that the abolishment of the LMITO is a good idea as it would sure up the budget bottom line, this argument falls flat considering the Albanese government is being cajoled into bailing out the fiscally irresponsible Andrews government. A move that will only increase inflationary pressures.
Increasing taxes on the lower and middle classes is not the solution to budget constraints, especially during a cost-of-living crisis.
This tax increase is a hammer blow to the livelihoods of 10 million hard-working Australians, and should be a wake-up call to the rest of the population, with stage three tax cuts to people earning between $45,000 and $200,000 potentially next in line.
The political class must realign their values and promote policies that help lower- and middle-income Australians. Fixing the budget, providing reliable energy, and ensuring Australians keep more of their own money should all be mission-critical for the government and the opposition.
This can be achieved by reversing the emission reduction policies pursued by the Albanese government, lowering taxes on mainstream Australians, and reducing red tape in the labour market to allow more Australians to work.
Everyday Australians need a way out of the crises that are crippling our way of life, failing that then there is a very real risk then this cost-of-living crisis could very much become the norm.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/albanese-is-making-life-harder-for-mainstream-australians/
************************************28 April, 2023
One final question for medical regualtors: Will your credibility be restored or slide further?
On 25 July 2021, Scott Morrison said the government will buy another 85 million Pfizer booster doses in 2022 and 2023. That’s more than three boosters for every Australian or more than four for every adult, after their initial two-dose vaccination. Thus the government was already aware of the vaccine’s waning effectiveness against the existing strain and its likely ineffectiveness against new variants. This of course is also the understanding about annual flu vaccines: they are reformulated every year because the pathogen is unstable and keeps mutating, which in turn rules out an eradication strategy. This is why we learnt long ago to live with the flu, focus public health efforts on protecting the most vulnerable through annual vaccines and leave the rest of society to carry on with the normal routine of life. Meanwhile, the ‘safe and effective’ messaging on Covid vaccines looks increasingly suspect. Confidence has diminished in health authorities, parliaments, medical establishments and media for their manifold failures to interrogate the official claims and report on the rising toll of vaccine injuries. As from last month, the AstraZeneca vaccine is no longer available in Australia owing to the ‘rare but serious side effect’ thrombosis. On 31 March, the ABS reported there were 25,235 (15.3 per cent) excess deaths in Australia in 2022. Yet the government and opposition MPs rejected a motion from Senator Ralph Babet to hold an inquiry into this concerning phenomenon. Meanwhile from 1 April Switzerland has withdrawn all vaccine recommendations. Doctors can administer Covid vaccines only in individual cases under specified conditions and bear the risk of liability themselves.
Even if Covid had proven to be as deadly as the Spanish flu and the vaccines 90 per cent effective, coercion and mandates would still have been unethical. Revelations that authorities knew this to be false in early 2021, means there was little medical justification either. This makes the public policy scientifically perverse and ethically immoral. Social media Big Tech made it worse by actively censoring, shadow-banning, downgrading and slapping labels from self-identifying fact-checkers better described as misinformers and disinformers. (India has gone one logical step better. The government will create a fact-check body for regulating online content. Opposition parties have denounced the move as censorship and accused the ruling party of being the biggest purveyor of fake news.) On the one hand, Big Pharma and public regulators meant to oversee them colluded to hide and delay important information. On the other, they ferociously attacked independent researchers who tried various forensic techniques to ‘mine’ the relevant data and offer a counter-narrative, with the goal of discrediting and demonising anyone with the temerity to question the official ‘truth’. The Censorship-Industrial Complex was weaponised into a powerful tool of state power in an evolving system of governance that is a threat to the very survival of free society. I am not impugning doctors and researchers who put their faith in the underlying integrity of the regulatory agencies and medical establishments, even if that faith turned out to have been misplaced and abused. I too feel betrayed by the WHO and disillusioned with its patchy performance, to put it kindly.
On 5 April Maryanne Demasi published an article on Substack, republished by Children’s Health Defense, that the triumphalist 95-per-cent-efficacy narrative of the Pfizer vaccine, which would give us all an exit ramp from the coronavirus pandemic with universal vaccination, had already gone off script by June 2021. Some highly vaccinated countries like Israel were experiencing a fresh wave of infections that was fuelling vaccine hesitancy and slowing take-up. By July Israel was reporting effectiveness of 64 per cent and in August only 39 per cent. Regulatory filings show that Pfizer and the FDA had evidence already in April 2021 on waning effectiveness. This was not publicly disclosed until much later. The press release from Pfizer on 1 April 2021 announcing results of its six-month Phase 3 trial repeated claims of 91.3 per cent efficacy against the Covid disease and up to 100 per cent effectiveness against severe disease. The top authorities continued to downplay the lack of evidence to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness against viral transmission and long-term protection. While acknowledging the possibility of breakthrough infections, Anthony Fauci said on national TV on 16 May 2021, ‘When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community… you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere’. The official report from Public Health Ontario in March shows Covid hospitalisations and deaths in 2022 were 31 and 39 per cent higher respectively than in 2021, despite 76 per cent of Ontarians being double-vaccinated.
Neither the pharmaceutical industry nor public health agencies are releasing all the data nor undertaking the important safety studies and acting on safety signals in a timely fashion to restore trust in their good faith, competence and integrity. Independent researchers are still having to do medical detective work instead. With widely varying and contested definitions and measurements of Covid and vaccine-related deaths, they look instead for clues in all-cause excess deaths. In February, Norwegian scientists published a study which found vaccination rollouts across 31 countries in 2021 were associated with rising all-cause mortality in the first nine months of 2022. A March analysis from the Vaccine Damage Project concluded there were 310,000 vaccine-related US excess deaths in 2021 to 2022 inclusive. Professor Norman Fenton calculates the number of deaths caused directly by vaccines until 23 March 2023 to be 120,000 in the US and 16,000 in the UK. Dr. Ros Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician, examined the lagged temporal correlations in several European countries between vaccine uptakes and falling births nine months later. On 28 March WHO experts published a revised roadmap which prioritises vaccines for the elderly and people with comorbidities, relegates healthy children and adolescents down to low priority because of their low disease burden and recognises natural immunity from prior infections.
In a sign they might be awakening to the risk of cross-vaccine hesitancy because of disillusionment with Covid vaccines, the guidance acknowledges: ‘The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children’.
My final question is to the public health clerisy. If you become transparent on efficacy, investigate safety signals urgently and fully and publish the findings honestly, in the long run will your credibility worsen or will you begin to regain public trust and confidence?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/one-final-question-for-regualtors/
**************************************************Australia has an immigration problem, and it’s tearing the country apart
‘The rental market right now is currently utterly f**ked,’ reads a post currently trending on r/Sydney, a Reddit board devoted to the Sydney area. ‘Our landlord wants a $300 increase, we can’t find anywhere to live.’ A similar comment posted on r/AusFinance asks: ‘Is anyone else feeling a sense of long-term hopelessness regarding housing?’ This is followed by a rather depressing comment stating ‘a regular job can’t afford a regular life anymore’.
This could simply be, as is often suggested by older generations, another case of sensitive Millennial syndrome. But the facts don’t lie. Rents really have risen 24 per cent nationally. Housing prices really did rise a record 27.5 per cent in the last few years. Inflation really is running hot at 7.4 per cent, and interest rates really have jumped more than 3 per cent in less than a year. Wages are growing on paper – but in real terms are shrinking.
Young people – typically the most exposed to economic volatility – are complaining, and they have good reason to be. As one former RBA head says, they ‘should be squealing louder’.
While the political class likes to pretend that most of these economic events are simply out of their control, the reality is that much of what was listed above is a direct result of government policy, especially immigration policy. Sadly this is still a topic that goes dangerously under-discussed, and if recent events in Europe are anything to go by, it could soon have huge political consequences.
We know that the last twenty years in Australia has seen the highest intake of migrants ever. We also know that young people today are poorer, unhappier, and having fewer children than at any other time in history. Yet for all the government reports, think-tank studies, academic essays, news articles, and comment pieces, nobody – nobody – has bothered, or had the courage, to draw a connection between the two.
And it’s not for a lack of evidence. A 2018 Grattan Institute report concedes that immigration overwhelmingly puts pressure on affordable housing, hurting younger Australians. Data from the Australia Bureau of Statistics shows a direct correlation between rising migration and depressed wage growth. Report after report shows that migration is creating a rental crisis, and a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald has suggested how rapid population growth might worsen inflation, requiring higher interest rates. It truly is the worst of all worlds.
Just this week, a Resolve Political Monitor poll showed that two-thirds of young Australians expect they will never be able to buy a house.
‘Young Australians and middle-income earners have given up on ever buying their own homes amid mounting evidence the nation’s dysfunctional housing system is destabilising the entire economy.
Among those who do not already own a home, 63 per cent of low-income earners and 54 per cent of those on middle incomes believe they will forever be shut out of the property market that is among the most expensive in the world.’
Young Australians today are currently being economically pincered. From below, their wages are being arbitraged to migrants from poorer countries willing to work for less, while from above, renting or purchasing a property is made more expensive thanks to increased demand.
Yet on the flipside of these policies, the economic advantages for the old and rich are hard to dismiss. For the rich, decades of low labour costs and a growing consumer base has meant record profits for corporations, with the wealth of Australia’s richest rapidly growing. And for the middle class, decades of consistent house price growth has meant that buying a simple family home in 1970 probably makes you a millionaire today, without an hour of work needed. The best financial decision you could ever make is to be born a Baby Boomer.
To add insult to injury, much of Australia’s economy and tax system today is overwhelmingly geared towards wealthier older Australians, while costs are passed on to younger working Australians.
Ours is now a two-tier economy. If you’re rich and you own assets, your net worth is likely going up with GDP. If you’re young, your net worth – and quality of life – is likely in reverse.
Remarkably few people are talking about this. Albanese, despite saying in the lead-up to the election that ‘Australia can’t rely on overseas migration’, has since lifted migration to its highest annual intake ever. The Greens, choosing to ignore the fact that rampant population growth is the single biggest destroyer of the environment, promote immigration, while simultaneously proposing rental caps – a blaring example of economic nonsense. The Liberals and Nationals say nothing, and only One Nation – to their credit – have spoken out against the current levels of migration.
The media has only just now started to whisper about the real reason for the rental crisis. After months of endlessly spruiking migration as a solution to the so-called ‘skills crisis’, they begun reporting on the inevitable harmful effects of that policy. Yet for every hundred articles churned out by ‘demographers’, ‘property specialists’, and ‘economists’, only one will even mention migration as a direct cause of the crisis. A remarkable coincidence.
Which brings forward a bigger question – if migration really is causing such huge strain on the country, why do we hear so little about it? The reason, writes Edward Smith, is because those promoting migration are seldom the ones affected by it.
‘One of the reasons CEOs, politicians, public servants, lobbyists, humanities academics, consultants and journalists — what I call protected knowledge workers — are so fond of globalisation of the labour market is because they do not experience it.
‘Protected knowledge workers face negligible competition from most recently arrived migrants who obviously lack the native cultural ‘skill’ set.
‘But for farm workers, drivers, cleaners, hospitality workers and uncertified construction workers on the other hand — manual labourers — next year’s migrants will compete directly for wages.’
These ‘protected knowledge workers’ simply don’t see what all the fuss is about when it comes to mass immigration. What’s wrong with letting a few people in? So removed are they from the effects of immigration, they fail to consider what bringing in hundreds of thousands of newcomers might mean for others. No group better represents this phenomenon than the Teals, who are quite happy to have massive new apartment blocks built on the cheap to house the rapidly growing migrant-fuelled population, just so long as it’s not in their neighbourhood.
Speaking to a friend involved in state politics recently, I asked why they think so few politicians publicly recognise mass migration as a direct cause of the housing crisis. ‘They don’t want to be called a racist. It’s as simple as that.’ Cynically, one of the biggest and most important conversations in Australia goes without discussion, out of fear of being cancelled.
Of course, this silence suits big business and the political left just fine. The conversation is kept sewn shut, with workers, politicians, families and young people harmed by mass migration left too afraid to speak out.
It’s now looking like the end result of this can only go one of two ways. We can admit the fundamental core of the issue, ignore the ridiculous accusations of racism and xenophobia, and gather enough political power to sufficiently reduce migration to a more sustainable level – or, we can continue to grow our population exponentially by bringing in 300,000+ a year, put intense strain on housing and wages, dramatically reduce our standard of living, and inevitably bringing the country to a political and economic flashpoint. It’s not as far off as you think.
‘Australia has not yet had the populist backlashes that have led to crises in other liberal democracies,’ writes Claire Lehmann in The Australian.
‘But our good fortune may be starting to unravel. High immigration can be absorbed when the pie is growing, and opportunities for upward mobility are abundant. But the pie is no longer growing, and younger and lower-income people in particular, feel like they’ve been screwed out of a fair go.’
Could we see a populist backlash? Populist parties across the world have figured out what time it is and are capitalising on a backlash – a smart party in Australia would do the same. Finland recently went to the polls, with the right-wing populist Finns Party coming out as the major winners after forming a coalition government with the centre-right. Notably, a 2020 poll showed that the Finns Party was the most popular party among young people, especially young males.
A not too dissimilar story in Italy, where a poll showed 17 per cent of young Italians backed Giorgia Meloni’s populist-right Brothers of Italy party – the second highest for support after the politically fashionable centre-left Democratic Party on 19 per cent. Likewise in Sweden, which now boasting both its first Millennial leader, and its first leader vowing to reduce immigration. The reason for this is simple: younger people have grown up with globalism, they are now naturally reacting against it.
This fact stands in complete contradiction to the narrative that young people are becoming more left-wing. A recent article from the Australian Financial Review rightfully tells us ‘Millennials are getting older, but not more conservative’, yet fails to mention that one reason younger people aren’t becoming more conservative, might be because they’re becoming more like their European counterparts.
It’s not hard to see why conservatism failed. Australia’s ‘conservative’ movement is nothing more than the exact same reheated Howard-era hyper-growth economics. While that may have worked back then, it’s these exact policies that are today worsening the housing crisis, the wage crisis, and ruining our standard of living. It may be good for the think-tanks, corporate donors, and the upper and older echelons, but it’s not good for the young Australians who were hoping to have living standards at least equal to that of their parents.
So what alternative should young people vote for? One Nation is increasingly shaping up to become a mainstream alternative populist party, but it needs some help. If it were smart, and if it wanted to grow its influence, it would look to the success of the parties overseas in Europe, and broaden its appeal to younger voters. It would modernise, professionalise, and digitise its image and its approach. It would start leaning on the issues flowing on from immigration: namely housing, wages, infrastructure, public services, environment, and social cohesion, as well as globalisation: namely culture, social cohesion, wealth gap, and cultural Marxism. Like Meloni’s party, like Finns Party, and like the Sweden Democrats, they would encourage more involvement from younger, energised members. They would talk to younger voters, ask their concerns. Support for the major parties is at its lowest ever, and young people today are angry and looking for not just a protest vote, but a genuine path out of this mess.
Of course, the Liberal Party could do the same, but the genetic makeup of their party is now far too upper-middle-class, far too established to understand the concerns of the average Australian, let alone lead a populist backlash. Like the conservatives above, they’re likely too removed from (or dependent on) the effects of globalism to effectively rally against it. They may have in the past effectively tricked voters into thinking they’re fighting for them, but that clearly isn’t working now.
One final point. People reading this who think they can buy their way out of the effects of globalisation are correct, insofar as it only affects them. But their children, and their children’s children will have to inhabit a country far different from the one they enjoyed. Looking around, I see a lot of rich parents who were made richer by a growing population, with their kids left materially and financially poorer, culturally astray, mentally unwell, and removed from the community that the parents enjoyed. The parents wonder what went so wrong, oblivious to the obvious connection: that globalisation gave them immense wealth, while ruining the country their children inherited.
We are in a skills shortage. There is now more than ever a desperate need for talented, smart, and driven people to speak up on the issue of immigration. If politicians, media figures, unions, businesses, and others only use their voice to silence dissent, shout louder. Right now, it’s all we’ve got.
********************************************
The battle to fix Australia’s broken immigration system
Today, half of all living Australians or their parents were born overseas. But for at least the last decade, Australia has been adding large quantities of migrants, without paying as much attention to the economic quality of the foreigners we have invited to live here.
Australia, one of the most desirable locations in the world, needs to attract more highly skilled migrants in the global race for talent, according to a government-commissioned review led by former top bureaucrat Martin Parkinson.
Temporary migrants living in Australia have doubled to more than 2 million people over the last 15 years, who have in effect become “permanently temporary”.
Many of them work in relatively low-skill, low-paying jobs such as hospitality and retail, and are often not matched to their qualifications and skills.
Parkinson says a better targeted migration program can help improve the nation’s dwindling productivity, enhance human capital, lift business competitiveness and mitigate the fiscal costs of an ageing domestic population.
Australia can no longer keep relying on increasing the labour force participation of domestic females, which is already around a record high.
“We’ve got an economy that can’t be supported by the size of the permanent population,” Parkinson says.
The migration system “is way too antiquated and outdated”. “It’s clear that we are being left behind by our global competitors.”
In past decades, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom were the major competitor destinations for skilled migrants. Today, Germany, Russia, Israel and Spain are among the top 10 destinations for skilled workers.
Australia’s global share of skilled migrants has slipped from third in the 1990s to sixth in 2020, or from 7 per cent to 4 per cent. Ageing populations and declining birth rates are challenging the demographic profiles of many major economies. There is a war for talent.
Younger skilled workers fill jobs and pay income taxes, easing skills shortages and propping up government budgets to pay for the rising cost of aged care, healthcare and defence.
Not a ‘big Australia’
Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neill was at pains this week to emphasise that Labor’s multi-year overhaul of the migration system would not be a repeat of former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd’s contentious “big Australia”.
“It’s not about a bigger program,” O’Neill told the National Press Club on Thursday. “The likely impact of the changes that I’ve suggested here is probably a slightly smaller migration program over time.”
Despite being invited by media, she declined to a put a numeric target on Australia’s overall migration intake, saying it would depend on the state of the economy and decisions by government and business.
The reassurance that this is not a “big Australia” 2.0 comes at a politically sensitive time, as the strains of a post-pandemic resurgence in migration emerge via housing shortages and a jump in rents for tenants.
After net overseas migration went backwards during the COVID-19 border closure, a net flow of about 400,000 migrants settled in Australia last calendar year and, according to Westpac economists, a further 350,000 people are expected in 2023 – about double pre-pandemic trends.
It’s a big turnaround from the closed borders during the pandemic, when business leaders and some policymakers feared “fortress Australia” would deter foreigners from returning to Australia for years to come.
Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe said this month it turned out those fears were wrong.
“People love coming here,” he told the National Press Club. “They want to come here and work and to study and enjoy the fantastic standard of living we’re all lucky enough to enjoy.
“So, people are coming here again and they’re coming in large numbers, they’re providing workers for firms, and we have to find somewhere for them to live.”
Suburban ‘barbecue stopper’
High migration numbers are once again becoming a “barbecue stopper” in suburban Australia, with obvious political risks for the government.
The intake has sparked warnings from Coalition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan that Australia has returned to a big Australia policy by stealth.
Acutely aware of the government’s delicate balancing act on immigration, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met state and territory leaders at a national cabinet meeting on Friday. The agenda included working together to improve housing, infrastructure and services supply for a growing population.
“You’ve got to maintain social cohesion and public trust,” Parkinson says. “Yet the numbers of migrants coming in, if the system isn’t planned properly, puts strain on infrastructure and housing or service provision.
“So, if you don’t actually plan better and engage the states in this process, you’re always going to be running to catch up to the population.”
Moreover, getting the states on board to actually deliver more housing supply, infrastructure and services will be easier said than done.
More homes needed
To avoid migration exacerbating a housing shortage and rental crisis, a government source says the states will need to increase and speed up approvals for zoning, planning and development.
That includes overcoming the NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality of local politicians and residents to build more medium density housing in inner and middle-ring suburbs.
“Immigration and population growth is strong and rents are going up, so that does present some challenges for governments,” says Sally Auld, chief investment officer at JBWere.
People like the idea of more homes being built, just not in their neighbourhood.
Seventy-two per cent of people support encouraging more homes to be built in new suburbs outside city centres, according to a Resolve Political Monitor poll published this week by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Support fell to 51 per cent to relax planning rules to allow more homes outside a person’s local area. This dropped to 41 per cent if laws were eased to allow more homes in a person’s own suburb.
Maintaining public confidence in the migration system also extends to ensuring that lower income workers don’t feel their wages are being suppressed by cheaper migrant workers and risk-based compliance program that tackle the “exploitation” of migrant workers by a minority of employers, Parkinson says.
One of the most immediate changes, effective from July 1, will be lifting the minimum pay threshold for temporary skilled migrant workers to $70,000. It has been frozen at $53,900 since 2013.
The new higher Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold reflects what the cut-off would be if it had been indexed to wages over the last decade. O’Neill says this will stop the so-called “skilled” program being a “guest worker” program.
Up to 21,000 foreign workers already here will either need to get a substantial pay rise to meet the $70,000 test, or face losing their right to work and live in Australia as their current visas progressively expire from July 1.
Labor and the unions – who wanted a $90,000 TSMIT – hope the higher minium pay for temporary skilled workers sponsored by employers will boost wages – not only of migrants, but also of domestic workers competing in lower-paying jobs.
The flipside is that hospitality and retail businesses will face higher wage costs, making it harder for some marginal businesses to survive or forcing them to raise prices for customers.
There remains an open question if Australians are prepared to fill roles such as cooks, chefs, retail and hospitality managers, and some modest-paid automotive and construction jobs.
Restaurant & Catering Australia chief executive Suresh Manickam says the change will worsen the “skills shortage crisis faced by small businesses in the hospitality industry”.
The government says there will still be foreign visa holders who will be permitted to work in crucial lower-paid industries such as aged care and childcare where there are severe shortages of workers. Students and backpackers will also retain part-time work rights.
But O’Neill wants to raise the barriers to entry and lift the minimum standards for foreign workers. International students and education agents have used study as a backdoor way to permanently reside in Australia in lower-end jobs.
*************************************************
Australia closes oldest coal plant, pivots to renewables
Here come blackouts on windless nights
Australia's oldest coal-fired power plant was shuttered Friday, as the country -- a once-notorious climate straggler -- prepares for a seismic shift towards renewable energy.
The Liddell power station, a three-hour drive north of Sydney, was one in a series of ageing coal-fired plants slated to close in the coming years.
Built in 1971, Liddell provided about 10 percent of the electricity used in New South Wales, Australia's most populous state.
Liddell's owner AGL said it would take about two years to demolish the hulking facility, which would free up the site for new clean energy projects such as a hydrogen power plant.
"More than 90 per cent of the materials in the power station will be recycled, including 70,000 tonnes of steel -- which is more steel than there is in the Sydney Harbour Bridge," the company said.
For decades, coal has provided the bulk of Australia's electricity, but University of New South Wales renewable energy expert Mark Diesendorf told AFP that stations such as Liddell were fast becoming unreliable "clunkers".
Besides being inefficient, highly polluting and expensive to repair, the continued widespread use of coal-fired power plants would make Australia's climate targets almost impossible to meet.
Australia has long been one of the world's largest coal producers and exporters, and a series of governments have resisted pressure to scale back the industry.
But the centre-left Labor Party elected last year on the promise of climate action has pledged that 82 percent of the country's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2030.
This demands a drastic overhaul -- while world leaders such as Norway produce more than 90 percent of their power through renewables, Australia currently sits around 30 percent.
"The plans are for a fairly rapid phase-out," Diesendorf told AFP. "These stations are overdue for retirement and there's no economic argument for replacing them with new coal."
- 'Right direction' -
Under growing public pressure to address the climate crisis, many Australian fossil fuel companies increasingly prefer to shutter old coal plants than keep them online.
Australia's largest coal-fired power station, the Eraring facility in New South Wales, is scheduled to close in 2025 and a handful more will follow over the next decade.
While these closures will test whether renewables are ready to fill the gap, a government report released Friday indicated Australia was heading in the right direction.
The Australian Energy Market Operator found that record levels of renewable electricity -- mostly solar power -- were already driving down both emissions and household power prices.
************************************
27 April, 2023
Federal MP Marion Scrymgour backs ‘safe school’ for Indigenous children in Alice Springs
A realistic proposal at last
Northern Territory federal Labor MP Marion Scrymgour has backed moves by Alice Springs principal Gavin Morris to get Indigenous children off the streets and into the classroom by providing safe accommodation for them at school.
Ms Scrymgour will meet Dr Morris as early as Saturday to work through issues needed to fast-track the groundbreaking proposal for a residential facility – part of it secure – for students and says she will push federal Education Minister Jason Clare to consider using funding earmarked for education in Central Australia.
A proposal commissioned by Dr Morris for his Yipirinya School by building consultants Donald Cant Watts Corke estimates a total building cost of $12m for four cottages housing 24 students with staff accommodation in the same units.
Ms Scrymgour said the plans were essential in order to get youth “re-engaged” in the education system.
“We can’t have another generation that becomes illiterate and disengaged from the system and then just ends up on the scrap heap,” she said. “We’ve got to give young people some hope that they can live somewhere safely but they need to re-engage in the school system.”
The development comes after Dr Morris revealed in The Australian how children are sometimes returned to school in handcuffs or wearing ankle bracelets and how a 12-year-old and his mates led teachers on a wild pursuit through the town in a stolen minibus.
NT Chief Minister Natasha Fyles declined to respond directly to questions about Dr Morris’s proposal but said the Territory government would “stand up two facilities that families can go to when they are displaced and in need of support services. This is to ensure we can get these families back on their feet, back to community or into longer-term accommodation and kids back to school.”
Yipirinya School has more than 200 Indigenous students from the town camps and outstations of Alice Springs, catering for some of the most disadvantaged students in the nation.
The school was founded by Indigenous elders and teaches in four Indigenous languages.
Ms Scrymgour said that what Dr Morris was proposing should be supported but called for the accommodation to be built in a separate location than the grounds of Yipirinya, accessible to all students in Alice Springs.
She proposed a central facility that other high schools could “feed into”, and allowing it to be resourced with government and non-government agencies.
“Centralian High in Alice Springs (also) has issues with kids needing somewhere to stay,” she said. “If you’re going to have a boarding facility for some of these kids I think it shouldn’t be attached to any one school … there’s a real need in Alice Springs.”
Dr Morris said he would be delighted to work with Ms Scrymgour to come up with a viable proposal,” he said. “I’m very flexible in making sure that we work with people like Marion to ensure that we get a solution and we get action.
“I’m happy to explore actions that might not necessarily be on the Yipirinya school site, but also acknowledging this request has come from our key Elders, from community, it’s not my idea.”
Yipirinya School Principal Gavin Morris says what’s being seen more of is a crisis in the community around young… children participating in anti-social behaviour as a result of what’s going on in their surroundings. “There’s a growing cohort, a growing number of families in crisis – they’re at More
Ms Scrymgour said she would also support a secure facility in Alice Springs for young people as an alternative to the controversial Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin.
“When we’re talking about youth crime, if the kids aren’t going to be sent to Don Dale, but to get them off the streets and as part of their bail conditions, they need to go into a secure facility,” she said. “There is no facility in Alice Springs for that to happen.”
Ms Scrymgour said she would meet with Dr Morris “as early as Saturday” to come to a solution.
“The one minister I’d like to bring in on this is (federal education minister) Jason Clare … there was some money that was earmarked for education in the central Australian plains, so I want to just talk through some stuff with Gavin, and then maybe have a chat with Jason Clare ...” She also called for a similar project to be looked at in Katherine, three hours southeast of Darwin
***********************************************
Class action lawsuit over Covid vaccine injuries targets the Australian government: 'There has been a cover-up'
A landmark Covid-19 vaccine injury class action lawsuit has been filed against the Australian government and the medicines regulator.
The nation-wide suit, which reportedly has 500 members including three named applicants, seeks redress for those allegedly left injured or bereaved by the Covid-19 vaccines.
One of the applicants who suffered a severe heart condition after getting the Pfizer jab is even claiming there was 'cover-up' during the vaccine rollout which hid the potential risks.
The federal government, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Department of Health - in addition to a number of senior public servants - are all named as parties to the class action, which was filed in the New South Wales Federal Court on Wednesday.
The named parties are accused of negligence in their approval and monitoring of Covid-19 vaccines, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance in public office.
The lawsuit was organised by Queensland GP Dr Melissa McCann who raised over $105,000 through crowd funding. 'These injured and bereaved have suffered immense loss, pain and grief,' Dr McCann tweeted.
'Just as heartbreaking has been the gaslighting and silence, which has left them feeling abandoned. We cannot simply 'move on' from covid and leave them behind.'
Dr McCann has been critical of the existing compensation scheme, claiming it was 'not fit for purpose'.
'Many vaccine-injured Australians who cannot access compensation through the Services Australia scheme now find themselves abandoned, with no support,' Dr McCann said.
The size of the compensation claim being sought is not yet clear.
The TGA has been contacted for comment.
The TGA’s latest health safety report, published on 20 April, reveals that adverse risks are extremely low. here were 138,307 total adverse event reports from nearly 66 million vaccine doses administered - a rate of just 0.2 per cent.
'The protective benefits of vaccination far outweigh the potential risks,' the report states.
The medicines regulator has identified a total of 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination and said there was no new vaccine-related deaths identified since 2022.
'The TGA closely monitors reports of suspected side effects (also known as adverse events) to the COVID-19 vaccines,' it said.
'This is the most intensive safety monitoring ever conducted of any vaccines in Australia.'
But instructing solicitor Natalie Strijland, of Brisbane law firm NR Barbi, said the action would argue the TGA caused considerable harm and damage by failing to regulate the COVID-19 vaccinations properly.
The class action names three applicants, one of whom is 41-year old father-of-two Gareth O'Gradie.
Mr O'Gradie, a teacher from Melbourne, was left with a 20-centimetre scar down his chest after developing severe pericarditis — inflammation of the lining around the heart — following his first Pfizer vaccination in July 2021.
He did not respond to various medications and therapies and in February 2022 doctors performed open heart surgery to remove his the pericardial sac lining his heart.
The TGA said myocarditis and pericarditis were 'usually temporary conditions, with most people getting better within a few days', noting that the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) 'continues to emphasise that the protective benefits of the vaccines far outweigh the rare risk of these side effects'.
But Mr O'Gradie believes there has been 'misinformation about the safety' of the vaccines from the government. 'I think there has been some cover-up,' he told news.com.au.
'There was a lot of, you know, 'We need to not scare the public as part of the vaccine rollout, so let's not publicise these things.' There was a large, intentional withholding of information — that doesn't give people informed consent.'
He claimed that he was 'totally not or never have been anti-vaccine'. 'I'm pro-science, I'm well educated,' he said.
Mr O'Gradie told The Australian that he was worried about the 'anti-vaccine lobby piggybacking' on the class action.
He is joined by two other lead claimants: Antonio Derose, 66, who developed encephalomyelitis (inflammation in the brain and spinal cord) following his AstraZeneca jab and Anthony Rose, 47, who claims severe cognitive impairment and chronic fatigue following his Moderna vaccination.
The existing compensation scheme, which is open to Australians who 'suffer a moderate to severe impact following an adverse reaction to a TGA-approved COVID-19 vaccine', has been heavily criticised for being difficult to access and too narrowly focused.
As of April 12, Services Australia had received 3501 applications and paid 137 claims totalling more than $7.3 million. Another 2263 claims are still in progress, while 405 have been withdrawn and 696 deemed not payable.
************************************************
Queensland’s top 150 high schools ranked by Better Education
Note that of all schools that got ratings of 99 or 100 only 2 out of 25 were State schools and both of those had selective admission
More than 30 public schools have been named alongside some of the state’s powerhouse colleges to be ranked in Queensland’s top 150.
Independent schools specialist website Better Education has revealed Queensland’s best schools a compilation of both government and private schools between years 7-10.
The selective Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology retained the top spot in 2022 with a perfect score of 100. The Toowong-based school had full marks for English and Maths.
It was closely followed by Brisbane Grammar School, Brisbane Girls Grammar School, Brisbane State High School, Somerset College, Ormiston College, Whitsunday Anglican School and St Aidan’s Anglican Girls’ School all with perfect scores.
Whitsunday Anglican School, which charges about $12,000 at a fraction of those in the top 10, was the only school from outside of the South East pocket.
Some of the top public schools included Mansfield State High School, Indooroopilly State High School and Brisbane and Cairns schools of distance education.
Some of the most improved schools included Ipswich Grammar School which went from 28 to 13, Redeemer Lutheran College (39 to 22) and the Brisbane School of Distance Education (111 to 37).
Cairns School of Distance Education, Mount Gravatt State High School, Northpine Christian College and Coolum State High School were all new entries for 2022.
Better Education’s list is based on Year 9 results with English and Maths rated out of five and the overall academic performance with three rating scales.
Better Education is an independently-run site that aims to provide “informative and comparative school performance … to parents wanting to make choices about schooling for their children”.
***************************************************
Warren Mundine: The Voice to Parliament isn’t what Aboriginal people want
People campaigning for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice will tell you Aboriginals overwhelmingly support it.
This argument works because it tugs at the heartstrings of well-meaning Australians who feel voting ‘Yes’ is what Aboriginals want.
It also discourages debate, implies voting ‘No’ is ignoring Aboriginal people, possibly racist, and wrongly conflates a ‘Yes’ vote with ‘doing the right thing’. I don’t believe this claim.
Let’s start with the supposed claim that 80 per cent of Aboriginals support the Voice based on an Ipsos poll in January. The poll was commissioned by the Uluru Dialogue, the lobby group for the Uluru Statement. And it surveyed only 300 people.
I guess it depends which 300 people you speak to.
I’ve personally spoken to well over 300 Aboriginals from all over Australia, including from remote and regional Australia. Almost without exception, all have told me they either oppose the Voice, don’t understand it (or haven’t even heard of it) or are deeply cynical about it.
The only Aboriginals I know who support it are academics and lawyers, people from the organisations campaigning for it and some city-based, affluent Aboriginals whose views usually mirror other city-based, affluent Australians, so that’s hardly a surprise.
Last month ABC reporters travelled to three remote Aboriginal communities, Kaltukatjara, Warakurna and Cosmo Newbury, who have a combined Aboriginal population of 474 according to the last census.
Most people in those communities had no idea about the Voice or whether it would really help them.
One community leader said they “got a shock” when the ABC arrived because they’d never heard of the Voice.
Another said “What I’m really asking is: if they will come and talk to us and if they will explain?”
So, it’s unlikely his community will have a direct line to anything, except more bureaucrats.
Voice supporters also cite consultations for the Uluru Statement and the Co-Design Report. On its first day, the Joint Select Committee on the Voice Referendum heard this was “the most proportionately significant consultation process that has ever been undertaken with First Peoples”.
I believe this consultation was fundamentally flawed and designed to exclude dissenting views.
The so-called Uluru Statement was adopted at a gathering of 250 delegates at a Yulara Resort. I and others have spoken to A?angu elders angry it was named for their country saying it’s not their culture. Some delegates walked out saying, “It’s not a dialogue, it’s a one-way conversation. Every time we try and raise an issue, our voices are silenced”.
Delegates were hand-picked from 12 ‘Dialogues’ and one ‘Information Day’ over the previous 6 months. The Referendum Council says attendance was by invitation only which “ensured” each session reached consensus.
I take this to mean dissenting opinions were deliberately avoided. Referendum Council Co-Chair, Pat Anderson, reinforced my view recently when she said “naysayers” were intentionally excluded.
Over half the sessions were in capital cities even though only 37% of Indigenous people live in capital cities (in the NT, only 24%). Sessions were capped at 100 attendees: 60% for First Nations/traditional owner groups and another 40% for community organisations and “key individuals”. We don’t know how many of the 40% were Indigenous. But we do know that, at most, fewer than 0.25% of Indigenous adults were consulted in group discussion settings mostly held in locations where most Indigenous Australians don’t live.
The original remit of the Referendum Council was to advise on constitutional recognition. Attendees thought that’s what they’d been invited to discuss. A national representative advisory body isn’t what most people think of when they think about constitutional recognition. We’ve no idea when or how the idea of a “Voice” emerged in those sessions with no published transcripts or minutes. I’m aware of some attendees who don’t recall it being discussed at all.
************************************
26 April, 2023
Aussie EV drivers will soon benefit from nation-wide fast charging program
This is amusing. It's like a dog chasing its tail. It never catches up. The facility will entice more people to go electric, which will heighten the chance that when you roll up to recharge there will always be someone there recharging ahead of you. Frequently spending hours waiting to refuel will not tbe attractive. Electric cars are ok as suburban runabouts but are a pain for long trips
Electric car owners will be able to drive from Adelaide to Alice Springs, cross the Nullarbor, and run from Tasmania to Far North Queensland without stressing about charging, thanks to a new network coming to Australian roads.
A Federally funded program working with the NRMA to put 117 fast chargers on Australian highways will bring an end to “range anxiety”, according to Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen.
“EVs aren’t just for the cities, and Australians who drive long distances either for work or for holidays should be able to reap the benefits of cars that are cheaper and cleaner to run,” he said.
“We’re making range anxiety a thing of the past. This project will help close the gaps and known black spots in the network and make it possible to drive from Darwin to Perth, Broken Hill to Adelaide, and from Brisbane to Tennant Creek in the NT.
“This national rollout will help put more Australians in the driver’s seat of cheaper and cleaner cars.”
The Federal Government’s “Driving the Nation” fund will spend $39.3 million ensuring electric car chargers are placed at 150 kilometre intervals on national highways.
Full technical details – including the charging speed of the network – have not been released.
The NRMA will be using purpose built charger models for various public charging locations depending upon environmental conditions, location and power availability, sourcing chargers from manufacturers including Tritium, Kempower and ABB.
A spokesman for the organisation said plug power for the public charging locations “will initially range from 75kW to around 300kW”.
The fastest chargers currently used in Australia can add around 300 kilometres of range in about 20 minutes to high-end electric cars with more than 500 kilometres of range.
Cheaper models such as the Nissan Leaf, that can’t handle the flow of energy at need about an hour to add around 200 kilometres of range.
Mr Bowen drives a Tesla Model 3 – Australia’s most popular electric car.
Priced from about $64,000 drive-away, the Tesla offers around 491 kilometres of driving range.
Tesla has a widespread “Supercharger” network that is not available to owners of other electric cars.
Carly Irving-Dolan, NRMA chief executive for energy and infrastructure, said the network would be the charging backbone of Australia.
“The NRMA is excited to be partnering with the Australian Government to grow our regional network of fast charging stations across the country because we fundamentally believe that regional Australia should not be left behind,” she said.
“Australia’s expansive landscape presents some unique and local challenges to ensure that we are ready for more electric vehicles on our roads.
“NRMA has over 100 years’ experience helping Australia address transport challenges and we are committed to building on this work through this national charging network.”
*************************************************
Tradesmen happier, richer in their 20s than university grads
New research from the Ai Group shows that nearly half of all 25 year olds have a degree level qualification but are less likely to be in full-time employment.
Bachelor's degrees are a popular option among young students, but new data claims university might not be the best option for those seeking happiness and wealth in the early years of employment.
Almost 3,000 young people were surveyed as part of Australian Industry (Ai) Group's research into the "real trajectories and early career pathways" of 25-year-olds, with nearly half holding a Bachelor or postgraduate degree.
Tradies performed better than their tertiary-educated counterparts, with a difference of 16 per cent between the groups' wages at that age.
Feeling like the grass – and hip pocket – was greener on the other side, Braidan Quinlan dropped his teaching studies to undertake a carpentry trade.
It's a path he almost never explored, having been pressured in high school to attend university. "When I was in year 12, there wasn't really any talk of a trade or TAFE – it was more just pushing for university," Mr Quinlan said.
"Everyone wanted to go to university, everyone thought it was the right way to go, but if I could go back I would've started an apprenticeship when I was [a teenager]. "It would've been a good way to get ahead, I think."
The third-year apprentice was fed up with the narrative he needed a degree to "get forward in life". "I went [to university] for a few years … but found it really wasn't for me," Mr Quinlan said.
"I got offered this great apprenticeship at HNT Builders and have been enjoying it ever since."
One of the key findings in Ai Group's report was the benefit of "learning in a real-world setting", with almost all postgraduates and apprentices reporting full employment by 25 – meanwhile, only 92 per cent of those holding a Bachelor are employed at this age.
Postgraduates and apprentices also recorded the highest levels of job satisfaction, with respondents particularly pleased with the opportunities for further training as well as the chance to use their skills and experience on the job.
"I'm loving it," Mr Quinlan said. "The skills I've developed, both from trade school and on-the-job, have been phenomenal."
Although he admits a teaching salary would've been "a lot nicer" than the apprentice wages he started on, Mr Quinlan has his eyes set on the big picture. "Long-term, I feel there's so many more avenues to potentially make more money [as a tradie]," he said. "You can start your own business or jump over to the commercial sector.
"There's just more opportunity to make a better living, and that's part of why I moved away from [studying to be a teacher]."
Putting in the hours
The data shows, although tradies are raking in the cash, they also work the most hours. Apprentices undertake an average of seven additional hours, increasing their work week to 42 hours.
"These findings are a strong endorsement of the apprentice/trainee pathway and the many benefits that can follow, including higher pay," Ai Group said.
In the long run
"We should exercise some caution in drawing conclusions comparing pay at age 25 [as] other evidence suggests higher-qualified workers are likely to have stronger wage growth over their careers," the report notes.
But, in those early career years, the job satisfaction of university graduates often suffers as a result of being over-qualified for the positions they hold.
"A total of 36 per cent of Bachelor's degree holders [are] working in jobs below the skill level aligned with their qualification," Ai Group reported.
"Higher education students likely need to combine the deep knowledge of a degree with other types of learning and experience to forge a career.
"This suggests we need a more flexible education and training system that allows young people to acquire knowledge, skills and capabilities throughout their time 'learning' and to continue while they are 'earning and learning'."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/tradies-happier-than-university-graduates/102266290
************************************************Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s price caps won’t get more gas out of the ground
The one consistency in Chris Bowen’s attempt to force down gas prices is that the planned $12 cap will be in place in time for the next federal election that is due by 2025.
That’s the reality about today’s energy market, which is more about politics than getting more gas out of the ground and into the domestic market.
The second round of proposals for the mandatory code of conduct for the east coast gas market doubles down on pricing caps, extending them to more than two years. But the Albanese government and Climate Change and Energy minister Bowen is offering little in the way of a solution to create a sustainable longer-term gas market after nearly a decade of energy dysfunction across all levels of government. Bowen’s intervention is a heavy handed attempt to fix the outcome of the dysfunction, not the cause of it.
A price cap for another two years is a hard swallow for an industry that plans and builds cycles that range from five to 10 years. That and a myriad of subjective exemptions for smaller producers has added more uncertainty. Bowen argues the cap will ensure domestic prices are reasonable by establishing a price anchor.
But it is paving the way for more damage. There is little incentive for big producers to get more gas out of the ground and send it into Victoria and NSW, where it is badly needed. That will only serve to compound credible forecasts of gas market shortages.
Players like Woodside have effectively put on hold efforts to unlock more gas from the vast but rapidly maturing Bass Strait field that would be earmarked for the domestic market.
In a recent investor briefing Woodside chief Meg O’Neill confirmed their study of an LNG import terminal on the east coast had been “paused” as a result of the gas market intervention. At the same time the Bass Strait joint venture with Woodside and ExxonMobil was operating under six-month budget cycles. That’s not a lot of long-term planning there.
Other projects from other companies from Santos to Cooper Energy, as well as Queensland onshore development, remain in limbo.
“It’s very difficult to make investment decisions when there’s this residual uncertainty around the prices that we will be able to get for our commodities,” O’Neill said in February.
She also highlighted how many alternative growth projects including hydrogen were available to the energy major – which will require big spending but are set to deliver energy to international markets.
It was the global tensions of the Ukraine war that was the trigger for sending global gas prices soaring as Russian gas no longer flowed into Europe. Prices were already falling fast as the global market adjusted and Europe had a mild winter highlighted the unnecessary nature of the intervention.
Still the price is already skirting the price cap which could risk having the unintended effect of also putting a floor around prices. Figures from the Australian Energy Market regulator show in early December spot gas prices were averaging $15/GJ and then have fallen further to be stuck at the $12/GJ figure into the new year with several domestic deals struck at the price. There will be pressure for prices to rise in coming months as demand for heating increases, delivering the first winter test for the gas price caps.
From a hard gas price cap, to expected overhaul of the PRRT in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ upcoming budget and so far lack of interest in a response to a US-style Inflation Reduction Act all add up to be a collective disincentive for energy operators to spend money here where it is needed.
And the bigger threat to Australia is the loss of export capacity where emerging players such as the US are eyeing export contracts to Asia and PNG is fast developing its own industry.
The gas industry is desperate for a sign to work with the government in order to fix the supply logjam to feed the domestic market. But that is unlikely to make for great politics.
****************************************************
Three cheers for Jacinta!
Three cheers for Jacinta! Her promotion is good for Dutton, good for the Coalition, and good for the country.
The rise and rise of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from deputy mayor of Alice Springs to Country Liberal Senator for the Northern Territory, and from there to Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians is one of those rare rapid ascents in political life that promises to be good for the Liberal party, good for Opposition leader Peter Dutton, and good for the country.
Prime Minister Albanese’s brazen request for a blank cheque to create a disembodied Indigenous Voice to Parliament is disingenuous, dangerous, and many would add racist. Price’s opposition to Albanese’s half-baked plan is deeply personal. She is the living incarnation of reconciliation with a Warlpiri mum and an Anglo-Celtic dad. She went on create her own ‘blended family’ with her musician husband who is not Indigenous. As she says in the ‘No’ campaign ad, which is being run by Fair Australia, it was love that brought her parents together and love that brought she and her partner together and none of them want to see the family divided along the lines of race.
Price is a gifted speaker. At the CPAC conference in Sydney last year she and Warren Mundine provided a hilarious double act, brimming with good humour and incisive commentary. They plan to go on tour across the country reminding Australians that there is more to unite us than divide us. The pair will provide ‘Yes’ campaigners with a formidable challenge.
Labor has turned smearing Liberals as racist and sexist into an art form, but the promotion Price makes that task a whole lot harder. Leftists looked stupid, vicious, and paternalistic when they tried to claim that she was providing cover for racists.
Price has been a godsend for Dutton. His new Clark Kent-style black glasses have helped him shed the Voldemort look and with Price at his side, Labor has been put on the back foot in its campaign of character assassination that it perfected in relentless attacks on Scott Morrison. And to Labor’s chagrin Price has been joined at the hip to Dutton on his frequent trips to Alice Springs.
Price has been equally helpful to Dutton within his party. He has been faced with the same rancorous divisions that poisoned the prime ministerial tenure of the last three Liberal leaders. The Voice threatened the usual tectonic divide between the Woke, wet left, and the dry right. After the dismal drubbing in the Aston by-election, Price is the inspirational figure the Coalition needs to bring its warring tribes together. Perhaps not Julian Leeser, who quit the shadow front bench to campaign for the Voice, but Price, a Country National, was backed by the majority of Liberals even though it meant the Nationals have exceeded their quota on the front bench.
Leeser’s departure has also allowed Dutton to promote the very capable Kerrynne Liddle to Shadow Assistant Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence and make the battle-hardened former attorney-general Michaelia Cash the new shadow attorney-general.
And just like that, Dutton has added three impressive women to the ministry making Labor’s stereotypical attacks that much harder.
The announcement by Karen Andrews, the former and then Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, that she will quit the front bench and not contest the next election opened the way for Dutton to promote talented China hawk Senator James Paterson to Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and cyber security.
Paterson did an impressive job when he was chair of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security. He scored a major hit on the government in February when he raised the alarm about the threat posed by almost a thousand Chinese-made cameras in Commonwealth buildings.
He joins Andrew Hastie, Shadow Minister for Defence, who gets kudos for being attacked by the overtly pro-China Premier of Western Australia, Mark McGowan, this week. McGowan, either accidentally or on purpose, announced over a hot microphone at a China-Australia Chamber of Commerce lunch during his first trip to China since the pandemic that Hastie had ‘swallowed some sort of Cold War pills back … when he was born, and he couldn’t get his mindset out of that’. Who knows what was going on. What is certain is that most Australians share Hastie’s concerns about the CCP and would see McGowan’s comments in an unimpressed light within the context of his visit to China.
Price, Liddle, Paterson, and Hastie are all part of a younger generation that will eventually carry the Liberals back onto the government benches. A successful campaign against the Voice is a critical first battle and Price is the best person to lead them to victory in that campaign.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/three-cheers-for-jacinta/
************************************25 April, 2023
Sydney statue defaced in Anzac Day protest
So much hate. Why does something that happened in 1826 still matter? Leftists are just using it to keep their hate alive
The article below closes with a reference to the Appin massacre, which was part of a war between Aborigines and settlers. Unmentioned is that Governor Macquarie was initially a peacemaker and that his orders were to capture, not kill Aborigines. The campaign he ordered was out of frustration with attacks on settlers
A community in Sydney’s north-west is angry after a statue was defaced with red paint ahead of a local Anzac Day dawn service.
The Lachlan Macquarie statue in Windsor’s McQuade Park was doused in red paint and handprints alongside the phrases “here stands a mass murderer who ordered the genocide” and “no pride in genocide”.
Mayor Sarah McMahon said she was alerted to the incident after the dawn service and said upon inspection, the paint was still “significantly wet”.
“To me, it had been done quite recently,” she said. “I am really saddened there are members of our community out there that think this is the appropriate way to get their message across.”
McMahon arranged for council staff to clean the statue and police were also called to the scene.
“We are a military community here in the Hawkesbury and to have this done on a day of such national and local significance to me is appalling,” she said. “I expect the police will do their job thoroughly.”
Local resident Tim Kelly took to Facebook to share an image of the defaced statue, receiving hundreds of horrified comments in response.
“The day was about our servicemen, not about any other agenda,” he said. “Everyone is absolutely disgusted.”
The statue has been the target of protests before. In 2017, the statue was graffitied with the words “murderer” as part of an Australia Day protest.
Monument Australia, an organisation that records monuments throughout Australia, states on their website the statue was commissioned during the bicentenary celebrations in 1994 of European settlement in the Hawkesbury.
“There is controversy around Macquarie’s treatment of Indigenous people,” the website states.
“In April 1816, Macquarie ordered soldiers under his command to kill or capture any Aboriginal people they encountered during a military operation aimed at creating a sense of terror. At least 14 men, women and children were brutally killed, some shot, others driven over a cliff.”
******************************************************
Queensland to decriminalise sex work as review recommends new advertising rules
Queensland will decriminalise sex work after a long-awaited review recommended sweeping changes to the industry to combat violence, discrimination and exploitation.
A landmark review into sex work by the Queensland Law Reform Commission has made 47 recommendations, including scrapping the Prostitution Licensing Authority, repealing some police powers and allowing services to be advertised on radio and TV.
The QLRC also recommended that sex workers not be singled out for public soliciting or street-based sex work, and said planning rules should allow services to operate away from industrial zones.
While sex work is under a licensing framework in Queensland, about 90% of sex workers are in the “unlawful sector” privately or at unlicensed businesses.
Sex workers have long rallied against the laws that prohibit them from employing a receptionist, working with others or texting other sex workers before and after a booking to make sure they’re safe.
In Queensland, police can currently also pose as clients and entrap workers by pressuring them to offer blacklisted services.
The attorney-general, Shannon Fentiman, said the government was “broadly supportive” of recommendations and supported decriminalising sex work.
Fentiman said decriminalisation of sex work would “ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our community have legal protections at work”.
She confirmed this would mean abolishing the Prostitution Licensing Authority, which regulates the state’s 20 brothels.
“The sex-work industry will be regulated by workplace health and safety laws, planning laws, advertising codes and standards, and public amenity and public nuisance laws,” she told reporters on Monday.
Fentiman said the government hoped to introduce legislation before the end of the year after consulting key stakeholders.
“We will need to work through each of the recommendations to work out how best to implement the intent of the law reform commission,” she said.
The report found the current framework undermined the health, safety and justice of sex workers. Those interviewed said they were reluctant to report crimes to police for fear of arrest or not being believed.
The QLRC said the law should respond to “reality, not myths”.
“Stereotypes about most sex workers being street workers, victims of exploitation or trafficking, or ‘vectors of disease’ are not supported by the evidence or reflected in the diversity of the sex-work industry,” the report said.
“The assumption that decriminalising sex work will increase the size of the industry is also unsupported.”
Sex worker and state coordinator of Respect Inc, Lulu Holiday, said decriminalisation will be a “life-changing policy shift”.
“Decriminalisation would mean I wouldn’t have to worry every time a client contacts me that it might be a police officer. I’d be able to work in a way that feels safe for me without being worried that I’m at risk of arrest,” Holiday told Guardian Australia.
“While it’s going to have a huge impact for us, it’s really not going to have any noticeable impact on the rest of the Queensland community.”
The chief executive of the Scarlet Alliance, Mish Pony, said the announcement “brings Queensland in line with domestic and international best practice”.
“Decriminalisation is a cost-effective, high compliance model for government and supports workplace health, safety and rights for sex workers,” Pony said.
The Queensland government confirmed last month it will also move to scrap an exemption of the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act which allows employers to discriminate against sex workers and gender-diverse and transgender people when working with children.
The exemption will be repealed, along with another clause that allows accommodation providers to lawfully discriminate against sex workers if there is a “reasonable belief” that they are engaging in sex work on the premises.
****************************************************
$400 a week for a flat that smells of old milk: The tsunami coming for renters
When are governments going to twig that they need to stop persecuting landlords and start encouraging them?
The six months Emersyn Wood spent searching for a home was a period of chronic stress.
Her search started in Sydney’s inner west but later widened out, and she was forced to lift her budget from $250 to $350 a week. Even then, the options were limited, and terrible.
“Most of them were very gross,” the 21-year-old says. “Even if it was like $400 … you would go to an inspection and it smells like old milk or smells like pee.”
“I was like, ‘OK, this is kind of disgusting.’ But I got to a point where [I thought] maybe I would have to put up with it.”
Being a renter in Australia has never been more difficult, thanks to record low vacancy rates and skyrocketing rents.
The entire rental market is in serious trouble, and that’s also because it is increasingly difficult to be an investor. But without more “mum and dad” investors or an influx of larger institutional funding, as well as improvements to rental security, the rental crisis will only get worse and continue to fuel class divides.
“The gap between rich and poor is going to grow, and it’s largely going to grow between those who have a home and those who don’t,” says the Grattan Institute’s director of economic policy, Brendan Coates.
About a third of Australian households rent, and the number is growing. Renters are also becoming older and wealthier as the great Australian dream of home ownership moves further from reach.
Gianni la Cava, research director for think tank e61, says renting is seen as a perfectly acceptable way to live in many countries, but not here. “Renting seems to be seen as something inferior in Australia. There’s just a real focus on owning a house,” he says.
That might be because for many people, renting is inferior. A recent report by online property settlement platform PEXA and property business Longview found Australia is one of the worst countries in the developed world to be a renter, due to insecure tenure and an inability for renters to make the house a home, through having pets or making minor alterations.
Renting is not just insecure and unaffordable – for many, just finding a property to lease is increasingly difficult. Even some federal politicians, despite their salaries and clout, are not immune to those struggles.
Kylea Tink, the independent federal member for North Sydney, has been searching for a rental home for herself and her three children all over her electorate, but says there are few properties on the market and the ones that are available are eye-wateringly expensive.
“It’s pretty soul-destroying,” she says. “I’ve been looking from Chatswood, to Longueville, to Greenwich, you name it. I’m very open to the opportunities of where to go, but there just doesn’t seem to be the market supply there.
“And it’s not just me, there are tens of families lining up, going through these properties, trying to see if they’re going to be places that they want to help continue to raise their family.”
The proportion of households that rent is growing, and it is growing across all age groups, according to the last census, while the proportion of people buying homes falls.
Nearly 28 per cent of people aged 45 to 54 rent today, compared with fewer than 20 per cent in 2001. Among those aged 55 to 64, 21.6 per cent are renters, compared with 15.7 per cent more than two decades ago.
The proportion of renters is swelling because more people are being priced out of home ownership, while fewer people can access social and affordable housing.
While the PEXA and Longview report focuses on private rentals, it notes the chronic shortage of social housing is adding to pressures.
Social housing made up 6 per cent of all homes in 1996, but now makes up 4 per cent, according to the Give Me Shelter report from business-led advocacy group Housing All Australians.
The group says this lack of affordable housing could cost taxpayers $25 billion a year through increased spending on health, policing and lost education and productivity because critical workers will not be able to find adequate accommodation anywhere near work.
The lack of social housing has forced more people into the private rental market, leading to a rapid rise in rents and a dramatic constriction of supply as renters compete for properties. Over 2022 rents grew by 4 per cent, the biggest rate in a decade.
This year, rental inflation has reached 4.8 per cent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics measure, and skyrocketing increases in asking rents – Domain data shows that over the year to March, asking rents for units have jumped by 24 per cent in Sydney and 23.1 per cent in Melbourne – mean renters will face higher prices for some time to come.
This is also pushing more renters into rental stress, spending 30 per cent or more of their income on housing. According to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, more than a third of renting households – about 331,000 households – are now at that crisis point.
For low-income renters, the problem is even worse. Two-thirds of those households spend 30 per cent or more of their income on rent, according to PEXA and Longview.
Despite the soaring rental prices, the market is also dysfunctional for the ordinary Australians who make up the bulk of the country’s landlords. Most of them only own one or two properties, says Pexa chief economist Julie Toth.
“They’re not particularly experienced, and it’s not necessarily their main income or profession; it’s a hobby or sideline,” she says.
There is a cultural perception that property will always be safe, Toth says, but the return on investment is not as bulletproof or guaranteed as investors generally think.
That feeds into the insecurity inherent in renting. If those investors need access to money for something else, Toth says, their funds are not liquid and they would need to sell the investment property to get cash, creating more turnover and uncertainty in the rental market.
“Half of all investment properties are taken in or out of the rental market within five years. So that’s another source of insecurity,” Toth says.
Again, Australia is unusual here. In other countries, institutional investors such as retirement funds make up the bulk of landlords, says Housing Industry Association chief economist Tim Reardon.
“If we look overseas, in France, around about 97 per cent of rental accommodation is provided by institutional investors such as superannuation companies. In the US that figure is about 87 per cent. In Australia, we’re very close to zero,” he says.
“It’s evident that there is a problem there that we’re not attracting enough investment into building residential homes.”
Institutional investors such as super funds might be dissuaded from investing in rentals due to the poor returns and minimal incentives on offer.
PEXA and Longview’s recent research also found that the rental market was not functioning very well for landlords and most of them would get better returns if they put their money into superannuation.
**************************************************
Call for national approach to phone ban by federal Education Minister
Rules around mobile phone use in schools could be implemented in every state in Australia with growing calls for a national policy.
Queensland is the only state not to have implemented phone rules for state schools, with other jurisdictions either imposing a ban or asking students to turn them off.
Federal Education Minister Jason Clare says that he will meet with his state and territory counterparts in the coming months to discuss implementing a national policy.
“I think the time has come for a national approach to the banning or the restriction, the use of mobile phones by students in schools,” he told ABC Radio Brisbane.
“I think there is a good argument that we should be moving to a national best practice approach. And I’m intending to put this on the agenda when education ministers meet again in the middle of this year.
“But also not make the decision on our own, talk to parents, talk to principals, talk to teachers about what‘s the best approach to take.”
NSW is the latest state to introduce rules around mobile phones, banning their use in public secondary schools from Term 4 2023 with the ban was already in place in NSW public primary schools.
The ban will apply during class, as well as during recess and lunch times.
“I know many parents who are anxious about the pervasiveness of phones and technology in our children’s learning environments,” NSW Premier Chris Minns said.
“It’s time to clear our classrooms of unnecessary distractions and create better environments for learning.”
There are also blanket bans for phones in public schools in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania.
South Australia is trailing phone restrictions with a ban in place in 44 government schools, while mobiles aren’t allowed at Northern Territory primary schools and high school students must turn them off during the day.
Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said that her state would “step up to the plate” if Mr Clare’s desire for a national phone policy comes into place.
************************************
24 April, 2023
Australians have made the wrong choice about housing for the last 40 years
A lot of hot air below. He says that our wish for comfortable and convenient housing is all wrong and we need to completely re-do how we house ourselves. He is right that there is a housing shortage problem but seems to think that what we do about the problem has to be sweeping in some unspecified way
That is nonsense. There is only one basic problem behind the housing shortage: We are not buiding houses fast enough to match our population growth. And the big influence behind the population growth is massive immigratiom. Put a moratorium on immigration for five years and the problem would vanish. The shortage is a government-created one and with little more than a stroke of the pen, the Federal government could end it
That is not going to happen of course but we should not pretend that the problem is mysterious, complex or insoluble. It is a product of meddling in the market by governments, including local governments that obstruct new building on NIMBY and Greenie grounds.
Abolishing the right of local governments to obstruct new house-building would unleash a surge of new dwellings and thus drive prices down to more affordable levels
The weekend auction battles around suburban Australia are leaving more than just emotional scars on the losing bidders.
Our love affair with property, which has driven the cost of housing to eye-watering levels and left Australians among the most indebted people in the world, is literally destroying our way of life and that of future generations.
The series we start today is not just a response to the high-priced houses and super-sized mortgages we have inflicted upon ourselves this century. It reflects the mounting evidence that one of our most basic needs – shelter – has become a dangerous financial instrument.
People cannot afford to live where they need. Our banks’ business models are based on one asset class – housing. The Reserve Bank must make decisions about the entire economy hamstrung by the huge level of mortgage debt held by ordinary Australians.
We have an army of mum and dad landlords who churn through their properties as they chase a capital gain because of the structure of our tax system.
The young and poorly paid, who a generation ago could afford their own home, now hope for an inheritance or loan from their parents to get a slice of the property market.
According to economists Sam Bowman and Ben Southwood and housing advocate John Myers, housing is more than just the size of your mortgage or inability to find an affordable rental.
They have developed what they describe as the “housing theory of everything”, which argues high-priced housing is at the heart of the many economic ills facing the globe.
Housing costs dictate where people live, the jobs they have, the size of their families and how they lead their lives. They mean we have to spend more on mortgage repayments or rent, giving us less to spend on goods and services. More broadly, people cannot live where they will be most productive. Businesses can’t get access to the people they need to operate to their fullest potential.
The world’s most productive areas, the places where the biggest breakthroughs are made, are in cities. But if we make them prohibitively expensive, the chance of a scientific or technological innovation is reduced.
At almost every point over the past 40 years, when given policy alternatives around housing, Australians collectively have made the wrong choice.
From local council chambers to the federal parliament, the wrong policy road has been taken.
Robert Menzies, and the state governments of the 1940s and 1950s, made Australia one of the great home-owning democracies through their public housing programs. But these have withered for decades.
It’s not just buying a house. Australian renters are, by any international comparison, poorly treated, be it from owning a pet to the length of tenure they might enjoy.
That’s exacerbated by a tax system that effectively encourages investors to own a single property who often struggle to deal with the issues that come with being a good landlord.
This series outlines the problem that is staring us in the face, how we came to make the decisions that created the problem, and some prospective solutions.
The solutions are not easy. If they were, previous governments would have tackled them. Instead, they have again and again kicked the issue off into the future or, even worse, come up with proposals that would make the situation worse.
Unless something changes, we are consigning ourselves to more economic pain. That’s pain that will be passed on to the next generation and the next.
As Grattan’s Brendan Coates warns, we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of the world inhabited by Jane Austen, where property was the way to wealth for just the upper echelons of society.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the Australian housing industry cannot continue on as if nothing is wrong.
*****************************************************
NDIS: Disability claims are potentially infinite. Funding for claims is not
Only severe disability can reasonably be supported
This year the cost of the NDIS will hit $35.5bn, some $5bn higher than the cost of Medicare and $8bn more than federal support for hospitals.
It’s the second-fastest-growing item in the federal budget after the cost of servicing government debt. The bill for the NDIS will reach $60bn by 2032 if left unchecked, more than the cost of Medicare and hospital funding combined.
The Productivity Commission’s optimistic prediction in its seminal 2011 report that “the additional costs of the scheme … are much lower than many people might think” proved wide of the mark.
The commission estimated that 410,000 Australians would be eligible for the scheme. The latest reported number is 585,000 and is rising at a rate of 6000 a month.
The cost of each individual plan is rising in double digits. How large the scheme might grow under the current rules is anybody’s guess, since the definition of disabled is now somewhat fluid. In his 2009 National Press Club speech, Shorten said “it would not be an exaggeration to say that 2 million Australians are affected every day by disability”.
The NDIS is essentially a powerful, fuel-guzzling locomotive sloshing gravy as it travels at breakneck speed without rails, fasteners, sleepers or ballast to control its path.
Shorten’s failure to acknowledge that the chief flaws of the NDIS lie in its design, not its execution, renders him unsuitable for its reform. He may be understandably besotted by the imaged genius of his own creation, trapped by the arrogance of believing the complicated model built from scratch in less than four years was perfect.
That is not the view of those condemned to run the thing, its beneficiaries or even those in the growing NDIS industrial complex who extract billions of dollars in profits every year. It is certainly not the view of the shonks whose lucrative business model relies on the scheme rortability.
Yet it is evidently the view of Shorten, who ungraciously lays the blame at the feet of the “administrative vandals” in the Coalition.
Last week he attacked the former government’s “malign neglect”, criticising the Coalition betraying disabled Australians by “leaving the NDIS wide open to fraud”.
His gratuitous and partisan attack on the Coalition, which has offered unwavering in-principle support for the NDIS from the very beginning, was demeaning of Shorten. He knows any genuine attempts to help make the NDIS more efficient and effective will be eagerly supported by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
Why? Because Dutton fully expects the Coalition to return to government one day, perhaps with himself as prime minister. He would dread the thought of inheriting the mess the NDIS has become since he can expect no help from Labor to reform it.
In 2021, when Linda Reynolds, the minister then responsible for the NDIS, put forward the modest proposal that NDIS claims should be independently assessed before payment, Shorten led a colourful attack against her and then prime minister Scott Morrison.
He called Reynolds’ plan “an anti-disability monster” and said she should “put a stake in its heart – not just delay it”. He labelled an independent task-force established by the NDIS oversight body, the National Disability Insurance Agency, as the Coalition’s “razor gang” and a “disgrace”. It was, he said, “the latest leak of a broader plan against the NDIS and participants” that the government was hiding “because even they know it is shameful”.
Shorten’s crude attempt to smear the opposition as the flint-hearted, iron-fisted enemies of the downtrodden is, sadly, par for the course in an era of gross political intemperance. Yet it betrays a blind spot in Shorten’s understanding of the problem child he himself conceived.
The NDIS needs more than the rebooting he is promising. It requires re-engineering from the bottom up. It must remove the incentives for providers to maximise the size of packages, the gross disparities between payments to beneficiaries with similar needs, and remove the overflowing bowls of sugar left sitting on the table waiting to be scooped.
It needs radical restructuring to restore the original promise of assisting NDIS recipients to become more self-sufficient over time, rather than rewarding those who profit from extending their disability. It will require claims to be subject to the kind of independent oversight the Morrison government was prevented from introducing by Shorten.
*******************************************************
Peter Dutton warns corporate Australia to stop ‘being played for fools by the Labor Party’
Peter Dutton has warned corporate Australia to stop “being played for fools by the Labor Party” and accused business leaders of chasing popularity by signing up to social causes even if they don’t believe in them.
In a scathing attack on elements of the private sector, the Opposition Leader told The Australian that “too many business leaders say one thing in private and don’t advocate it publicly”.
The Liberal Party leader, who along with deputy Sussan Ley and Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor have traversed the nation meeting small and big business leaders after last year’s election rout, slammed private sector chiefs for “craving popularity on social media”.
“It’s time the business community stepped up and stopped being played for fools by the Labor Party. My door is always open to business leaders and those who employ Australians, but too many business leaders say one thing in private and don’t advocate it publicly,” Mr Dutton said.
“To be frank, some business leaders need to stop craving popularity on social media by signing up to every social cause, even though they may not believe in it.
“Our country deserves an honest debate on energy. The business community should be staring down the extremes of ESG (environmental, social, and governance), proxy voters and industry super funds demands on capital and stand up for the national interest.”
Mr Dutton’s pushback against corporate Australia comes as some industry leaders privately criticise the Coalition for opposing Anthony Albanese’s safeguard climate change mechanism, forcing the government to negotiate with the Greens, and not negotiating on Labor’s referendum model for an Indigenous voice.
While acknowledging the importance of securing business support, ranging from sole traders and small businesses to major employers, senior Liberal Party figures are frustrated by the “quiet anger” expressed to them by private sector figures.
Industry leaders, including some who cosied up to Labor ahead of last year’s federal election, have raised concerns with The Australian about Labor’s industrial relations, tax, energy and environmental agenda.
Lobby groups including the Minerals Council of Australia and Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association have ramped up resources and are preparing campaigns. Other leading industry groups have adopted cautious approaches since last year’s jobs and skills summit, which laid the ground for Labor’s multi-employer bargaining IR shake-up.
Mr Dutton, who along with Mr Albanese attended billionaire Lindsay Fox’s 86th birthday bash last week, said the Coalition would “always fight for the job creators and employers who keep our nation ticking over”.
“We understand business – be it small or medium or big – in a way that the Labor Party and their union mates simply don’t,” he said.
In his Sir John Downer oration last Tuesday, Mr Dutton championed business and industry as the “engine room of our economy” and promised employers that the Coalition was on their side.
Amid concerns about the Liberal Party’s splintering base, ageing membership and changing face of corporate and private donors, senior party strategists agree the party must modernise to ensure it remains competitive.
Amid concerns about the ALP’s support from unions and cashed-up industry super funds, some Coalition figures are agitating in favour of publicly funded campaign models. The Liberals and Nationals are facing long-term challenges in attracting donors, as companies come under pressure from shareholders, party members age or drop off and cashed-up entrepreneurs seek alternative options like the teals.
Prominent businessman, ex-Macquarie banker and former Myer Family Investments deputy chair Peter Yates said that in Victoria – where the Liberals are at their weakest – the party had focused too much on fundraising and not enough on membership.
Mr Yates said people donated to the Liberals because they wanted representation in government from a party that backed individuals taking risks to create wealth.
“A successful Australia is an economically strong Australia. Those who risk their human and financial capital for an unknown return should be celebrated. Those who grow the pie should be rewarded not diminished, and donors to the Liberal Party wish to see that purpose properly represented in government,” he said.
Billionaire retail king Gerry Harvey, who is not a prolific political donor like the Pratt family or Harry Triguboff’s Meriton Group, said the Liberals and other political parties had lost their way on delivering coherent policy positions: “When you start to talk about democracies like Australia, the world’s never been in a sillier place.”
The 83-year old businessman, who opposes political donations, said while the Liberals were “on the nose” after almost a decade in power, their time would come again.
“Labor got in with 32 per cent of the primary vote. It’s not what you’d call a ringing endorsement of any political party. A bit further down the track the Labor Party will be on the nose and the Liberal Party will be doing well,” Mr Harvey said.
Bankers and chief executives, many who live in inner-city electorates lost to the teals, said they believed the Liberal Party must attract more women and win back female voters.
*****************************************************
Long Covid costing Australia at least $5.7b a year
While the exact level of absenteeism caused by long COVID is not known, new analysis by Impact Economics and Policy, using a “lower range” estimate that an average of 40,000 people are unable to work due to the illness, puts the weekly cost to gross domestic product at $110 million, or $5.7 billion annually. If the highest estimates for long COVID absenteeism is used the cost to GDP rises to $880 million a week, or $46 billion a year.
Dr Angela Jackson, an economist at Impact Economics and Policy who did the costings analysis, said the figures “highlight the long-term economic costs from COVID-19 and the ongoing need for public health measures including vaccination and education”.
Writer and editor Jackie Bos is one of the thousands whose working life has been disrupted by long COVID. She contracted the virus a year ago and has still not recovered. Her symptoms included breathing difficulties, persistent “brain fog” and memory loss, chest pain, nerve pain, internal tremors, palpitations, dizziness, rashes, fatigue and weight loss. “Unfortunately, it is not past tense, but it is improving,” she said.
Bos tried to return to work last May but felt too unwell to continue. After using all her sick leave and holiday leave she started receiving social security payments in January.
As a permanent part-time employee who worked just over three days per week, she was earning $1400 net per fortnight. She estimates she has lost about $9000 in income since January, not including any additional freelance work she would normally do.
Bos, 57, has been living in a shed on her sister’s property in the Southern Highlands since late August. "I’ve got that family support and company,” she said.
A submission to a federal parliament inquiry by Mary Angeles, of Deakin Health Economics, and Professor Martin Hensher, of the Menzies Institute for Medical Research, says there is growing international concern that long COVID is preventing people from working “at levels high enough to impact the overall labour force”.
The submission says people in Britain and the US with long COVID typically reduce their work hours and around one in 10 reduce them to zero. Researchers from the University of Southampton and the University of Portsmouth in the UK estimate that 80,000 British workers have left the workforce due to long COVID.
Modelling by Angeles and Hensher for the Deakin-Menzies Institute submission (and used by Impact Economics and Policy to estimate the economic cost of long COVID-19) showed the number of people whose daily activities are “limited a lot” by long COVID was at least 35,000, although under a worst-case scenario that number increases to almost 197,000.
“These people will still be experiencing symptoms that limit their daily activities a lot, with likely impacts on their ability to work with potential for long-term disability,” the submission noted.
“Mounting an appropriate response to long COVID is especially challenging … it cannot be ignored simply because it is inconvenient.”
A study by the Brookings Institution published in August 2022 found that more than 4 million Americans were out of work due to long COVID. It put the cost of lost wages in the US at $US170 billion a year (and potentially as high as $US230 billion).
The estimates of the economic cost of long COVID by Impact Economics and Policy (for Australia) and the Brookings Institution (for the US) focus on lost earnings.
But Harvard University professor of applied economics, David Cutler, says any economy-wide assessment of long COVID costs should also take account of lost quality of life.
Last July Cutler estimated the “implied cost of reduced health” and quality of life due to long COVID in the United States to be a mammoth $US2.2 trillion ($3.3 trillion) over a five-year period.
When lost earnings (put at $1 trillion over five years) and additional medical care costs ($528 billion) were included, Cutler found the overall cost of long COVID in America to be $US3.7 trillion ($5.5 trillion) equivalent to about 17 per cent of the output of the US economy in 2019.
Those vast totals, says Cutler, make policies to address the effects of long COVID an urgent priority.
“With costs this high, virtually any amount spent on long COVID detection, treatment, and control would result in benefits far above what it costs,” he concluded.
Angela Jackson, from Impact Economics and Policy, says COVID-19 is likely to permanently increase the cost of healthcare in Australia which is already equivalent to more than 10 per cent of GDP.
“Being responsive to this will make a lot of sense in terms of long-term health outcomes, but also due to the economic impacts,” she said.
Because long COVID can affect relatively young people, and potentially keep them out of the labour force for an extended period during prime working years, it has the potential to affect the long-term earning capacity of many sufferers.
“COVID represents something that may well reduce the productive capacity of the economy in the long term, so it’s something we do really need to get a handle on, and make sure we respond to it well,” says Jackson.
************************************
23 April, 2023
An anguished foster child’s cry from the heart: ‘I just want my family back’
Another example of the evils of racism
The tears stream down her face as she looks at the camera. There is something this little girl wants to say and she will try to quieten a rising surge of emotion long enough to say it. “I feel like I’m never going to be a normal kid with a normal childhood. I just want my family, I just want my (foster parents) and my brother back together like things were,’’ she pleads.
“Can you please make this possible, please?”
This video was shot a year ago. She is begging to be returned to her foster parents, Tom and Marie, the white couple who have raised her since she was a toddler along with her brothers and sisters.
She came to them covered in boils and sores, with pus coming from both ears and a history of serious malnourishment requiring hospitalisation. With love and support they grew her strong and they were shocked when she was taken from them and bounced through multiple alternative care arrangements that she keep running away from.
As we talk in Tom and Marie’s Top End home, a welcoming place filled with photos and pets surrounded by neat tropical gardens, Milly comes back from school. She is shy when she sees me; strange women sitting at the kitchen table don’t bode well. This child, who suffered serious attachment issues from her earliest days, is still worried that someone will take her away again.
“She’d run away from wherever they put her and come back to us and then we’d have to force her to leave. It was horrendous,’’ Tom says. “But after about the 11th time we said we can’t do this anymore. I had to say, ‘I am not going to make you get in the car. I’m not going to send you away anymore.’’
Case workers and police attended the house but nobody else was going to force her, screaming and swearing, into the car either. They gave up. And so here is Milly, making herself popcorn, a flurry of pets at her feet.
Her birth mum can pop in anytime, as long as she’s sober, but she’s currently in prison. Milly’s grandparents and aunt visited this week because they want to give me the biological family’s perspective. It’s good that Milly is with Marie and Tom, they tell me, because they know where she is and they can visit her.
But the grandfather is worried about Milly’s younger brother Benny. “We don’t see him,’’ he says. “No one tells us where he is. I want to see his face, to talk face-to-face. He needs to know where we are.”
These grandparents have stories and cultural practices they want to pass on and if they can’t care for the children themselves it doesn’t mean they have nothing to offer. Cultural connection is meant to be one of the key tenets for Aboriginal children in care.
Tom and Marie have formed a close bond with the children’s birth family.
“We knew we couldn’t raise these kids without them,’’ Marie says. “We always said to them we would look after these kids as long as they needed us to.’’
They maintain these relationships in a non-judgmental way – there is no glossing over the difficult facts of the birth family’s lives, the alcohol, violence and trauma that led to the neglect of the children.
I look at this foster couple, a health worker and teacher who have lived and worked in remote Indigenous communities for years. People who know them, professionally and personally, speak of them in glowing terms. They went into fostering simply because they wanted to help children in need.
All these years later, they are a little bit broken by what they’ve witnessed and how they have been treated. I wonder why they haven’t walked away. “We said we would be there for these kids as long as they needed us,’’ Marie says simply. “We made a lifetime commitment.”
************************************************
The one big problem with Anthony Albanese's push to change how Australians drive forever - with tradies' favourite vehicles in the firing line
Labor's new masterplan to turn Australia's roads green is set to fill showrooms with cars that no-one really wants - while ignoring our biggest-selling vehicles, the humble tradie's ute.
The National Electric Vehicle Strategy, announced last week, will set fuel emission limits on all new vehicles. Car makers will be allowed to average those out across their entire range, with low-emission EVs compensating for gas-guzzling SUVs.
Energy minister Chris Bowen believes the strategy will give manufacturers an incentive to flood the market with cheaper electric cars to spark a revolution on Australia's roads.
But the nation's most popular vehicles are fuel-smoking utes - with the Toyota HiLux consistently topping Australia's vehicle sales charts since 2016 and the Ford Ranger ute close behind.
Even motor dealers warn Australia's unique market will struggle to convince car manufacturers to bring electric utes - and many other EV models - Down Under.
Just one electric ute is currently on the market in Australia, and despite the potential popularity, they are still set to be niche sales in a niche market for car manufacturers.
'We're not top of their list,' said Geoff Gwilym, CEO of the Motor Trades Association of Australia. 'We're not even one per cent of vehicle sales in the global market.
'If you're making left-hand drive utes in the US, there are lots of markets you can put them in before you even think about a small right-hand-drive market like ours.'
The government proposal - which has been put out to the industry for discussion - comes as vehicles belch out 10 per cent of the Australia's CO2 pollution every year.
Australia lags far behind the UK, Europe and even the USA for EV take-up, although local EV sales boomed in the first quarter of 2023, up 90 percent from Q4 2022.
Medium-sized EVs outsold their petrol or diesel-powered rivals for the first time, sales data from the Australian Automobile Association reveals.
But utes remain the first choice for Australian vehicle buyers, with more than one in five of every new vehicle sold in the country last year being a tradie's workhorse.
'It's all very well giving buyers more choice - but if buyers want a ute, it doesn't matter many electric sedans and SUVs there are to choose from,' said one industry insider.
Three utes topped the list of best-selling vehicles in Australia last month, with a fourth sneaking in to round out the top ten, as they continued to dominate the market.
The total sales of the top three utes - the Toyota HiLux, Ford Ranger and Isuzu D-Max - were more than the next six vehicles combined, with sales up massively year on year.
But for the second month in a row, the next best-selling vehicle after utes or SUVs was a Tesla, with the Model Y coming fifth in March, after the Model 3 took third spot in February behind the Ranger and HiLux.
Not a single traditional sedan made it into the top 10 for March, ending Australia's love affair with saloon cars for long-haul drives across the country.
There is currently just one electric ute on the market in Australia, the LDV eT60, and little prospect of others launching soon.
Even Tesla's much-hyped Cybertruck still hasn't launched in the USA, years after it was first revealed in 2019, and it may not meet Australian safety standards when it does.
Toyota has teased the possibility of launching low-emission hybrid SUVs and utes within the next two years but so far they have largely avoided the battery EV market.
Battery technology currently limits the load and range capabilities of utes which is restricting any potential take-up. While EVs have power to spare, their range can drop dramatically when heavily loaded.
Costs are also still high in the early-adopter phase of the EV revolution, with vehicles often costing up to double their conventionally-powered equivalent.
Australian company ACE has been developing its Yewt ute for several years and is now taking orders, but admits it has limited capabilities and is more suited to light deliveries than heavy-duty tradie work.
Its range is said to be under 200km with just a partial load. It takes seven seconds to reach 50km/h, with a maximum speed of 100km/h, and a max load of 500kg.
Chinese firm Rivian also has a right-hand drive ute in the works - but the left-hand version on sale in the USA has a hefty $104,000 price tag. An Australian model will probably be even more expensive.
MTAA's CEO told Daily Mail Australia he had stressed to Mr Bowen that Australia's motor industry was unique and needed a uniquely Australian solution.
'Australia isn't Europe. We're not America. We're not even similar to much of Canada,' Mr Gwilym said after meeting the minister in Canberra for the strategy's launch.
'What we can't afford to do is to pick up a fuel emission standard from another country and assume it'll just fit neatly in Australia.
'The single biggest sector of vehicles that we buy are four wheel drives and SUVs We're relatively unique, we're certainly nothing like Europe.
**********************************************
Operation Jardena: How ABF is stopping fentanyl coming to Australia
Authorities are on high alert to prevent a repeat of America’s fentanyl crisis unfolding on our shores, with the Australian Border Force’s US officer admitting it keeps her awake at night.
The opioid – which is 50 times stronger than heroin – is the leading killer of Americans aged 18 to 45 and has fuelled an alarming rise in homelessness and street crime across the US.
The latest Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission wastewater drug monitoring program report, released last month, showed fentanyl use had remained “relatively stable over the past two years” and was at “historically low levels nationally”.
But law enforcement agencies were shocked in August to discover a bid to ship 11kg of the synthetic drug – the equivalent of more than five million potentially lethal doses – from Canada to Melbourne.
Border Force inspector Vanessa Ruff, who is based in Los Angeles, said the Australian Federal Police and the ACIC were “doing an exceptional job trying to stay on top of it”.
“The social effect keeps me awake at night if it was to get into Australia, because I’ve seen how it’s affected this nation,” she said.
“We are very aware of it … and we really don’t want it.”
About 70,000 Americans died from a fentanyl overdose in 2021 – a higher toll than gun crime, Covid and suicide – and the figures for last year are tipped to be even worse.
“Fentanyl is the single deadliest drug threat our nation has ever encountered,” US Drug Enforcement Agency boss Anne Milgram said.
Last week, US officials revealed a sweeping fentanyl bust that charged the four sons of notorious Mexican drug lord El Chapo, as well as suppliers in China who sold the precursor chemicals used to manufacture the opioid.
In a series of extraordinary indictments, the Sinaloa cartel was accused of using everything from private planes to submarines to import fentanyl into the US from Mexico, and of torturing their enemies including by feeding them to tigers.
But some Republicans including former president Donald Trump have demanded the Biden administration go further by designating the cartel as a terrorist organisation and even launching military strikes against them in Mexico.
Ms Ruff said US authorities were also identifying the emergence of other synthetic opioids.
“Touch wood, we haven’t seen a lot of the synthetic fentanyl, but there’s other stuff I’ve learnt while I’m here that’s worse than fentanyl that’s being mixed with drugs here, and we don’t want that,” she said.
“Every time you go to a meeting, they’re like, this is ten times worse than fentanyl.”
********************************************************
BOM under fire over ‘Armageddon’ forecasts that don’t eventuate
I have never taken their forecasts seriously
“Armageddon” weather warnings are costing tourism operators millions of dollars as travellers cancel holidays in the face of grim forecasts which often don’t eventuate.
The practice of mass cancellations following gloomy forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology has skyrocketed since the coronavirus pandemic, with many operators forced to change their business models to cater for jittery travellers.
One Brisbane holiday park owner said he has been left with hundreds of cancellations on the back of wet weather predictions that don’t come to pass while a Darling Downs operator lamented being left with an empty park under cloudless skies.
Operators and industry leaders say it is time to change the messaging of the much-maligned weather bureau where cautious forecasts predicting cyclones, dangerous storms or “a month’s worth of rain” are often more dire than the reality.
The BOM was heavily criticised over the February 2022 floods surrounding Gympie and the Sunshine Coast which took many by surprise, while the Queensland government also copped flak last year for closing schools in the face of predicted severe storms which never eventuated.
Few industries are as vulnerable to the weather as the camping and caravan sector and Goomburra Valley Campground operator Teresa Badgery said forecasts needed greater accuracy.
“It’s frustrating because the forecasts might be so vague or so general or just wrong so many times,” she said. “A few weeks ago we had forecasts of Armageddon, with large hail, wild storms and 40mm of rain – we ended up getting about 15mm over 24 hours and the rest of the week was blue skies.
“There was a forecast last year for lots of rain that saw us experience 98 per cent cancellations when all we had was 2mm.
“Our business is affected all the time and this is our livelihood.”
She said she had changed her policy regarding refunds and last-minute cancellations to provide credits to offer greater flexibility to holiday-makers, but that doesn’t help the business when the property sits empty under blue skies.
Geoff Illich from Brisbane Holiday Village said they were often left to count the cost of incorrect forecasts. “These weather predictions don’t always eventuate, but we’re still left with lost business,” he said.
“We have added lots of undercover and indoor areas, because if the guests take the weather forecast as gospel it stops 30-40 people from coming.”
Caravan Parks Association of Queensland CEO Michelle Weston said improvements could be made to the way warnings and forecasts are issued. “We often hear reports from our parks that bookings look amazing and then after a wet weather forecast a huge number of those bookings cancel,” she said.
“You hear you’re going to get “a month’s worth of rain in three days” but if it’s the dry season that might mean one shower of 10mm.
“We need very clear information about what those predictions actually mean and then people can plan their trips accordingly rather than cancel altogether.”
North Queensland’s tourism sector is also feeling the brunt of grim weather forecasts which turn travellers away en masse and Tourism Port Douglas Daintree CEO Tara Bennett said it was “scary” how much weather forecasts impacted operators.
“They might predict a cyclone for north Queensland but it might not get within 600km of us, yet it affects the bookings for three months,” she said.
“It is scary because it is costing people their businesses and the ability to stay afloat during quiet periods.
“Even if you look at those little icons next to the forecast you would think it has rained in Port Douglas every day for the past two months but in reality it has only been about 20 per cent of the time.
“They should be using a graphic to represent the dominant weather pattern so if the forecast is for a chance of showers, use a sun because it’s still going to be sunny most of the day.
“We all understand the need to mitigate risk and offer people warnings, but we need greater detail and less chance for misunderstanding about how the weather will transpire.”
************************************
21 April, 2023
Sending little kids to childcare is not good for them
Judith Sloan mentions a number of considerations below but fails to mention that most children in childcare have much higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol -- compared with their levels at home. Chidcare is DEMONSTRABLY bad for chidren. You can see it at the physical level. Organizational childcare stresses and worries the little kids. They feel afraid, not secure. It destroys their confidence in their environment. And it sometimes has lasting bad effects. See, for instance:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23772818/
Children develop best in a loving home. It has to be a really bad home for childcare centers to be beneficialI have a confession to make: I never sent my children to childcare. They did go to kinder/preschool when there were four for a few days each week during the school term, but that was it. Sorry, kids.
Actually, I’m not sorry. While I was at work, they were happy at home being looked after by the same loving nanny we were lucky to have. Even to this day, I’m not convinced of the benefits of centre-based childcare, particularly for very young children.
I get it; a lot of parents have no choice but to place their kids in childcare centres for financial reasons. It’s only by going down this path that the generous taxpayer-funded subsidies are available. Notwithstanding the restricted hours these centres operate, they do provide potentially more reliable care than (expensive) nannies or relatives during the core working hours.
I also get why many parents want to believe that centre-based childcare, including the incorporated preschool programs, offers their children a range of benefits such as socialising with other children and play-based learning (whatever that is). Less mention is made of the frequent bouts of infectious diseases that children pick up at these centres and the rapid-fire phone calls from management to collect the children within five minutes.
It has got to the point where parents are brainwashed into believing that it is their civic duty to plonk their very young child in a childcare centre as soon as possible after birth and return to the workforce in order to boost the economy and pay taxes. Throw in a bit of self-actualisation and is there really any choice?
Mind you, the busybody feminists whose aim in life is to have every woman working full-time, pre- and post-partum, remain frustrated that so many young mother apparently are happy to work part-time while their children are young.
To be sure, many more women with children now participate in the workforce than was once the case. In 1991, just under 60 per cent of women with children under the age of 15 worked; by 2020, this proportion had climbed to nearly 75 per cent. But the majority of mothers with young children (4 and under) opt to work part-time.
These same activist feminists, who have generally had dream runs in the workforce ending in cushy corporate board positions, argue that it is the way that childcare fee subsidies work that explains the dominance of part-time work among new mothers. Those extra days of work are simply not worth it. It doesn’t occur to these campaigners that most mothers actually prefer to spend as much time as possible with their babies and toddlers because this is good for the children and for them.
This relentless advocacy has all the hallmarks of the old Soviet model of child-rearing. Women were forced to leave their very young children (cared for by women workers) in order to undertake full-time jobs to support the communist state. The idea that mothers would be given any choice was of course anathema to the autocratic rulers – they must be made to work for the state.
The early model of the kibbutz in Israel also involved communal child-rearing in which some women would be assigned the role of looking after all the children while the other women undertook the various other tasks at hand. In some instances, parents wouldn’t see their children all week. Unsurprisingly, this feature of the kibbutz ultimately didn’t survive as parents expressed their desire to be fully involved in bringing up their own children.
So let’s go back to current day Australia and examine the articles of faith to which the Labor party (and to some extent, the Liberal party) adhere. They are: centre-based childcare is good; it must be heavily subsidised by taxpayers, with the most generous assistance being directed to those on the lowest incomes; renaming it early childhood education and asserting that it is beneficial for children, both in the present and the future, provides the basis for even more generous subsidisation, even ‘free’ childcare.
In Labor’s case, you can throw in the potential for the unionisation of childcare workers and the scope for generous pay rises based on either arbitration or enterprise bargaining. Let’s face it, there’s no hope of getting nannies into the union and mothers staying at home are no good either.
One of the most astonishing aspects of the debate about childcare and the role of government is the relative absence of research on the impact on the children. There is a very old study – the Perry study from the US – that is often quoted to support the benefits of structured, free-of-charge childcare. But the numbers in the study were tiny and the parents selected for the study came from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds. (Some of the fathers were in jail.)
It is hardly surprising that those children who attended childcare compared with the control group did better on a number of measures, including behaviour, progress at school, staying out of jail and the like. But there was never any scope to generalise the findings because they were mainly driven by the socioeconomic backgrounds of the treatment and control groups.
A more recent study and quoted by Rod Liddle in this magazine relates to childcare in Quebec. The provincial government decided many years ago to provide close-to-free childcare; the rest of Canada did not follow suit. According to Liddle, ‘studies showed a significant development decrease in Quebec children relative to those in the rest of Canada’. He quotes some alarming figure in relation to ‘social competence, external problems and adult-child conflict.’
Perhaps the most worrying finding is that the negative effects of childcare appear to be long-lived. ‘By age 15, extensive hours before age four-and-a-half [in childcare] predicted problem behaviours… even after controlling for daycare quality, socioeconomic background and parenting quality.’
In the case of Australia, we are only too aware of declining school student performance over the past decade and a half, coinciding with a period of rising participation in centre-based childcare. Of course, this correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation but it’s not a great start for the advocates of further government subsidisation of childcare.
A final word of warning: when you read about the benefits of early childhood education in Australia, a lot of conflating goes on. Centre-based childcare for very young children is not early childhood education and a few days per week of preschool for three- and four-year-olds is not full-time childcare.
Keep these differences in mind when assessing the self-interested demands being made by the various lobbyists.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/but-what-about-the-children/ ?
******************************************
I have a confession to make: I never sent my children to childcare. They did go to kinder/preschool when there were four for a few days each week during the school term, but that was it. Sorry, kids.
Actually, I’m not sorry. While I was at work, they were happy at home being looked after by the same loving nanny we were lucky to have. Even to this day, I’m not convinced of the benefits of centre-based childcare, particularly for very young children.
I get it; a lot of parents have no choice but to place their kids in childcare centres for financial reasons. It’s only by going down this path that the generous taxpayer-funded subsidies are available. Notwithstanding the restricted hours these centres operate, they do provide potentially more reliable care than (expensive) nannies or relatives during the core working hours.
I also get why many parents want to believe that centre-based childcare, including the incorporated preschool programs, offers their children a range of benefits such as socialising with other children and play-based learning (whatever that is). Less mention is made of the frequent bouts of infectious diseases that children pick up at these centres and the rapid-fire phone calls from management to collect the children within five minutes.
It has got to the point where parents are brainwashed into believing that it is their civic duty to plonk their very young child in a childcare centre as soon as possible after birth and return to the workforce in order to boost the economy and pay taxes. Throw in a bit of self-actualisation and is there really any choice?
Mind you, the busybody feminists whose aim in life is to have every woman working full-time, pre- and post-partum, remain frustrated that so many young mother apparently are happy to work part-time while their children are young.
To be sure, many more women with children now participate in the workforce than was once the case. In 1991, just under 60 per cent of women with children under the age of 15 worked; by 2020, this proportion had climbed to nearly 75 per cent. But the majority of mothers with young children (4 and under) opt to work part-time.
These same activist feminists, who have generally had dream runs in the workforce ending in cushy corporate board positions, argue that it is the way that childcare fee subsidies work that explains the dominance of part-time work among new mothers. Those extra days of work are simply not worth it. It doesn’t occur to these campaigners that most mothers actually prefer to spend as much time as possible with their babies and toddlers because this is good for the children and for them.
This relentless advocacy has all the hallmarks of the old Soviet model of child-rearing. Women were forced to leave their very young children (cared for by women workers) in order to undertake full-time jobs to support the communist state. The idea that mothers would be given any choice was of course anathema to the autocratic rulers – they must be made to work for the state.
The early model of the kibbutz in Israel also involved communal child-rearing in which some women would be assigned the role of looking after all the children while the other women undertook the various other tasks at hand. In some instances, parents wouldn’t see their children all week. Unsurprisingly, this feature of the kibbutz ultimately didn’t survive as parents expressed their desire to be fully involved in bringing up their own children.
So let’s go back to current day Australia and examine the articles of faith to which the Labor party (and to some extent, the Liberal party) adhere. They are: centre-based childcare is good; it must be heavily subsidised by taxpayers, with the most generous assistance being directed to those on the lowest incomes; renaming it early childhood education and asserting that it is beneficial for children, both in the present and the future, provides the basis for even more generous subsidisation, even ‘free’ childcare.
In Labor’s case, you can throw in the potential for the unionisation of childcare workers and the scope for generous pay rises based on either arbitration or enterprise bargaining. Let’s face it, there’s no hope of getting nannies into the union and mothers staying at home are no good either.
One of the most astonishing aspects of the debate about childcare and the role of government is the relative absence of research on the impact on the children. There is a very old study – the Perry study from the US – that is often quoted to support the benefits of structured, free-of-charge childcare. But the numbers in the study were tiny and the parents selected for the study came from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds. (Some of the fathers were in jail.)
It is hardly surprising that those children who attended childcare compared with the control group did better on a number of measures, including behaviour, progress at school, staying out of jail and the like. But there was never any scope to generalise the findings because they were mainly driven by the socioeconomic backgrounds of the treatment and control groups.
A more recent study and quoted by Rod Liddle in this magazine relates to childcare in Quebec. The provincial government decided many years ago to provide close-to-free childcare; the rest of Canada did not follow suit. According to Liddle, ‘studies showed a significant development decrease in Quebec children relative to those in the rest of Canada’. He quotes some alarming figure in relation to ‘social competence, external problems and adult-child conflict.’
Perhaps the most worrying finding is that the negative effects of childcare appear to be long-lived. ‘By age 15, extensive hours before age four-and-a-half [in childcare] predicted problem behaviours… even after controlling for daycare quality, socioeconomic background and parenting quality.’
In the case of Australia, we are only too aware of declining school student performance over the past decade and a half, coinciding with a period of rising participation in centre-based childcare. Of course, this correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation but it’s not a great start for the advocates of further government subsidisation of childcare.
A final word of warning: when you read about the benefits of early childhood education in Australia, a lot of conflating goes on. Centre-based childcare for very young children is not early childhood education and a few days per week of preschool for three- and four-year-olds is not full-time childcare.
Keep these differences in mind when assessing the self-interested demands being made by the various lobbyists.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/but-what-about-the-children/ ?
******************************************
Govt to spend $150 million on reef water quality woes
Farm and other runoff affects only close-in reefs. The Barrier reef is not affected
The federal government will spend $150 million on a program to boost water quality on the Great Barrier Reef after a UN mission said the site should be listed as in danger.
The program will repair land in catchments that are dumping large amounts of fine sediment into rivers discharging water to the reef, smothering coral, killing seagrass and increasing pollution loads.
It’s part of a $1.2 billion spend on reef health previously announced by the Albanese government, which has promised to fight an in-danger listing for the site.
The recommendation to list the reef as a World Heritage site in danger came late last year. It was based on what UN experts saw when they visited Australia about a year ago, when the Morrison government was still in power.
The UN report took Australia to task for not doing enough to tackle the key threats of climate change, poor water quality and harmful fishing activities.
In announcing the program on Thursday, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the $150 million would fund work including fencing, revegetation, grazing management of cattle, and structural works to stabilise gullies and riverbanks.
“Sediment can coat seagrass beds, it can kill off seagrass, it can affect the health and even be responsible for the loss of animals and plants that make our reef special,” Ms Plibersek told reporters in Townsville.
“By dealing with sediment we are of course restoring the riverbanks and creek banks that’s good for the land, and we are protecting the reef from one of the greatest threats identified for the future of the reef.”
She said catchments along Queensland’s coastline will be targeted, with funding allocated pending the complexity of each individual matter.
Traditional owners and Indigenous groups will help identify priority projects.
“What we’d like to see is land care organisations, traditional owner groups and others come forward with proposals that will make a significant difference to the quality of the water flowing into the reef,” Ms Plibersek added.
The program will be carried out in collaboration with the Queensland government, which is spending $75 million on its own water quality program.
Special envoy to the Great Barrier Reef, Sentator Nita Green, said the funding is pivotal in rectifying inaction over the last decade.
“We are taking the divisiveness and the debate out of this conversation…to make sure that we can invest in our land holders, in our farmers and our traditional owners to make such a big difference to the Great Barrier Reef for generations to come.”
In its report last year, the UN mission said Australia’s efforts were not sufficient to protect the reef’s outstanding universal values.
It found management frameworks, strategies and plans had not been fully implemented, particularly in relation to water quality and fishing.
********************************************
Beetaloo Basin cattle company loses Supreme Court bid to stop fracking exploration
A gas company will be able to continue exploration in the Beetaloo Basin after a cattle company's appeal to stop the activity was dismissed by the Northern Territory Supreme Court.
Rallen Australia, owned by the Langenhoven-Ravazotti family, had sought to overturn a February 2022 NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision that allowed Tamboran Resources' subsidiary Sweetpea Petroleum to come onto Tanumbirini Station to explore for gas.
Justice Peter Barr dismissed all eight grounds of appeal that Rallen's lawyers had argued.
The case was seen as a precedent for legal interactions between pastoralists and gas companies because it was the first to test mandatory land access laws introduced in the NT in 2021.
Tamboran chief executive and managing director Joel Riddle said in a statement that he was "pleased with the NT Supreme Court's ruling" and was looking forward "to working closely with all our stakeholders in progressing the development of the Beetaloo Basin in a safe and responsible manner".
"As the first challenge of the NT government's changes to the legislation and regulations permitting access for exploration purposes, the decision sets an important precedent for future operations across the Beetaloo Basin," he said.
"We are pleased to lead the way by securing this important precedent and ensure that the benefits of the decision will extend to many stakeholders."
Rallen has fiercely opposed any gas exploration on its properties and director Pierre Langenhoven previously declared the pastoral and gas industry "cannot coexist".
Mr Langenhoven said Rallen would "consider this decision and our appeal options" for the Supreme Court decision.
"We are disappointed in the decision, as the land access agreement provides minimum protections to pastoralists and puts all the risk and all the cost onto the pastoralist," he said in a statement.
"This sadly sets a precedent for poor quality and punitive agreements moving forward."
Since then, Mr Langenhoven said he felt like he had "lost control" of the part of Tanumbirini within Sweetpea's permit area. "I cannot protect the station and my cattle from the impacts of fracking, all I can do is monitor and seek compensation after the damage is done," he said.
Rallen Australia will receive a minimum of $15,000 compensation per gas well drilled on the property as a part of its land access agreement with Sweetpea.
*************************************************
Electric dreams still have long way to run
The government’s electric vehicle and lower emissions strategy confirms a golden rule of the net-zero transition that unfailingly hits the poor and favours the rich.
That rule is to make existing technologies more expensive to make the ones favoured by advocates appear reasonable by comparison. This is true for electricity, where increasingly the cost is being hidden in consolidated revenue through cascading subsidy payments both to producers and, increasingly, end users.
The dream of a world in which motorists get about in electric-powered cars confirms the trend.
Ideally, a single price on greenhouse gas emissions would remove the need for ad hoc policies. But in the absence of this we are left with state, local and federal schemes, some of which equate to a carbon price of thousands of dollars per tonne.
Electric vehicle schemes are at the top of the tree in terms of cost per tonne but nowhere near enough to satisfy the green groups who think more should be done to promote their use.
The government’s latest policy is in addition to generous tax breaks and exemptions. Chris Bowen has set a target for six outcomes: a greater choice of EVs, a reduction in transport emissions, more charging stations, an increase in domestic manufacturing and recycling with the ultimate goal to make it cheaper for people to run their vehicles.
For this to happen, however, existing technologies will inevitably become more expensive, to compensate.
The plan to introduce a fuel efficiency standard follows what is happening in other parts of the world. The US has just introduced a scheme calibrated ultimately to make EVs the only reasonable choice to make on financial grounds.
The EPA is using its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate vehicle emissions with the aim of making EVs account for about two-thirds of car sales in 2032, up from 6 per cent last year.
The EPA justifies its intervention, which will increase costs, because of subsidies that are available under President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
There are no details yet on where the government’s new policy will land but EV lobby groups are telling Bowen to go hard.
Attempts to tighten emission laws have a troubled history in Australia. This is because car makers will be forced to increase the cost of the cars people want to buy to subsidise the ones they presently can’t afford or don’t want to drive. The emissions target is for the overall fleet sold so, in effect, internal combustion car buyers will be forced to subsidise those who want to drive EVs.
The hope is that car makers will make more less expensive EV models available. But much of the cost of EVs is in the battery, which are getting more expensive.
Environmentally, charging an EV today still requires plenty of coal-fired power.
There is no doubt the driving world is changing. The big selling point for emissions standards is that without new rules Australia risks becoming a dumping ground for less efficient models the rest of the world won’t take. Everybody wants to breathe fresh air.
But it is all part of a transport vehicle transition with an as yet unknown destination. Europe has pulled back from an outright ban on internal combustion engines in favour of low-emissions fuels. The US is under pressure to do the same. The best that can be said is an emissions standard leaves the door open for new technologies.
This is a journey that still has a long way yet to run.
************************************
20 April, 2023
Major changes coming to the Reserve Bank of Australia
The bank is just a scapegoat. The real cause of inflation is a government that funds its expenditures by printing piles of new money
The Reserve Bank of Australia board will be split in two, with a special panel of experts setting interest rates after a series of blunders plagued the central bank.
The biggest revamp in 35 years will see the RBA divided into two boards, with one solely focused on interest rates, in a move expected to soon be adopted by the government.
It has been a difficult 18 months for the bank, with Governor Philip Lowe forced to apologise for telling Australians that rates would remain low - only for 10 consecutive interest rates rises to follow.
Dr Lowe told Australians as late as November 2021 that the bank was likely to hold the cash rate steady at 0.1 per cent until 2024.
Since May 2022, the cash rate has risen to 3.6 per cent.
Later on Thursday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will release the RBA review report - 'An RBA fit for the future' - and is expected to announce the government's in-principle agreement with all 51 recommendations.
The review was commissioned in July last year, in a bid to strengthen the central bank amid an increasingly complex global economic landscape.
The review will recommend establishing two separate boards: one concerned with monetary policy and a separate governance board.
The review is expected to reveal doing so will ensure decision making and governance agreements are effective.
The monetary policy board will be primarily focused on managing interest rates, especially as the RBA seeks to tame inflation back to the two to three per cent target.
The other board will focus on the rest of the RBA's 'governance' remit, including printing bank notes.
Some of the recommendations will require legislative change, while some will be incumbent on the RBA to implement given it operates monetary policy independently.
*****************************************
Why Australia can never build enough homes
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on Wednesday released capital city population data for the 2020-21 financial year, which revealed that the number of people living in capital cities increased by 2.5 million (17%) between 2011 and 2021.
Melbourne had the largest increase (806,800), followed by Sydney (650,815) and Brisbane (421,491):
10-year population change
Over the past 20 years, Australia’s combined capital cities grew by 4.7 million people, led by Melbourne (1.48 million), Sydney (1.16 million), Brisbane (875,000) and Perth (737,000):
20-year population change
If anybody wants to know why Australia never builds enough homes, the above data provides the answer.
Australia’s immigration intake was increased substantially in the early-2000s, which drove a massive increase in population growth into our major cities:
Net overseas migration
This extreme immigration policy is projected to continue for decades to come, with the Intergenerational Report (IGR) projecting 235,000 annual net overseas migration into eternity, which is 20,000 more than the extreme immigration experienced in the 15 years leading up to the pandemic.
In turn, the IGR projected that Australia’s population would swell by 13.1 million people (roughly 50%) by 2061, which is the equivalent to adding a combined Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s current population.
Already, net overseas migration has rebounded faster than the IGR projected, with nearly 400,000 net migrants landing in 2022, which drove record population growth:
Australian population change
The long-term population projections from the ABS are instructive. While they were released in 2018 and 2019 before the pandemic hit, they show the type of population deluge that will hit our major cities.
First, the ABS’ Household and Family Projections showed that the number of households across our capital cities would grow by 50% between 2016 and 2041, led by Melbourne:
Increase in households
In number terms, Melbourne was projected to add 1.09 million households over that period, whereas Sydney would add 882,000 and Brisbane 445,000:
Household projections
The ABS’ Population Projections released in 2018 projected that Melbourne and Sydney would each roughly double in size to around 10 million people, whereas Brisbane would grow to Melbourne’s size currently:
Capital city population projects
In turn, by 2066 both Sydney and Melbourne would have larger populations than Australia’s total population in 1950, with both approaching Australia’s total population in 1960.
While these projections will have changed following COVID, they do illustrate the extent of the population-housing problem.
Policy makers and developers can bang on all they like about increasing supply, but Australia will never build enough homes as long as it continues to grow its population like a science experiment via mass immigration.
That is the inconvenient truth.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/why-australia-can-never-build-enough-homes/
*********************************************"Nazi" message
A worker behind the wheel of a well-known traffic control company vehicle which displayed a racist message on its electronic board last Friday has been sacked according to the company’s senior executives.
On Tuesday morning A2O Traffic Solutions chief executive officer James Bowe and general manager Sean Fitzpatrick said the firm was, “shocked and in complete disbelief over what has occurred”.
“We are completely devastated by such a disgraceful action,” they said.
“Such behaviour goes against every value we hold dear and we shall be taking steps to ensure it never happens again.
“As soon as we were made aware of this incident we instigated a thorough investigation with the allocated driver”.
Mr Fitzpatrick said the investigation included an intense check of the vehicle and its vehicle management system which provides detailed information about its use.
“We have sophisticated monitoring systems and interviewed the driver and concluded it was a deliberate act of serious misconduct,’ he said.
“He admitted liability. The outcome of our investigation has resulted in the swift termination of the person’s employment.”
Mr Bowe said the management and staff of A20 “apologise unreservedly for the offence and distress this disgraceful act has caused in our community”.
**************************************************
Service station owners are calling on the Federal Government to help them install EV charging bays on their forecourts
Another huge cost of the climate myth
Australian Association of Convenience Stores chief executive Theo Foukkare said it cost an estimated half a million dollars to upgrade a site’s electricity grid to accommodate EV chargers.
“We’ve got thousands of AACS members across the nation that want to go green but they’re not able to get their hands on half a million dollars on their own,” he said.
He said his members were supportive of the government’s new EV strategy, released this week.
“However, we really think a government funded program that helps small business owners to pay for these critical upgrades is essential to achieve that,” he said.
The recent surge in EV take-up – sales are up 150 per cent in the first three months of this year – meant there weren’t enough recharge stations to cope with existing drivers.
“Public infrastructure charging is being rolled out slowly by the federal and state and territory governments, however, most only include slow charging equipment. That means they can only be used by two cars at once, potentially leaving other drivers waiting hours before they are even able to plug in,” Mr Foukkare said.
A spokeswoman for Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said small businesses could apply for a grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency ARENA, which had $70 million set aside to help businesses develop charging infrastructure.
Mr Bowen announced the latest round of grants yesterday and said infrastructure funding was a “critical step to make electric vehicles more accessible for all Australians”.
He said the latest funding round would make it easier to install the right type of public charging infrastructure and give Australians better access to facilities, particularly in remote and regional communities.
“Transport costs are a huge part of household budgets, and getting the charging infrastructure in place for electric vehicles is critical to ensuring households have a real choice when it comes to picking their next car,” Mr Bowen said.
But Mr Foukkare said that slower charging stations being rolled out by governments often lacked access to basic amenities.
“Australian motorists expect amenities like toilets, a place to sit and eat or enjoy a coffee, free Wi-Fi and even somewhere to do a small grocery top up,” he said.
“Our members already have those facilities – and they employ more than 70,000 people across Australia – so they could certainly do with the extra custom.
He said service station EV chargers could also address a “charging void” for the 25 per cent of Australian drivers who don’t have off street parking.
************************************
19 April, 2023
‘Grossly unfair’: Self Managed Super Fund Association wants tax proposal ditched
This would effectively be a wealth tax. Interesting that it hits super funds only. People who manage their own money (with or without advice) would not be affected. Once again it is lower income earners who would get hit. I have never liked super and the fees you have to pay for it. I have always made my own decisions. So I will not be affected
The Self Managed Super Fund Association has called on the federal government to drop its proposal to tax unrealised gains by super funds larger than $3m, describing the approach as “grossly unfair.”
“Our members are very concerned at being taxed on unrealised gains,” SMSF Association chief executive, Peter Burgess, told The Australian.
“It is grossly unfair that self managed super fund members who have balances over $3m are being asked to pay tax on unrealised gains.”
The association has expressed its views in a submission to the federal government this week on the proposal to double the tax from 15 per cent to 30 per cent on earnings from superannuation balances of $3m or more from July 1, 2025.
Concern is rising at the proposal among small business and farmers groups at the government’s plan to move into unprecedented waters in tax policy in Australia, by seeking to levy taxes on unrealised gains — a move which could pave the way for it being applied to other sectors such as shares and properties, if it is given the go ahead with regards to superannuation.
The proposed higher tax rate of 30 per cent will be levied on the increase in the total superannuation fund balance over $3m over the year, and not the actual earnings of the fund from dividends and asset sales as is the case with the tax system.
The federal government has estimated that the proposal could bring in an extra $2bn a year in the first full year it is in operation.
The new tax on superannuation was announced this year by the Treasurer Jim Chalmers despite an assurance from then Opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, before last year’s election that his party had no plans at the time to introduce new taxes on superannuation.
Submissions on the proposal, including the radical new approach to levying the higher tax rate on unrealised gains, closed this week.
Mr Burgess said some 75 per cent of the people who would be affected by the changes were those with self managed super funds.
He said the approach of levying tax on unrealised gains “could cause some significant liquidity issues” for super funds.
He said people who owned properties, including farms and business premises, through their superannuation funds were now realising the impact of the proposal if their properties or funds were worth more than $3m.
Some could be forced to sell property or farms if their value rose during the year.
Mr Burgess said the Treasury’s argument for using the much broader base of unrealised gains, rather than realised gains which is the basis for all other tax policy, was that it was much simpler to calculate the increase in value of a fund than to calculate total realised returns for the amounts over $3m.
He said the association had been told that some large super funds did not have the capacity to calculate the earnings attributable to specific member funds over $3m.
But he said other large funds did have that capacity and all self managed super funds could also do it.
He said it was unfair to penalise people with self managed super funds because of the problems of a much smaller number of people who had balances of over $3m in APRA regulated super funds.
He said the association was calling on the federal government to drop the approach of levying the tax on unrealised gains altogether because of its unfairness.
If this was a problem for some large super funds, he said funds should be given the option on which method to use – either the increase in the total super balance or the actual realised gains during the year.
“It seems that we are designing an approach to taxation based on a very small number of people (who have balances over $3m and the funds can’t identify the earnings by member.)
Mr Burgess said the association intended to “come out swinging” in expressing its concerns about the unfair impact of taxing unrealised gains on people with self managed super funds.
“The taxing of unrealised gains is unprecedented in Australia as a method of raising tax,” HLB Mann Judd’s director of superannuation, Andrew Yee, told The Australian.
“The new tax is asset based rather than the traditional model of taxing of income and this has created the most controversy,” he said.
“It is not fair in terms of it only being applied to individuals with a large amount of superannuation assets with the majority of those assets being held in self managed super funds.”
“This taxing model is not being applied to any other individuals or other taxing entities.
“This form of taxing could be applied to other assets in the future,” he said.
Mr Yee said his superannuation clients who were affected were dealing with “the initial shock of an extra tax on super” and were now awaiting the details.
“Those clients that are considering planning for the new tax are thinking of reducing their potential exposure to the tax by moving super assets to non-super entities, or by no longer growing their super benefits by reducing or not maximising contributions,” he said.
He said the clients most worried about the new tax were those people who had built up large super balances over many years, the majority of whom are now in retirement phase drawing out a pension.
“Those clients with a significant portion of the SMSF in property assets (for example an office block or commercial building which is related or leased to the family business) are concerned about the tax and having to consider whether to unwind these holdings and the consequences of doing so,” he said.
********************************************************
‘Dramatic increase’ in false Aboriginality claims: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has used her first day in shadow cabinet to kickstart a new battle over Aboriginality, warning the newly legislated South Australian voice will trigger a “dramatic increase” in people falsely claiming to be Indigenous, as she leads the Coalition’s No campaign and is charged with delivering better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Peter Dutton catapulted the Country Liberal Party senator, who is one of the most outspoken campaigners against the Albanese government’s preferred model for the voice, into his shadow cabinet on Tuesday, in a wider than expected reshuffle.
The Opposition Leader also lost his second frontbencher in two weeks when Queensland MP Karen Andrews called time on her political career, saying she would move to the backbench and not contest the next election.
Ms Andrews said her decision was made a couple of weeks ago and had nothing to do with the Liberals’ position on the voice, which led NSW MP Julian Leeser to quit the frontbench last week.
Mr Leeser’s resignation forced Mr Dutton to conduct the reshuffle, which appeared to appease Liberal MPs who agreed Senator Price – who has been in federal parliament for less than a year and is a former Alice Springs deputy mayor – was the right person for the Indigenous Australians portfolio and to fight the government on the voice.
But her appointment was not without controversy. Thomas Mayo, a member of the government’s referendum working group and Yes campaigner, said it was a “massive contradiction”.
“It’s great to see Indigenous voices being elevated but, also, she is a politician and we are working on something that’s about community. She is the Coalition’s new ‘Canberra voice’ in parliament, opposing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament,” he said.
West Australian senator Michaelia Cash, who already holds the opposition’s employment and workplace relations portfolios, also becomes opposition spokeswoman for legal affairs, while South Australian senator Kerrynne Liddle has been promoted to the outer ministry as opposition child protection and prevention of family violence spokeswoman.
Victorian senator James Paterson, considered a rising star in the Liberal Party, has been promoted from the ministry into the shadow cabinet as the new home affairs spokesman. He keeps his existing responsibility as cyber security spokesman.
The makeup of the new ministry means the Nationals, whose partyroom Senator Price sits in, are overrepresented with seven shadow cabinet ministers while the Liberals have 17. The Nationals make up nearly a quarter of the Coalition partyroom.
Senator Price said Indigenous leaders in remote communities “don’t have any idea” what Anthony Albanese was proposing for the voice or Yes campaign and didn’t believe they would be represented by “yet another model that they see as being run by those who have had long held positions within the Aboriginal industry”.
In her first press conference as the opposition’s Indigenous Australians spokeswoman, she said there were lessons to be learned from the South Australian voice and claimed it had been left open for individuals to sign statutory declarations to say they were Indigenous.
SA premier Peter Malinauskas last month said on the ABC’s Q+A program a person would have to declare through a statutory declaration they were Indigenous to be able to elect voice representatives, calling it “democracy at its best”. He expected South Australians would tell the truth.
Senator Price said it was an “utterly ridiculous” and “deeply concerning” prospect.
“Another matter that is of great concern, which has been talked about by a lot of Indigenous people around the country, are those who claim to be Indigenous who aren’t necessarily Indigenous,” she said on Tuesday.
“You will see in South Australia a dramatic increase in the number of Indigenous people within its population no doubt because of that particular model.”
The SA government was approached for comment.
Under SA’s voice, a person who wants to be elected is taken to be Indigenous if they are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, regard themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and they are accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant community.
A person will be deemed to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent if they are biologically descended from the people who inhabited Australia or the Torres Strait Islands before European settlement.
Mr Dutton said a big part of his decision to promote senators Price and Liddle – two Indigenous women with deep links to Alice Springs – was to address youth crime and the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the town, and the Northern Territory broadly.
“We want to provide a brighter future for those kids,” he said. “We can’t have a situation where we have young children being sexually abused, the impact psychologically on them, the difficulties it creates within a home environment.
“As we know, in Alice Springs at the moment, there are very significant issues. And I just think instead of running off on red herrings and trying to create these distractions, if the Prime Minister doesn’t understand that there’s a problem in Alice Springs, then he should fly there tomorrow.”
Senator Liddle has personal experience in her new portfolios, after losing a sister to family violence and caring for two children who were wards of the state.
She said she was a “huge advocate” for prevention of domestic and family violence and would prioritise holding the government to account over its 10-year national plan to end the scourge against women and children.
The South Australian, who was born and raised in Alice Springs, urged the government to clarify what funding would be available to domestic and family violence legal services in the NT to deal with “horrific” circumstances in the next financial year.
“I understand, unfortunately, the devastating impact of not just ongoing trauma but when there’s loss of life, the impact on family members and loved ones when that occurs,” Senator Liddle told The Australian
*************************************************
Australia swamped with asylum claims as would-be refugees fly in and fight to stay here
The monthly number of people attempting to stay in Australia by claiming to be refugees despite having arrived by plane on student, work, or holiday visas has nearly doubled since last year.
The growing number of applications is flooding courts and tribunals with applications that are found to be bogus more than 85 per cent of the time, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
Yet despite Department of Home Affairs figures showing that there are now nearly 102,000 people awaiting either deportation or a ruling on their refugee status, the government only managed to kick out 14 failed asylum seekers in March, with eight of those leaving the country voluntarily.
According to the latest Home Affairs report on asylum claims, 1,786 people who had arrived by plane on other visas as students, tourists, or workers later applied for onsore protection visas in March, 2023.
This was nearly double the 938 such claims made in the same period the previous year.
The greatest number of claimants in March came from India (190), followed by mainland China (158), Vietnam (117), and Malaysia and Pakistan (88 each).
By far the largest demographic category was males aged 25-34, with 404 claims made by this group.
Some 53 Ukrainians also claimed asylum, likely seeking protection from Vladimir Putin’s ongoing invasion of their homeland.
Plane speaking
1786: Asylum seeker claims made by people who arrived by plane in March 2023
938: Claims in March 2022
14,645: Claims since Labor took office
85+%: Rejection rate, June-December 2022
14: Total deportations of rejected claimants, March 2023
Top countries for claims: India, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Pakistan
Home Affairs figures also show that 14,645 jet arrivals have claimed asylum since Labor took office last May.
In June, 2022, 1,040 people claimed to be refugees, but in just six months that figure had jumped to 1,633 per month.
While the number of claimants has increased, data released by Home Affairs in response to Senate committee hearings also showed that the percentage of applicants receiving permanent protection visas granted to refugee claimants has been climbing.
In 2022, 14.2 per cent of those claiming refugee status had their applications upheld, up from 11.2 per cent the previous year.
However, that 14.2 per cent represented just 995 claims, or a tiny fraction of the cases awaiting determination, leaving thousands more cases clogging up the legal system.
Individuals familiar with the process say that claims of persecution are often used by people trying to stay in the country and their cases can take years as they work their way through the process.
The Department of Home Affairs noted in its 2022 annual report that a “proportion” of applicants claim refugee status out of “genuine fear”, many apply for another purpose including “to prolong their stay to access the Australian labour market.”
In March, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled on the case of an individual living in Parramatta known only as AYT22 who arrived in Australia in 2008 from India on a student visa and made a claim for refugee status in 2016 on the basis that he was a practising Christian who feared persecution if he returned home.
The Tribunal rejected the man’s claims of persecution, as well as his claims that he would “face economic difficulties” if forced to return to India, but it is understood he is now appealing to stay in the federal court.
Home Affairs documents show that Indians have among the lowest “grant rates” of protection visas, with just 1.74 per cent of claimants from that country having their applications approved last month.
By contrast, all six Afghanis who had their claims decided in March received protection visas.
“Since Labor was elected 14,645 asylum seekers have arrived by plane and Labor have no plan to deal with this problem,” said shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan, who added that Labor had campaigned hard on the issue of asylum seekers arriving by plane but had done little about the problem.
“There are now more than 101,000 asylum seekers who arrived by plane in Australia. In opposition, Labor said the government needed to address asylum seekers arriving by plane so where is their plan?”
“Labor were happy to use asylum seekers to score points against the Coalition but their lack of action in government demonstrates they never really cared,” he said.
********************************************************
Why we’ll be poorer for voting yes for Voice
Mike O'Connor
Mother always told us to say “please” when asking for something, but if the members of our political class were given similar advice by their respective mothers then they appear to have forgotten it.
I’ve yet to hear anyone ask voters if they would please, when they have a moment, consider both sides of the argument surrounding the proposed Indigenous Voice to parliament.
Instead of a respectful, reasoned approach, there is an ever-increasing volume of rhetoric demanding that we just do as we are told and accept it that now verges on bullying.
We once regarded individualism and a healthy suspicion of authority as elements of our national psyche.
But the vote Yes camp has obviously decided that these qualities have become so diluted that we can now be herded into a passive approval of something we don’t understand for no other reason than that’s what the government wants us to do.
Increasingly, I feel that I’m being pushed into voting Yes rather than being asked to consider the proposal.
The same mother who taught me to say “please” also despaired of that part of my make-up that ensured that if someone tried to force me to follow a particular course, I would invariably do the opposite.
I feel the same urge now and the more Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Yes camp try to pressure me in their direction then the more I will push back against them.
I resent the fact that corporations and sporting figures and a grab-bag of what are known collectively as “celebrities” are being conscripted to promote the Yes cause.
How they came to be possessed of the absolute wisdom that empowers them to comprehend something that has not and will not have its powers and reach comprehensively defined remains a mystery.
I have met many celebrities in my career and can say with absolute confidence that to a profoundly worrying degree, many did not appear to possess anything approaching a reasonable level of human intelligence.
Are we thought to be so stupid and so easily led that we will accept that the ability, finely honed though it might be, to repeatedly catch or hit a ball makes that person an expert in constitutional law?
If you were thinking of buying a house, would you show the contract to a cricketer or maybe a rugby league player and get them to run their eye over it before you signed it?
If you answered “yes” to this question, stop reading immediately and google “Brisbane lawyers”.
If the Voice is such a good idea then why the hard sell?
Those who dare to question what they are being told by the government, which is essentially “trust us, we’re politicians, we know what we’re doing” are being denigrated in the most appalling fashion.
There are so many unanswered questions and claims and counter claims being made by highly qualified legal persons, some of whom have no partisan view but who are concerned at the damage which could be wrought on the workings of our government that it is difficult to see how anyone can embrace it with any confidence.
Never before have so many been asked to approve something about which they know so little and which is designed to benefit so few.
We are being told that we’ll feel good if we vote for it as if we are so emotionally and intellectually crippled that we need to roll over and have our tummies tickled by an ever-caring government that at the end of the day, just wants everyone to “feel good”.
The inference is that if you vote No, you’ll feel bad.
I do feel bad, but because I see the inevitability of my country being forever divided by race if the Voice is approved with Indigenous people being accorded a special status not available to others by virtue of their ethnicity.
It’s not what this nation is supposed to be about. It will split us forever and we will all be the poorer for it.
It’s Anzac Day in a week’s time and the ghosts of those who gave their lives in defending our homeland will once more be visited upon us.
They died defending a democracy that guaranteed that we were all treated equally. I cannot help but wonder how they would regard this current debate.
************************************
18 April, 2023
Aged care rules ‘to set off collapses’
This is typical of Leftist thinking. They think they can just pass a law and make something happen that they want to happen. That is rarely so.
The problem is that they do not first do the hard work of undertanding how or why the existing situation exists. It will almost always be the result of several interracting pressures and failing to account for those pressures will cause "unexpected" results.
The situation discussed below is a simple example of that. We would probably all agreee that nursing homes for the aged would ideally have a large, well-trained staff to give individual attention to each resident when required. And the ALP is trying to make that happen by legislation. But it won't happen
To understand why you need to look at the existing situation, where a small staff of not mostly not very bright people are all that are availble in such homes. And why is that so?
Cost. Employing staff is expensive and the normal way of coping with that is to pay only minimal wages. And the only people who will accept such wages are people who do not have much to offer in the way of skills and abilities
So mandate that staff must be paid more? You can do that but what will be its effect? The care offered by the home will be so expensive that few elderly will be able to afford it. It would cast many frail elderly onto the streeets. You just can't do that.
And the proposal most discussed below is an example of that. A qualified nurse gets wages well above the minimum so where are you going to get the money to pay her? Short of government subsidy you cannot do it. The home could well go broke trying.
So the nurse "shortage" is mainly a shortage of nurses who will acccept nursing home pay. There will be such a shotrage for a long time. The mandate will be unenforceable and will mainly result in a REDUCED availability of nursing home care. Nursing home care will become the preserve of rich families only
It's a devil and the deep blue sea phenomenon. To get assured good care, you have to pay a lot. But not everyone can pay that much so you get the distressingly poor treatment of some residents that we often read about
The chief of the peak nursing professional body says it could take five to 10 years for the sector to recruit enough staff to meet Anthony Albanese’s target for 24/7 nurses in residential aged care facilities, warning there is “absolutely no way” the industry will meet Labor’s July 1 deadline.
Australian College of Nursing chief executive Kylie Ward also expressed concern that providers would be forced to shut down under the legislated requirement to have at least one registered nurse on site at all times.
The warnings come as the Aged & Community Care Providers Association, the overarching body representing residential, home and community care, said the government needed to ensure the pace of change was manageable for aged care providers and did not “exacerbate an already challenging situation”.
The sector is scrambling to implement a suite of reforms including mandated minutes of care per resident, quality and safety standards, and full-time nursing requirements as it adjusts to a new funding model bought in last October as recommended by the Aged Care Royal Commission.
The overhaul comes as financial troubles plague the sector, with the latest figures from the Quarterly Financial Snapshot of the Aged Care Sector revealing 66 per cent of private providers are operating at a loss, with facilities losing an average of $28 per resident each day.
For-profit and not-for-profit providers, which represent 90 per cent of all homes, returned a collective net loss before tax of $465.3m for the September 2022 quarter, off revenues of $5.3bn.
As the sector grapples with a major shortfall of workers and a deteriorating financial outlook, a number of aged care facilities have been forced to close their doors. Aged care provider Wesley Mission was the latest facility to close, announcing on Thursday the shutdown of all Sydney homes, citing difficulties in attracting and retaining staff.
The closure, to take effect next month, will displace about 200 residents but the facility said it was committed to ensuring the elderly had other suitable accommodation.
Professor Ward said the aged care sector was facing a shortfall of 10,000 nurses ahead of Labor’s July 1 deadline, and urged the government to invest in attracting overseas-trained nurses to ensure a sustainable supply of workers to help meet targets. She said the college, which had been fighting for facilities to have a registered nurse to be on site for years – had told the government of the projected staffing shortfalls ahead of the deadline.
“There is absolutely no way the sector is going to meet its legislated target by July 1,” Professor Ward said. “We needed a minimum of 10,000 workers before this came into place … where are the nurses coming from?
“If the government doesn’t start looking at developing skilled migration, or a broader approach to developing a new workforce then you’re never going to meet that target.”
Professor Ward said providers were fearful they may have to close their doors if they were unable to meet the legislated targets.
“I can guarantee you they will close. I have spoken to CEOs who are distressed and say they won’t be able to meet the requirement … the modelling of care needs to be considered as we transition to these reforms but we can’t just pluck these people out of thin air,” she said.
Aged Care Minister Anika Wells said the government would not force the closure of facilities that were unable to meet nursing targets and would work with providers to help them meet new standards. Last month, Ms Wells conceded about one in 20 aged care homes would not meet Labor’s July 1 deadline, but said about 80 per cent had already achieved the target.
Ms Wells said the “vast majority” of residential facilities would meet 24/7 nursing requirements and that around the clock nursing was needed to properly care for some of the nation’s most vulnerable. Exemptions would be available for a small number of facilities in regional and remote areas if they were unable to fulfil the requirements.
Opposition aged care spokeswoman Anne Ruston attacked Labor for failing to consider the challenging circumstances the sector faced due to severe workforce shortages “in their rush to tick and flick election commitments” after the Prime Minister promised to “fix the crisis in aged care”.
Senator Ruston seized on the closure of Wesley Mission’s homes, arguing residential facilities were not adequately supported during the transitional period.
Sue McLean Bolter, whose 98-year-old mother Moira McLean has been a resident of the Wesley Mission home in Narrabeen since 2019, was first informed of the provider’s closure on Tuesday.
She has been scrambling to find suitable accommodation for her mother, having recently flown in from the US to celebrate Ms McLean’s birthday. So far she has been unsuccessful.
“It’s been very stressful … it’s just been horrible … my sister who lives here has been furious,” Ms McLean Bolter said.
“Had (Wesley) even notified the government that they had been planning to close and why were we given just six weeks notice?
“This is the northern beaches where people have their families, doctors and hospitals so to send them over to the other side of Sydney is almost unthinkable. You can’t just drop by to meet your mum, you might have to drive two hours across Sydney in traffic.”
Wesley Mission chief executive Reverend Stu Cameron said Labor’s new national staffing requirements had created challenges for the home as a smaller provider. “The aged care sector is experiencing challenges to workforce and flow-on impacts from the national reforms to aged care,” Reverend Cameron said.
“Wesley Mission supports these once-in-a-generation reforms, improving quality for all care users. It is, however, a challenging environment to be a smaller provider.’
Aged care provider Whiddon chief executive Chris Mamarelis said the Wesley closure was “unsurprising” given the financial pressures many providers were under and forecast more failures.
**********************************************************
Challenging Covid’s tyranny came at a heavy personal price
Adam Creighton
Three years ago this month my life was turned upside down when I suggested in this column we might be overreacting to Covid-19.
The column triggered a torrent of hate mail that lasted well over a year, and I began to receive persistent and violent threats. I was forced to change my name on social media accounts and my parents became seriously worried for my safety. Some of the attacks were so awful, I considered taking legal action.
It was less than a month after England’s chief health officer, Chris Whitty, explained at a press conference that Covid-19 was not a particularly lethal virus, many wouldn’t get it, and of those who did the vast bulk wouldn’t know they had it, or suffer only a “mild to moderate” illness at worse.
Those facts never changed, but it was too late. By mid-April, our ostensibly civil and rational society had lost its mind, consumed by an insidious culture of consent.
All that mattered was stopping the virus – which most of us ended up getting at least once – and to hell with the human rights, social and economic costs, or earlier pandemic plans.
“Perhaps a hysteria has gripped the nation … the hankering for total lockdown was being cheered on largely by those who would be relatively unaffected by it … the costs will be profound,” I wrote, in what was the first of many criticisms that followed.
But I couldn’t have imagined back then just how damning the data would become, as a new book by Toby Green and Thomas Fazi, The Covid Consensus, now makes clear.
The benefits of our authoritarian response proved so meagre, the costs so enormous – including the inflation we’re still enduring – the last few years must qualify as the biggest public policy disaster outside of wartime.
Australian governments sprayed the best part of half a trillion dollars of public funds against the wall; not to mention the disruption they caused to ordinary lives in the community.
According to OECD data, we ended up with around the same or even a greater number of excess deaths over the last three years as Sweden, a country that was relentlessly attacked for allowing its people to maintain normal lives, with a similar rate of urbanisation and development to Australia.
“I thought Sweden would have higher excess mortality but less economic and social damage, but it had a lower mortality as well,” noted British science writer Matt Ridley last month, after it became clear no matter how the statistics were cut, Sweden emerged with relatively few excess deaths; indeed fewer, or around the same, as Australia.
“Quite astounding: Sweden took a lot of flak for its Covid-19 policies but actually it has done best in Europe,” added Danish environmental analyst Bjorn Lomborg.
On some measures, Sweden did better than any other developed nation on excess deaths. If there is a greater humiliation of experts in modern history, I’m yet to hear it.
The same was true in some parts of the US, which for political and constitutional reasons, managed to resist the zeitgeist, recording the same, or fewer deaths than other jurisdictions, without the destructive madness.
Historians will not look back at the figures of how many died from or with Covid-19. Instead they will look at excess deaths, the number of deaths compared to what might have been expected.
But the coup de grace must belong to China, whose policies in Wuhan inspired many governments to junk their pandemic plans, which had previously emphasised keeping calm and running societies as normally as possible.
In 2020, China’s response was widely praised, based on the CCP’s own dubious Covid-19 figures. But the country’s lockdowns spectacularly failed to contain the virus, and appeared to make little difference when they were ultimately lifted – to the disappointment of those desperate to keep the flame of authoritarianism alive.
Liberal democracies failed miserably during the pandemic, as our institutions, media, academia and bureaucracies careened into hysteria and authoritarianism, trashing human rights and traditional medical ethics over a virus that our grandparents would’ve barely noticed.
You can only imagine what a slightly more lethal virus would have done. As a society we are far less rational and free than we claim.
The gap between our civilisation and China’s has shrunk markedly, too, as government institutions worked hand-in-hand in the US (of all places) with social media companies to suppress dissent and bolster the “the science”, which turned out to be wrong on almost everything. The pandemic response in Australia and elsewhere was a harbinger of a totalitarian future that surely none of us want to encourage.
In my view, those deserving the greatest contempt are the tenured academics and senior public servants who, unless they were mentally deficient, must have known from a very early stage in the pandemic that “the measures” were failing, but continued to cheer them on anyway.
Only an honest evaluation of the gigantic errors of the past can steel us against a repeat of such extremism.
It is fitting, then, to quote the 17th-century Swedish statesman, Axel Oxenstierna, who once commented: “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?”
If we didn’t know then, we certainly do now.
******************************************
Indian students banned or limited as Australian unis crack down on bogus applicants
At least five Australian universities have introduced bans or restrictions on students from specific Indian states in response to a surge of applications from South Asia and an accompanying rise in what the Home Affairs Department described as fraudulent applications.
An investigation by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald has obtained emails from within Victoria University, Edith Cowan University, the University of Wollongong, Torrens University, and agents working for Southern Cross University that show the crackdown on applications from Indian students.
Australia is on track for its biggest-ever annual intake of Indian students, topping 2019’s high watermark of 75,000. But the current surge has prompted concerns from government MPs and the education sector about the integrity of Australia’s immigration system and the long-term impact on the nation’s lucrative international education market.
“The volume of students arriving has come back a lot stronger than anyone was expecting,” said Jon Chew from global education firm Navitas. “We knew there would be a lot of pent-up demand, but there has also been a surge in non-genuine students.”
With many applications deemed by universities not to meet Australian visa requirements that they be a “genuine temporary entrant” coming solely for education, universities are putting restrictions in place to pre-empt their “risk rating” being downgraded.
The Home Affairs Department keeps a confidential rating of each country, with each university and college also ranked. Students from countries with higher risk ratings are required to provide more evidence that proves they will not overstay their visa, not work more hours than allowed under their visa, and not use fraudulent material in their application.
Those universities that have restricted access to some Indian states are concerned Home Affairs will reduce their ability to fast-track student visas because of the number of applicants who are actually seeking to work – not study – in Australia.
“In an effort to strengthen the profile of students from areas where we have seen increased visa risks, VU will implement a higher level of requirements in some areas in India,” the university’s regional recruitment manager Alex Hanlon wrote to education agents. A university spokeswoman said these additional requirements included “assessing gaps in applicants’ study history to determine if they are suitably qualified and prepared for international study in Australia and can support themselves adequately”.
Those restrictions came just days after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited India, in part to celebrate Australia’s education links and announce a new agreement with Australia’s universities and colleges that would, he said, herald “the most comprehensive and ambitious arrangement agreed to by India with any country”. Crucially, the agreement included a “mutual recognition of qualifications between Australia and India”, which will make travelling to either country for university study easier.
The deluge of applications from south Asia began after the Morrison government, in January 2022, removed a 20-hour per week limit on the amount of work students can do – meaning there were no longer any restrictions on how many hours students could work. The move encouraged those wanting a low-skill Australian work visas to apply to cheaper education institutions. The Albanese government will on July 1 reintroduce this work limit, but lift it to 24 hours a week.
The Age and the Herald has confirmed with five universities, or in one case agents working on a university’s behalf, that they have put restrictions on students wanting to come to Australia from India. Another list seen by The Age and the Herald and authored by one Australian education agency, showed 12 universities and colleges had put in restrictions. The agency asked not to be named for fear it would damage its relationship with education providers.
It is not just universities that are grappling with a surge in applications from people seeking to work in Australia and gain permanent residency – rather than studying – in Australia. The vocational education sector is also seeing a surge in applications from students ultimately judged to be too risky to accept.
Under the process for getting a student visa, education providers accept applicants who are then assessed by Home Affairs. In February, Home Affairs rejected an unprecedented 94 per cent of offshore applicants from India to study in Australia’s vocational sector. It compared to less than 1 per cent of student applications from countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and France. In 2006, when Home Affairs started publishing records of this nature, 91 per cent of applicants from India were accepted.
The international students pouring back into Australia fuel an overseas education industry worth about $40 billion annually, trailing only iron ore, coal and natural gas as an export.
The University of Sydney took $1.4 billion of revenue in 2021 from fee-paying overseas students, Monash University collected $917 million in tuition fees while the University of Queensland got $644 million, federal education department figures show.
“Many universities, like Monash, Melbourne, Sydney and the University of New South Wales, already receive more revenue from international students than from domestic students,” said Peter Hurley, director of Victoria University’s Mitchell Institute. “International education is an incredibly valuable resource. It is really important that we manage it properly so that it works in everyone’s interests, especially international students.”
Hurley said international students provided both students for the nation’s higher education sector, and workers for Australia’s booming jobs market. “We need this workforce,” Hurley said. No Australian university could now function without international education revenue, he said, noting international students provide some institutions with three times as much in tuition fees as a domestic student.
Education agent Ravi Singh said too many of Australia’s training colleges had become “visa factories” interested in offering immigration pathways, not an education.
***********************************************
One Nation senator likens the Aboriginal Voice to 'apartheid'
Both privileged a particular race
A One Nation senator has come under fire after comparing the Indigenous Voice to Parliament to South Africa's Apartheid.
He had been responding to a tweet made by 'Australiana' podcast host Will Kingston who had slammed the Voice to Parliament.
'Australia, a modern western democracy, is considering a proposal that would require racial tests to determine suitability for a representative body,' he wrote.
Senator Roberts threw his support behind it comparing it to racial segregation that existed in South Africa from 1948 to the early 1990s. 'Nailed it. The Voice is apartheid,' he wrote.
His comment comes as debate continues to rage around the referendum with groups opposing the Voice revealing how their 'No' campaign will differ greatly to the 'Yes' campaign.
Apartheid was the white-dictated system of legal separation of the races that prevailed in South Africa for almost 50 years after World War II.
His comment comes less than a year after One Nation leader Pauline Hanson claimed it would the Voice would be 'Australia's version of apartheid' in an extraordinary speech to the Senate in August 2022.
'The risk is very real that the sovereignty that all Australians have over their land and country will be handed to a racial minority,' she said.
'Why does this have to be in the constitution? What is the real ulterior motive? This can only be about power - creating a nation within a nation.
'This can only be about taking power from whitefellas and giving it to blackfellas. This is Australia's version of apartheid.'
Meanwhile groups opposing the Voice say they are countering the star and corporate power of the 'yes' campaign by mobilising 'ordinary Australians'.
Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed Voice, says that unlike the 'yes' campaign the case against will be 'driven by everyday Australians'.
'We represent the quiet Aboriginal Australians who don't feel like they're being heard in this debate,' she said.
Warren Mundine, a former president of the Australian Labor Party turned Liberal candidate, told Sky News that Indigenous communities had not been consulted on the Voice and had little understanding of it.
Mr Mundine has previously accused the Voice of being dreamed up by the 'elites in academia.'
Sometime between October and December this year Australians will be asked by referendum to approve the establishment of the Voice as a recognition of Indigenous peoples in the Constitution.
A referendum can only be carried when it is approved by an overall majority of Australians and also is voted for by a majority of states.
************************************
17 April, 2023
Inquiry calls for universal preschool for three-year-olds to be rolled out in SA from 2026
This is just Leftist anti-family rubbish. Karl Marx would be pleased. There is no basis for it in science. The research shows that kids do better at home rather than in preschool. Preschool in fact holds the kids back, often permanently. Mothers are the best teachers in all but the most deprived homes. See the following for summaries of the evidence:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/96091-science-says-state-run-preschool-is-not-the-way-2023-03-30
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5525
What Gillard "genuinely believes" is of no importanceA royal commission investigating how best to launch an earlier start to education in South Australia has recommended all three-year-olds be entitled to 600 hours of preschool a year.
The Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care was launched last year to work out how best to deliver the SA Labor Party's election promise to give three-year-old children access to preschool from 2026.
Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who was appointed to lead the $2.45 million commission, has made 33 recommendations in her interim report handed to the state government today.
Ms Gillard said three-year-olds should be offered the same universal entitlement to preschool currently offered to four-year-old children — 600 hours a year, or 15 hours a week for 40 weeks a year.
"I genuinely believe this report should be of interest to every South Australian, whether or not they have young children in their family or young children in contemplation in their families' future," she said.
"We have a moral obligation to every child to make sure every child has the best opportunity to grow and learn and thrive."
The commission recommends 15 hours a week be viewed as a minimum and is also contemplating greater entitlements to fund extra hours for children deemed most at risk of developmental delays.
"We also, as a state, have a shared economic interest in making sure that we set our children on the best pathway in life, because the research tells us crystal clear that intervention in the early years can make the biggest difference," Ms Gillard said.
"If we do not set children up well in the early years of life, if children present to school with developmental delays then it can be very hard to catch up and that disadvantage will continue to show in their adult life.
"It shows in life expectancy, in poorer health, in poorer economic outcomes, in greater welfare dependency and even potentially in involvement with crime."
The proposed approach will cost the state about $162 million a year.
The commission recommends three-year-old preschool be delivered in a mix of government and non-government settings, including in early learning centres and long day care.
The approach will need 32 new preschools to be built, at a cost of $111.2 million.
Ms Gillard said the approach would also build on the work currently being done by those who worked in early childhood education, often informally and unpaid, to link families with other support systems.
"That can be everything from recognising that a child might need to be connected to the professional services of a speech pathologist, to recommending to a family that if they need assistance with food, that is a Foodbank in the local community," she said.
"At the moment that kind of building of connections is being done as an act of goodwill of individuals, it's not built-in as a feature of practice all day every day and we want to make sure that it is."
Premier Peter Malinauskas said it would be the biggest reform to early childhood education the state had ever seen.
"What we're doing here isn't just nation-leading, but it's global-leading," he said.
"It's important we look at these recommendations with a holistic view, that we take the time to ask questions, and critically view our education system, so that any actions from this are the right ones for the next generation."
The commission, which is seeking feedback from the public on its report, found the rollout "could be completed by 2032", but is still looking into the issue of workforce supply.
The final report is scheduled to be released in August.
*************************************************
Australia's Covid lunacy as millions of dollars of taxpayer money is spent on bored nurses fiddling with their phones waiting for no-one to turn up to empty mass testing clinics
Australia is wasting millions of dollars operating hundreds of Covid mass testing clinics - a relic from the height of the pandemic that are now barely used.
Gone are the huge queues and maddening waits of two years ago. Instead, bored staff fiddle with their phones and put their feet up, waiting patiently for someone to turn up.
At the height of the outbreak, the specialist drive-through and walk-in PCR test sites had queues hours long - but now anything more than 100 people would be a busy day.
Maintaining 88 drive-through and 77 walk-in clinics across NSW alone costs taxpayers millions, but NSW Health is refusing to say exactly how much is being forked out for these white elephants.
Huge white shelters are still planted in car parks as cars trickle through, rarely encountering a delay before a medical worker walks up.
The rest of the time, two or three bored staff watch their phones or call friends - grateful to have something to do when a patient arrives.
Staff at one clinic in Sydney's eastern suburbs said they usually had 50 to 100 show up a day during the 7am to 4pm opening hours, with about 95 on Wednesday.
Unlike during the Omicron outbreak, when there was no lockdown but plenty of cases, there was no pre- and post-work rush.
'They just come one at a time, or sometimes a few - it's really random. There's fewer today, maybe 50-something so far,' one said at lunch on Thursday.
Very few tests were positive and there was no sign of the clinics being wound up any time soon.
'It's all up to the government, we don't really know,' they said.
Another clinic in southern Sydney had four cars arrive in the space of half an hour, with a worker saying there was usually less than 100 a day.
'It's not many compared to what it used to be,' staff said, having conducted 40 to 50 tests by early Thursday afternoon.
NSW Health stopped counting tests in its weekly updates after February 3, when there were 41,747 combined PCR and rapid tests over the previous week.
How many were conducted at testing sites is not known and NSW Health failed to provide the figure when asked by Daily Mail Australia.
Senior ministerial staffers are understood to be surprised so many of the clinics are still operating more than three years after the pandemic began.
The previous government shut down many of them last October, but left the current sites operating despite dwindling use.
*****************************************************
Anthony Albanese’s Voice proposal has no answers for towns like Alice
Peta Credlin
A key difference between the two big parties is that Labor tends to exploit problems as a means to change the way we’re governed, to grow the role of government and reduce the power of the individual.
The Liberals, on the other hand, still tend to see the role of government as only necessary to do the things that individuals can’t do for themselves, and to focus on practical change, not ideological war.
Take the epidemic of domestic dysfunction afflicting Alice Springs and other remote townships.
Labor reckons that this just proves we need a constitutionally entrenched Indigenous Voice to everyone on everything.
Labor’s line is that Alice shows everything else has failed and that’s why we need a Voice; when instead, the Voice would be doubling down on failure.
That’s because the Voice is all about the same activists who’ve dominated Indigenous policy for years and are responsible for good policies (like grog bans) being thrown out because some claimed it was racist.
Worse still, the Voice is predicated on being ‘advisory’, so all care and no responsibility.
Nowhere is it planned for the Voice to take on the role of actually fixing anything and accepting the consequences if change doesn’t happen.
It’s just an elaborate con job to create a whole new power structure at the heart of our Constitution, co-governance by stealth, that will do nothing to deal with the problems on the ground in so many remote Indigenous communities.
By contrast, the Libs think the crisis in Alice Springs proves the need for stronger government action on the ground — more police, more child protection, etc — that the creation of a national Voice might make even more complicated and difficult.
The ABC’s arrogant challenge to the Opposition Leader last week typifies the left’s denialism about problems in Indigenous communities and the broadcaster’s obsession with symbols rather than substance when it comes to Indigenous affairs.
When Dutton called out “rampant sexual abuse” in Alice Springs last week, the ABC’s reporter-on-the-spot editorialised that an Indigenous body had called Dutton “uninformed” and demanded that the Opposition Leader produce evidence to back up what he’d said.
Dutton’s response was that he’d spoken to the police and social workers, “some of whom are on stress leave … because of the scenes that they’ve endured”.
“I don’t know what the bureaucrats are saying,” he went on, “but I can tell you what the human experience is on the front line and if the ABC and others don’t see fit to report that … it reflects more on the ABC than it does on the locals here.”
It was, of course, at that point that the ABC chose to cut off its live broadcast of the media conference.
The facts that the ABC doesn’t want you to know, from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare — the national agency that collects this data — show that child protection notifications are five times higher in the Northern Territory than in any other jurisdiction.
In NSW, there are 23 child protection notifications per 1000 children in the state, but in the NT it’s a horrific 95 notifications a year for every 1000 children.
While a notification is not a substantiated case of abuse, even when comparing substantiated cases of child protection claims the NT is still by far the worst jurisdiction in the country.
This is the epidemic of family dysfunction that Dutton says the government should be focused on, while the collective left accuses anyone worrying about child abuse in remote Australia as racist.
Last week, the NT Police Minister said that Dutton’s focus on child abuse and domestic dysfunction in Alice Springs was, to quote, a “dog act”. Even though this is what the official stats say is happening. Even though it’s the constant testimony of police, nurses and social workers on the ground.
And even though the Mayor of Alice Springs Matt Paterson has confirmed that the levels of dysfunction and violence —— that dipped slightly when Alice was the nation’s focus earlier this year — are now back to where they were, despite the grog bans partially put back in.
Although Alice Springs remains a town in crisis, the Albanese government would still rather talk about the Voice than deal with the problems on the ground.
What’s the point of establishing a Voice if it’s not going to make any difference to the social disasters unfolding in towns like Alice?
Indeed, the Voice will only make the problems worse, because whatever the government says about remote representation, it’s almost certain to be dominated by city-based activists demanding changes to Australia Day, treaties and reparations, and claiming that problems on the ground are the result of racism and colonialism, rather than the inevitable consequence of kids not going to school, adults not going to work, and communities not being properly policed.
A separate, race-based Voice is wrong in principle.
But the very last thing Australia needs right now is something that’s not just wrong in principle, but will be a distraction from solving the problems that really matter.
************************************************
Ringleader of the ‘tinnie terrorists’ Robert Musa Cerantonio to be freed from jail in May
The leader of the so-called “tinnie terrorists”, self-styled preacher Robert Musa Cerantonio, will be back on the streets in May after completing a seven-year jail term for planning to overthrow The Philippines government.
He is one of seven high-risk terrorist offenders due for release into the community this year, as the government and police prepare to abandon the continued detention orders that have allowed authorities to jail dangerous people beyond the end of their prison terms.
Future high-risk terrorism offenders released into the community look set to be monitored under extended supervision orders, new powers introduced in 2021 that allow even tighter surveillance and monitoring than the CDOs in place since 2005.
The expected widespread use of extended supervision orders heralds a new era in the management of Australia’s cohort of terrorism offenders who have completed their jail terms but may still pose risks to the community.
The supervision orders will allow police to control and monitor the movements, associations and communications of offenders 24 hours a day, ban them from contacting certain people, accessing prohibited material or using specific social media or encrypted communications.
It will likely provide a heavy burden on federal and state police and ASIO resources, with dozens of police sometimes required to monitor one high-risk offender.
Cerantonio, 38, will be set free in Melbourne on May 9 after completing his sentence for preparing for an incursion into a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities.
He will be the first high-risk terrorism offender released since the report in March by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Grant Donaldson SC, who criticised continued detention orders as disproportionate, and urged the government to scrap them.
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has not indicated whether he will accept Mr Donaldson’s recommendation, saying he was considering the report findings.
The Australian Federal Police seem to have moved away from seeking CDOs, and is expected to apply for extended supervision orders for two high-profile offenders due for release shortly: Blake Pender, in NSW, and Abdul Nacer Benbrika, in Victoria.
Pender’s case is complicated, involving terrorism convictions and other crimes of violence. He has served a one-year CDO at the conclusion of his jail term and is due for release in September.
Benbrika, the ringleader of an al-Qa’ida-inspired plot to attack Australian landmarks in the early 2000s, has served three years of a CDO beyond the end of his 15-year jail term.
Police are not expected to seek a continuation of his order but will apply for an extended supervision order in the community.
Benbrika remains in prison until December, and has several legal disputes under way, including an appeal against a government’s decision to strip his Australian citizenship.
Cerantonio led a group of men who towed a small boat from Melbourne to Cape York in May 2016, intending to sail to The Philippines with the intention of joining a push to oust the government and install sharia law.
The improbable scheme, which saw police surreptitiously follow the men as they slowly drove the boat across Australia, was doomed from the start – the boat was just 7m long and none of the men had experience at sea.
Five other men were later jailed over the plot. All have since been released.
At a bail hearing for one of the group in 2016, Acting Detective-Sergeant Adam Foley told the Supreme Court in Victoria that global intelligence services considered Cerantonio the second or third most influential jihadist preacher in the world.
An Australian-Italian who converted to Islam and became a self-styled preacher and spiritual leader, Cerantonio has since claimed he has renounced his Islamic faith and extremist ideology, encouraging others to stay “away from the same mistakes’’.
He did not receive early release on parole and has served his entire sentence.
The Attorney-General’s Department declined to comment on whether it would seek either a continued detention order or an extended supervision order against Cerantonio upon completion of his jail term.
************************************
16 April, 2023
Blaming Australia’s rental crisis on immigrants doesn’t tell the real story
The article below adds the effects of the pandemic lockdowns to immigration as the cause of the rental property shortage. He overlooks the supply side of the problem.
There is in fact no shortage of supply. There are very large numbers of dwellings available for rent in most big Australian cities. The catch is that they are "holiday" rentals administered by the likes of AirBnb.
What has has happened is that many property owners have moved their properties out of the long-term to the short term market. If all the short-term lets were moved onto the long term market there would be NO rental shortage
Governments fulminate about that and contemplate more regulations to solve the problem but ignore the fact that they are the cause of the problem. Governments have made life so difficult for landlords that short-term lets are a better deal for them despite the much greater management requirements of short term lets.
So where exactly have governments gone wrong? They have ratcheted up tenant "protection" to a very intrusive degree. The universal truth that favouring one group disadvantages another seems unknown to them. Tenant protection is landlord restriction. Control over their properties is greatly reduced by tenant protection. And landlords stand to lose significantly from that.
A notable watershed in Queensland was when the State government introduced new pro-tenant laws about a year ago. Part of those "reforms" was to compel landlords to accept tenants with pets. Landlords could no longer say "no pets" as a condition to renting out their properties. That seems kind, humane and reasonable but it imposes large potential costs on landlords.
In my past career as a landlord, I did from time to time have tenants who brought in pets despite not being allowed to. What was the result? In one word: stink. Pets emptying their bladders and bowels on my carpet made it stink in such a way that no cleaning could remove the smell. The stink made the property unlettable to subsequent tenants. As a result I had on such occasions to throw out all the carpets and spend thousands of dollars replacing them. That often wiped out every cent that the pet-owning tenants had paid
No wonder property owners went for an escape from that government-created trap! Tenants have to have MUCH LESS "protection" if availability of long term rental accommodation is to increase. What good is a protected tenancy if you cannot get ANY property at all to live in?
As the rental crisis continues to unfold throughout much of the nation, it has left many of us wondering how this could have occurred in a nation as cumulatively wealthy as Australia. By going through some of the data from the ABS, RBA and various private providers that’s what we’ll attempt to determine today and provide a bit of insight on how things may transpire from here.
When the pandemic arrived on our shores in early 2020, the size of the average Australian household rose from 2.51 people per home to 2.55 people. While this may not sound like a lot, it in essence reduced the number of households nationally by 162,000 based on the average household size nationally, playing a significant role in falling rental demand during the early months of the pandemic.
But as lockdowns dragged on and close quarters began to take their toll, more and more Australians wanted a place of their own. Between Q3 2020 and Q2 2022, the average household size fell from 2.55 persons to 2.48. This saw demand for homes rise by 288,000, more than cancelling out the reduction in demand seen in the early months of the pandemic.
Capital city rents took a similar path. As demand faded between March and September 2020, capital city asking rents fell by 5.4 per cent according to data from SQM Research. Once demand began to pick up significantly, rents rose by 8.5 per cent during 2021, all while the nation’s borders remained largely closed.
The migration factor
Over the past three years migration has been something of a double-edged sword for capital city rental markets. Between March 2020 and December 2021, the number of temporary visa holders in categories likely to require some form of housing fell by 328,000. Based on the average Australian household size demand for homes fell by 131,000.
During 2021 when rents began take off, the number of temporary visa holders in categories likely to require housing fell by 147,000. This helped to put significant downward pressure on rents at a time when demand from existing households was skyrocketing and more Australians than ever were looking to get their own place.
But once this headwind putting downward pressure on rents was removed when the nation’s borders reopened in early 2022, capital city rents began to surge in short order. During 2021 quarterly rental price growth sat between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent. In the first quarter of 2022 capital city rents surged by 5.5 per cent, the largest increase in the history of SQM’s data series at the time.
Between the start of 2022 and the most recent data from the Department of Home Affairs, which covers up until the end of February, the number of temporary visa holders in categories likely to require housing rose by 444,000.
With a little over 2.03 million people currently in these categories, more temporary visa holders than ever require some form of housing, a figure 116,000 higher than this time in 2020.
Looking ahead
Despite surging numbers of temporary visa holders and a budget forecasting a record high level of permanent non-humanitarian migration, the origin of the rental crisis was not immigration, but instead the swift changes brought about by the pandemic in the way we live and work.
However, since the border reopened in early 2022 the normalisation of temporary visa holder numbers has exacerbated the rental crisis significantly.
It ultimately comes down to numbers, there are 444,000 more people in need of homes in this category than at the start of 2022. This has left many Australians asking an important and profound question, where are all Australia’s renters both citizens and visa holders going to live?
In recent months of data which covers up until the end of February, the shift has become more pronounced, with 198,000 temporary visa holders likely to require some form of housing arriving in the country in the past two months.
To say that it was a challenging set of circumstances would be understatement. According to forecasts from the RBA, the situation may not significantly improve any time soon. In a recent speech RBA Governor Philip Lowe shared the bank’s prediction that Australia’s population would continue to grow faster than the nation’s dwelling stock until at least 2025.
While there are signs that sharehousing is on the rise and more people are moving in with family and friends, overcoming the ongoing increase in demand in capital city areas most heavily impacted by domestic and international migration may take quite some time.
Ultimately, it is the federal government’s decision to grow the population faster than the RBA forecasts that housing can be built, not that of individual migrant households.
As the rental crisis becomes increasingly challenging for many Australians, one hopes that this is kept in mind as frustration continues to build amid the nation’s worst rental crisis in living memory.
**************************************************
Grave doubts about the accuracy of BOM records
They are frantically trying to cover up the distortions in what they have done
A dispute over how the Bureau of Meteorology records daily temperatures is hotting up, with the release of more than 1000 pages of data that show new probes can record different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same location at the same time.
The documents, released after a years-long Freedom of Information campaign, show temperature measurements taken using updated BOM probes in automatic weather stations at the Brisbane Airport site could be up to 0.7C warmer than the temperature taken using a traditional thermometer at the same time at the same site.
More than three years after a FOI request for parallel data was lodged by scientist John Abbot, the BOM released three years of data on Easter eve after the matter was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In the end, the BOM released only limited data, paving the way for a wave of FOI demands that full records be released in the public interest.
Release of the data is the first opportunity to analyse the performance of BOM probes alongside mercury thermometers. The bureau has long claimed the readings are identical but critics have said the BOM was not following World Meteorological Organisation guidelines on how they should be used.
Given that even small variations in temperature recordings can have an impact on the long-term record, accuracy is vital.
The main issue is how well temperatures recorded by new technologies can be compared to earlier methods to establish a continuous record.
The BOM maintains that an assessment of the full 2019-22 period at Brisbane Airport finds no significant difference between the probe and mercury thermometers.
Yet analysis of the data by scientist Jennifer Marohasy has found a statistically significant difference exists. Over the three-year period for which records have been made available, probes returned temperatures higher than the mercury thermometers placed alongside them 41 per cent of the time.
Recordings were the same 32.8 per cent of the time and lower 25.9 per cent of the time.
Dr Marohasy said the BOM had not disputed that the probe at Brisbane Airport had recorded up to 0.7C warmer than the mercury at the same site at the same time.
She said the bureau had not provided comment on the actual difference daily between temperatures as measured by the probe and the mercury, nor the average monthly or annual difference between the probe and the mercury.
In response to questions from The Weekend Australian, the bureau said it “verifies temperature probes to ensure that they are within specification”. The BOM said the temperature measurement system at Brisbane Airport was verified 24 times between January 2008 and July last year.
“Probes undergo a verification test in situ to ensure the probe is operating within specification”, it said. “If the result of this test is that the probe is outside of its operating specification, it is replaced with a laboratory-verified probe.
“A second verification test is undertaken to ensure it is compliant with the specification. “This verification process is more rigorous and reliable than recalibration.”
The documents released by the BOM under the FOI request included 1094 A8 reports with the handwritten daily maximum and minimum temperatures from both probes and traditional liquid-in-glass thermometers recorded from instruments in the same shelter/Stevenson screen.
They represent about 20 per cent of the parallel records held for the Brisbane airport site, one of 38 sites originally requested under FOI.
Dr Marohasy said analysis of the Brisbane airport data proved the BOM claim that the new probes had been specially developed to measure exactly the same temperatures as the mercury thermometers was wrong. Dr Marohasy has had a years long dispute with the BOM over the accuracy of the new probes and what she says is a failure by it to adhere to WMO guidelines to average the data recorded and maintain mercury thermometers alongside new technologies for an extended period.
“Readings from the probe are taken every second, and the highest value in a 24-hour period becomes the maximum temperature for that day. WMO guidelines recommend that instantaneous readings from probes be averaged over at least one minute”, she said.
Dr Marohasy said the difference in readings between probes and mercury thermometers was significant.
“Given new ‘hottest ever’ days are often called and make newspaper headlines when the temperature is only some fractions of a degree warmer, future new record hot days could be a consequence of the probe rather than global warming”.
“This has implications for the artificial generation of new record hot temperatures”, she said.
The other key issue was that Brisbane Airport parallel data showed a dramatic change in the difference between the mercury and probe temperature readings after December 2019.
“It is important to know whether this average difference of 0.35C had been caused by a recalibration of the probe that is the official recording instrument at Brisbane Airport”, she said.
Dr Abbot said he would request further parallel data sets from the BOM and was hopeful that previous barriers to access in regard of the existence of these records and costs would not reoccur. “Under FOI legislation, fee waivers should be granted as the information derived is clearly in the public interest” Dr Abbot said.
“We hope previous assertions from the BOM that analysis of parallel temperature data is only of benefit to John Abbot personally and has no public interest will not reoccur,” he said.
“The public is constantly being told of impending global catastrophe should temperatures rise by more than 1.5C. Discrepancies of more than 0.5C because of instrumentation differences are therefore very significant, and certainly should satisfy the public interest test”, Dr Abbot said.
“Different measuring instruments have been used to record temperatures at Brisbane Airport. Given the importance of reliable continuous records, it is important to know whether these instruments are recording the same temperatures, or not. The parallel data so far made available constitutes only a small portion of what the BOM holds.
“It is important to extend the analyses to longer periods and for other geographical locations.”
Dr Abbot first requested the parallel data for Brisbane Airport on December 12, 2019.
The case eventually went before the AAT on February 3, 2023, and was subsequently resolved with the bureau agreeing to provide three years of data.
Dr Marohasy said the data represented just three of the 14.5 years (January 2008 to July 2022) of parallel data that the bureau held for Brisbane Airport.
“It is also just a fraction of the 760 years of parallel data the bureau holds for 38 different locations spread across the landmass of Australia,” she said.
Probes in automatic weather stations began replacing mercury thermometers across Australia and the world 30 years ago.
Dr Marohasy said the probes were generally more sensitive to changes in temperature, so they could measure extremes of temperatures that traditional mercury thermometers with slower response times could not detect.
Most meteorological offices tried to achieve equivalence between the probes and mercury by averaging instantaneous recordings from probes over 1-5 minutes.
Dr Marohasy said the BOM adopted took instantaneous readings every second from custom-designed probes with longer time constants purported to mimic mercury thermometers.
The bureau has claimed in correspondence with Dr Marohasy that it never averaged measurements from probes.
Bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson has told her the probes were specifically designed to have a long response time to mirror the behaviour of mercury in glass, making numerical averaging unnecessary.
Dr Marohasy said the lack of numerical averaging despite the use of probes made the BOM measurements unique in the world.
She said equivalence was important for the construction of reliable historical temperature datasets, for understanding temperature trends and for knowing whether a record hot day as measured automatically by a probe really was hotter than what might have been read manually from a mercury thermomete
***************************************************
Australia’s Labor Dark Ages will end in a Liberal victory
Albanese will get only one term
These are dark days for the Liberal Party. Labor governments now dominate the Australian continent while deeply divided Oppositions are in the political doldrums. When safe seats like Aston suffer big by-election defeats, some Liberal backbenchers are bound to wet their beds.
However, notwithstanding the very real problems that afflict today’s party – just what is the point of the Liberals? It’s facile to over-read the significance of by-elections and to conclude, as many members of the Fourth Estate do, that Australia is set irrevocably on a ‘progressive’ direction. Anyone who follows modern politics knows that political predictions are as reliable as a 12-month weather forecast.
As Queen Elizabeth – played brilliantly by Helen Mirren in the Oscar-winning film The Queen – told the young and energetic Tony Blair, political circumstances can change ‘quite suddenly, and without warning’. Her late Majesty was right.
In 1997, the UK Prime Minister was the hero of the hour: having captivated the British electorate, he captured the moment of Dianna’s death by lamenting the passing of ‘the people’s princess’. But six years later, Blair presided over a deeply unpopular war and was given the pariah treatment in his own country. No modern British Prime Minister has left office eventually left office more disliked and distrusted.
The Blair odyssey reminds one of many famous episodes in political history when seemingly invincible leaders and governments are brought down in the most spectacular and unpredictable ways.
Take Richard Nixon. In 1972 ‘Tricky Dick’ won 49 out of 50 states in one of the largest landslides in American history: the Democrat candidate, the darling of the hippies and metropolitan sophisticates, was roundly defeated and demoralised. Yet in less than two years, Nixon resigned in disgrace and two years later a little-known peanut farmer from Georgia won the White House.
After America’s Gulf War victory in early 1991, George Bush Sr’s approval ratings surged about 90 per cent. The Democrat front-runner was so sure the Republican President was unbeatable that he pulled out of the election race, instead setting his sights on 1996. Yet a year later, in 1992, the war hero Bush lost to a womanising, draft -dodging, marijuana-smoking governor of a backwater state.
Australian politics is even more magical!
Following Gough Whitlam’s election in 1972, the Liberal party had barely registered a pulse under the hapless leader Billy Snedden. The conventional wisdom was that Labor would be in power for a very long time. So disillusioned with his successors was party founder, Robert Menzies, it’s unlikely he voted Liberal in the early to mid-70s.
‘The idiots who now run the Liberal Party will drive me around the bend,’ he privately lamented in 1974. ‘The so-called little-l liberals who run the Victorian Liberal party believe in nothing but still believe in anything if they think it worth a few votes. The whole thing is quite tragic.’ (Sound familiar?) Snedden was, among other things, ‘politically, an idiot. He always says the wrong thing, at the wrong time’.
Yet a year later, Malcolm Fraser came from nowhere to defeat Whitlam in the one of the greatest electoral landslides – only to repeat the effort two years later, in 1977.
Fast-forward to 1993. Following the Coalition’s fifth consecutive election loss, the eminent historian Judith Brett declared: ‘The Liberal Party in the 1990s seems doomed.’ A year later, in 1994, NSW Liberal senator Chris Puplick warned the party was ‘still seen as exclusionist, hostile to new ideas and new people and too concerned with trying to bring back the “good old days”.’ Yet within two years John Howard, who’d been widely dismissed as yesterday’s man, annihilated Paul Keating, defeated Labor in three more elections, and stayed in power for about a dozen years.
In 2006, Howard and the Liberals were on top of the highest mountain while the Labor Party sunk in the deepest valley. The Wall Street Journal editorialised: ‘Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling.’ And yet a year later Howard lost power to a nerd from Nambour who dined on his own ear wax.
Kevin Rudd himself was then in the political stratosphere for a couple of years before his own deputy Julia Gillard toppled him in one of those premeditated and ruthless coups that made Australian politics a global joke. The Labor Party then resembled nothing so much as a pub brawl: the assassin herself was ultimately fatally knifed – by the very man she backstabbed a few years earlier.
Tony Abbott faced a barrage of nasty media and intellectual criticism. Shortly after he won the Liberal leadership in late 2009, the distinguished intellectual Robert Manne predicted ‘the destruction of the Liberal Party’ because the party’s ‘troglodyte-denialist wing’ was in control. Laurie Oakes, the then doyen of the Canberra press gallery, predicted Abbott as leader would be ‘electoral poison’. Brett warned that ‘the Liberals risk becoming a down-market protest party of angry old men in the outer suburbs.’
Yet within a few months, the ‘troglodyte-chief’ knocked off Rudd and his signature emissions trading scheme policy before pushing Gillard’s Labor into minority government. He went on to win a landslide election three years later on a pledge to repeal the carbon tax.
Abbott was eventually dispatched by Malcolm Turnbull, and the media had a field day lionising the new Liberal (sic) leader as the ‘new Whitlam.’ The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly predicted: ‘Malcolm – who like Beyonce is known universally by his first name – will be the longest-serving prime minister since Menzies. Possibly ever.’ A new era of progressive reform beckoned.
However, it was not long before Turnbull himself came to resemble old Billy Snedden: adrift and at the mercy of events. As a result, his enemies circled, and he was also defenestrated. Mind you, to say that the knives came out for Turnbull would be wrong. Some never put them away in the first place!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/australias-labor-dark-ages-will-end-in-a-liberal-victory
*****************************************************Liberals fight against Labor ‘purge’ on tribunal stacking
Liberal appointees facing the sack from the tribunal that reviews government decisions are pushing to limit the scale of a Labor overhaul the opposition has labelled a McCarthyist partisan purge.
A potential target of Labor’s push to end political appointments insists the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has performed above expectations and should be spared from wholesale changes that could dump dozens of Liberal-aligned tribunal members.
The Albanese government announced in December that the AAT would be abolished and its 128 members – who make decisions on migration cases, NDIS applications and veterans compensation claims – would have to re-apply and prove their qualifications to work at a reshaped tribunal.
Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has declared that the AAT lacked quality, efficiency and independence, partly resulting from the appointment of a slew of former Liberal MPs, candidates and party members.
But Liberal MP Julian Leeser, speaking last month in his then-role as shadow attorney-general, and AAT deputy president Denis Dragovic, a former Liberal preselection candidate who earns more than $500,000, have argued against what they describe as radical reform proposals.
“It is important to ask the question, why have thousands of surveyed users experienced a substantially improved interaction with members and staff of the tribunal?” Dragovic said in a leaked submission to the government’s review, that has been circulating in the legal community.
Dragovic is not a trained lawyer and is arguing against a proposal to mandate legal qualifications for senior tribunal members. This change has been floated by the Law Council of Australia, the Centre for Public Integrity and a government consultation paper, but Dreyfus has stated those without legal qualifications would still have a role in the new body.
The AAT deputy president, who has outperformed the caseload benchmark in his time on the tribunal, said members without law degrees brought invaluable experience as specialists. As an example, he argued those who had worked in war-torn countries better understood concepts of refugee law than a lawyer who had not worked in the field.
“It is easy to see a hard swing in the composition of the membership away from the diverse profile of decision makers appointed by the previous government towards a more homogenous one,” Dragovic wrote in his submission.
“Some may applaud this as righting a past wrong, but while opinions may differ on the Coalition’s approach to appointments, the data shows substantial improvements and impressive outcomes through this period that aligns with an increased diversity of membership.”
Reforming the tribunal is a key plank in Labor’s agenda to weed out cronyism, which it argues was rampant under previous Coalition governments and spurred the creation of the first national anti-corruption agency, which was central to Labor’s 2022 election pitch.
A spokesman for Dreyfus pledged the AAT’s successor would appoint people based on merit and attacked the opposition for “using it as a Liberal Party employment agency, appointing at least 85 of their mates to cushy, very highly paid, secure jobs”.
Dragovic wants to reduce Dreyfus’ influence in the recruitment of new members by substituting an independent community member for a panel member picked by Dreyfus, whose vision for reforming the tribunal was panned by Leeser in a speech last month.
Leeser, who quit his role as shadow attorney-general this week over the opposition’s stance on the Voice to parliament, invoked Stalin, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and former Chinese president Hu Jintao as he argued against the changes, and cited data showing the AAT had out-performed benchmarks on the number of decisions it published and user satisfaction.
“The Attorney (Dreyfus) is like Stalin’s henchman, Lavrenty Beria, who says, ‘You find me the man I’ll find you the crime’,” Leeser said in a March 7 speech, and also described Labor’s approach as a McCarthyist purge.
“He doesn’t care whether the people he is targeting are qualified or not. What he really wants is a supine tribunal that will rubber stamp the decisions of the Labor Party.”
The AAT had 128 full-time members, 172 part-time members and 11 judges as of June 30 and many could be paid out parts of their salaries if they are not appointed to the new body.
The AAT had 67,720 cases awaiting finalisation as of the middle of last year. The government has allocated $63.4 million to hire 75 members to address the backlog of cases as the new body is established.
************************************
14 April, 2023
Big business alarm at Labor’s second IR wave
Big business will seek to limit Labor’s planned second wave of workplace relations reforms, warning the changes risk compromising the enterprise bargaining system and bogging the courts down in claims.
Challenging the Albanese government to devise changes that do not put a “handbrake on productivity”, the Business Council of Australia has identified a raft of concerns about the proposals, declaring the country cannot afford to “leave our feet stuck in the cement of rigid and outdated workplace practices”.
Business Council chief executive Jennifer Westacott urged the government to provide more policy detail during consultations with stakeholders and to avoid “needless ideological changes that leave Australians worse off”.
After their unsuccessful campaign to thwart passage of the government’s first tranche of workplace law changes, business groups are expressing concern at Labor’s second round, which includes a “same job, same pay” policy cracking down on worker exploitation by labour hire firms.
The government says while there are legitimate uses for labour hire, particularly when companies need a seasonal or surge workforce, workers doing the same job at the same site should get the same pay. The next wave will also include measures to tackle wage theft, the creation of a fair test to determine when a worker can be classified as a casual and a proposed extension of the Fair Work Commission’s powers to include employee-like forms of employment, notably gig economy work.
The first tranche’s contentious multi-employer changes come into operation from June while the government wants to legislate the second wave later this year.
In its submission to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Business Council opposes the same job, same pay policy. It says imposing terms and conditions on businesses based on the arrangements of other businesses risks complicating and compromising the enterprise bargaining system.
It seeks to restrict the policy by: applying it to “labour hire” and not other forms of contracting; excluding internal labour hire; limiting the obligation to provide terms and conditions of employment to employees of labour hire providers and not “workers” at large; and confining the policy to monetary base rates of pay and not broader and undefined “conditions”.
It says any amended casual definition should only apply after 12 months of employment, must not have retrospective application, be simple and easy to understand, and there must be protection and certainty for employers who have offered permanent employment to a relevant casual.
On criminalising wage theft, the Business Council says criminal sanctions should only apply to the most serious forms of exploitative conduct, and where the conduct is clear, deliberate and systemic.
It says the commonwealth scheme should cover the field and apply to the exclusion of state wage theft laws; vicarious liability should be strictly confined, and employers who have acted on advice of experts and regulators, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman, should be exempted from the imposition of criminal sanctions.
“There should be a different prosecution path where people have self-identified and proactively looked and audited their payroll for compliance, as an incentive to ensuring ongoing integrity of wage payments,” it says.
In seeking to address the exploitation of gig workers and their dangerous working conditions, the Business Council says the government changes should not hold back the “formation of new business models driven by consumer demand”.
“While there is a large amount of rhetoric, particularly from unions regarding ‘insecure work’, the fact remains that many workers deeply value the flexibility and autonomy afforded to them by non-permanent engagement models,” it says.
“Customers also appreciate the level of control and autonomy they derive from these services, including in the areas of food delivery, ride sharing, aged and disability care, accommodation, and general freelanced services.”
On the proposal for the Fair Work Commission to set minimum rates in road transport, it says: “The BCA does not understand there to be an established link between the payment of certain rates and improved safety outcomes within the industry. As such, there is no proper basis for the FWC to be assigned powers to set minimum rates for contract carriers and other contractors in the road transport industry on the basis of improved safety outcomes.”
Ms Westacott said the government needed to be clear about the problems it was trying to solve. “If we end up with changes that aren’t grounded in serious analysis of the problem, we’ll be making a complex system even more difficult to navigate and even more stuck in old ways of working,” she said.
“At a time of global economic uncertainty … Australia has almost full employment and wages are beginning to strengthen. Every time we want to make a change we should ask ourselves, what are we risking?”
*************************************************
Viewpoint oppression ratcheting up
In a recent TV appearance on Channel 10’s The Project, comedian Reuben Kaye made a tasteless joke about Jesus Christ that upset many who watched it. While co-host Sarah Harris laughed along with the studio audience, the following night she joined in a straight-faced apology for ‘the particular offence and hurt that (the joke) caused our Muslim, but especially our Christian viewers’. Many complainants saw it as insincere.
To be fair, it was an in-joke which would have appealed to LGBTIQ+ viewers and their supporters.
In an open, pluralistic and resilient society, bad taste jokes are part of the cut and thrust, and in the eye of the beholder. But in today’s uncompromising world, ‘snowflakes’ take refuge in social media anonymity to amplify attention and seek retribution. It’s why Reuben Kaye doesn’t crack tasteless jokes about the Prophet Mohammed. Christians however are a soft target.
Former Wallaby star Israel Folau learnt the hard way. He was sacked for posting religiously inspired, anti-gay comments. A Pentecostal pastor, he lamented, ‘Upholding my religious beliefs should not prevent my ability to work or play for my club and country.’ He’s right, but it did.
Former prime minister Scott Morrison supported Folau saying, ‘If you are not free to believe, what are you free to do in this country?’ It’s a good question which, as prime minister, he ignored. How could he have missed the growing censorship and double standards developing under his watch? By failing to address historical revisionism and the weaponising of offence, he facilitated a process which left Australians less free and less self-confident as a nation.
What was once an unshakeable belief in the British Judeo-Christian traditions of tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, has become a relic of a bygone era. It means younger generations are largely oblivious to the critical role those values played in the rise of human rights, humanitarian charity and the abolition of slavery. Or how they inspired the eighteenth century ‘Age of Reason’, notable for its rigorous scientific political and philosophical discourse and important advances in science and medicine.
In 2017 enough of that ethos remained for 62 percent of voters to support marriage equality giving federal parliament the confidence to pass it into law. However, five years on and, despite a noisy campaign estimated to have cost half a billion dollars, only 24,000 people or, 30 per cent of those living in same sex relationships, have married. Disappointingly, the goodwill expressed by voters towards the LGBTIQ+ community has not been reciprocated.
In fact, Kaye and his ilk remain ‘in revolt against the ever-narrowing views of an increasingly conservative world’. They are a hostile chorus who maintain that the values of liberty, tolerance and rational inquiry are not the birthright of a single culture. Without offering a superior alternative they mock Australian values and see the Bible and Jesus Christ as tokens of a civilisation they disown. To them, even the term ‘Western Civilisation’ is an oxymoron.
They promote this fallacy in the knowledge that should they practise homosexuality in the Middle East or Russia they would be imprisoned. Or, if they lived in Xi Jinping’s China, they would have to deal with societal prejudices, censorship, intimidation and, at times, detention by police.
Indeed, it’s no secret that China treats minorities appallingly. It ranks 106th out of 153 countries in the global gender gap rankings and Human Rights Watch called on Beijing to protect people of colour from blatant discrimination. Religious minorities are so abused the practice is increasingly being characterised as genocide.
Aided by social and legacy media and, adopting collective amnesia, Marxist-Leninist Red Guard imitators bully traditionalists, demanding they renounce the ‘Four Olds’ – old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas. They are intent on a cultural revolution, which they repackage as the ‘Great Reset’, and woe betide those who fail to kowtow.
Monash University’s MBA course is a first mover. ‘White, attractive, upper or middle class and highly literate’ students must take a ‘privilege walk’ and undergo oppression training to ‘challenge the violence of leadership by confronting the hegemony of imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist and patriarchal ideologies’.
This is straight out of Mao Zedong’s playbook. Mao believed education empowered the dominant classes and Monash University wants future business leaders suitably schooled on the environment and corporate social responsibility. Emphasis is on diversity, equity and inclusion; profits and risk-management, be damned.
The University of Melbourne, has also joined the revolution. ‘After consultation with related parties’ it revised its free speech policy with a new gender affirmation protocol along with self-contradictory guidelines for the appropriate exercise of freedom of speech. Teaching feminism courses must say nothing that could cause offence to transgendered students.
In a push to ‘dismantle privilege’, a student workshop moved ‘white males’ and those who look like ‘Liberal voters’, be forbidden from speaking during class. Of course they believe in free speech but, ‘It’s about giving space to people who don’t feel included on university campuses because of things like gender, language (and) queerness’.
There was a time, when all Australian universities claimed to preserve, defend and promote, academic freedom in the conduct of their affairs. Students were free, without fear or favour, to engage in critical enquiry, scholarly endeavour and public discourse. No more.
As George Orwell wrote, the aim of culture wars, ‘is to deny and obliterate (the people’s) own understanding of their history’. Like former prime minister Paul Keating, who draws moral equivalence or casts doubts on evidence which highlights the brutality of the West’s adversaries. It’s as though blinded by ideology or hate he sees his fellow Australians as pawns in an historical process. Reuben Kaye is feted as an effective culture warrior, more for naivety than his credulity. Playing to the politics of envy will always attract an audience.
Plato argued that the inevitable next step in political evolution after democracy is tyranny.
Perhaps he was right?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/maos-last-stance/ ?
***********************************************************
Australia’s ‘green energy’ chimera
The government has asked the Joint Committee on Trade and Investment Growth to inquire into ‘Australia’s transition to a green energy superpower’. It wants ideas on how to accelerate growth in sectors covering renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles, and so on.
The inquiry attracted 125 submissions. A few submissions, like that of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), pointed out that the proposal rests on the case for reducing human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide but that there is no scientific proof that this would have any significant effect on our climate. And, the non-Western world is not going down that same path, with the consequence that the de-carbonising economic suicide into which the West is sleepwalking, can have no global effect.
But most submissions, including those from industry, advise the government on how to fund projects that cannot and will never stand up on their own merits.
For example, the Electric Vehicle Council calls on, ‘Governments [to] further support domestic industry development by providing guaranteed demand through bulk EV orders across government vehicle fleets and introducing programs that incentivise the use of local content.’ It also predictably seeks, ‘…further debt and equity financing to innovative projects to accelerate the clean energy transition.’
The Clean Energy Investor Group calls for the continuation of the subsidies to windmills beyond their cut-off date of 2030. By that time subsidy-seekers had previously assured us that this infant industry would have become the cheapest supply source. CSIRO claims this is already a reality even though wind/solar still needs the support of regulatory subsidies – subsidies that in 2020 amounted to $7 billion a year and which have been increased by the recently enacted Safeguard Mechanism.
The Advanced Materials and Battery Council claims Australia is already making huge gains in new technologies but warns, ‘Governments need to move fast to avoid losing these companies and opportunities to those more determined to develop national battery supply chains elsewhere.’
The Australian Aluminium Council seeks to get on the National Critical Minerals Strategy gravy train and makes the vacuous statement, ‘Providing electricity is supplied consistently, with firm power, and at internationally competitive prices, aluminium smelting can be run on renewable electricity.’ DUH!
The Australian Hydrogen Council claims members are going great guns in this pie-in-the-sky technology but just want the government to mandate targets ‘to develop markets for hydrogen across a range of sectors’. In addition, the council wants ‘investment attraction mechanisms in the vein of the US Inflation Reduction Act including fiscal or other incentives to draw foreign capital to Australia’.
The Green Energy Superpower proposal is that we continue to tax fossil fuels and subsidise their replacement with wind, solar, batteries, and eventually hydrogen (even though nuclear technology is the only one that might equal fossil fuels in cheapness activists avoid the energy ‘N-word’).
Regrettable outcomes have followed from the continued pursuit of a green energy superpower goal with its landscape-defiling windmills, solar farms, and a trebling of transmission lines to carry this intermittent energy. These facilities are planned to quadruple. Wind turbines are lethal for bird life when it gets too close and their land-hunger knocks out native animals. Concerns about threatened species in part led Apple to abandon its purchase of power generated by Windlab, Andrew Forrest’s proposed Queensland project. Added to the renewables conversation is the underlying environmental problem of the disposal of toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their relatively short lives.
The failure of wind/solar installations to supply low-cost and reliable energy was illustrated by the collapse of the $22 billion Forrest/Cannon-Brookes Sun Cable project in the Northern Territory, which fortunately had only minor taxpayer support.
Green hydrogen is ear-marked as a future area of promise and its carpet baggers have attracted considerable government subsidies. At present, even its aspirational costs leave it 4-5 times more expensive than coal-based power, while considerable transport problems remain. And if at some future time green hydrogen were to become economical, that would be achieved by competition and profit-seeking creating the technological breakthroughs.
Australia has an ignominious history of terrifyingly expensive failures in seeking to have the governments play an entrepreneurial role. These include monstrous fiascos like the $70 billion broadband rollout.
We have also traversed the government-planned green innovation path trodden many times already. This wasted up to $20 billion on converting Snowy Hydro into a pump storage facility. Previous governmental plans to improve on private sector enterprise brought a blade factory in Victoria, which was to be the centre of a vast global supply chain taking advantage of government-stimulated growth of windmills; it collapsed within six months. Then there was the failed Ross Garnaut/Kevin Rudd geothermal venture in South Australia and, as the Spectator Australia catalogues, numerous programs to harness wave power.
Australia’s pursuit of the chimera of a ‘green energy superpower’ is part of a process under which, for the first time in human history, the Western world is using subsidies to replace the cheapest available and reliable sources of the energy by a more expensive and less reliable sources. The pursuit is accompanied by much collateral damage to the environment.
We have arrogated politics to a commercial role it can never play. Parliamentary inquiries will not only fail to discover the elixir that kickstarts new industries but, in holding out prospects for free government money, they distract entrepreneurs from seeking market-based solutions to profitable future breakthroughs.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/australias-green-energy-chimera
******************************************************The politics of social class are now reversed: The affluent are now Leftist and the workers are now conservative
In the recent US midterms (and the just-held Wisconsin Supreme Court vacancy election), the Democrats massively outspent the Republicans, in some races by as much as six times more than the Republicans spent. Add in the indirect expenditures and the Democrat spending advantage may have been larger. I’ve been saying it in these pages for some time but the simple truth is that (in general terms) wealthy people now vote left. This is true in the US, in Britain, in Canada and here. Moreover, in the US the richest of the rich give huge money to the Democrats. Let’s be honest; Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cooke, Mark Zuckerberg, Jamie Dimon, yes Warren Buffet and a host of non-celebrity capitalists are functional Democrats. (I leave to one side the pernicious effect Bill Gates had in pushing lockdown authoritarianism and other woeful aspects of the pandemic years.) Put differently, George Soros has lots of company on the political left.
Or ask yourself whether you think Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Entertainment, Big Law, Big Energy and Finance align more with the political Right or the political Left these days. It’s not even close, is it? Every fad originating with the hard left of the Democrat party seems eventually to make its way into the corporate boardroom, first in the US and then around the rest of the anglosphere. Certainly all these Bigs seem to have quietly signed on with Biden. You can bet they’ll be going all in to stop the Republicans from winning in 2024.
But let’s just consider Australia. Already some of the big corporates are coming out for a Yes as regards the Voice. Take Coles. Even now they have a poster up in Cairns taking the Yes side. Isn’t that incredibly virtuous of this company, using shareholders’ money (not the board members’ personal money or the CEO’s but shareholders’) to push for a Yes vote on an issue that is party political and that will be a close run thing, at best, for the affirmative case? Can you even imagine a big corporation 50 or 60 years ago taking a side in a constitutional referendum that split the political parties? Yet today this is apparently perfectly fine, certainly no different to, say, Zuckerberg aligning with the Biden administration on, well, near on everything. Or Disney spending shareholders’ money to attack Ron DeSantis over legislation that forbade sex education for children aged six to eight. Disney jumped in bed with the hard Left that called this law the ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill’ though there is no distinction at all about the sort of sex education being disallowed; it was all banned. (DeSantis, at least, pushed back against these woke corporates and took away the special Disney legal exemptions from normal zoning and tax laws which hurt enough that the new Disney CEO Bob Iger last week called them anti-business. Gee Bob, if you’re going to take explicit sides on political issues then being anti-your-political-opponents means being anti-business, doesn’t it?)
Those of us who are conservatives need to realise that the winning conservative coalition today is very different to what it was 50 years ago. We are now the party not just of small business but of the lower-middle and working classes. (Good! For one thing they don’t wallow in insufferable, unendurable virtue-signalling.) We conservatives are now the party of the suburbs. Just as Boris did in 2019 and Trump did in 2016, we can put together winning coalitions of voters who want cheap energy, some backbone on culture issues, protected borders, lower mass immigration and some Thatcher-like husbandry when it comes to the budget (the last of these clearly being more honoured in the breach than the observance, or in the manifesto more than in the execution).
But designing Liberal party policies for the Teal seats is a sure loser. Do that and you lose big chunks of the rest of your conservative coalition in the many more seats that matter. And then you lose big time in WA, SA, Victoria, NSW, nationally.
So ignore the Teal seats. If the economy implodes – a far from implausible possibility with this current Labor team at the helm – then the rich folk in the Teal seats will come back to Team Libs regardless of the non-woke, non-Green policies the party has adopted because these virtue-signalling Teal voters draw the line at losing too much of the moolah, dough, swag, green stuff. If that happens, fine. But making policies explicitly to save Josh Frydenberg’s old seat was plain stupid.
Here’s what follows. For one thing, I like what US Republican Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri said to a big corporate type who was complaining about some Biden administration regulations that were taking money out of the pockets of the corporate class. I paraphrase, but Hawley’s response amounted to this: ‘You’re against us Republicans on all the crucially important culture stuff and protecting the borders and non-activist judges and on free speech issues but now you want us to help you on economic stuff. I agree with you, by the way, on your free market economic positions but why would I lift a finger to help you? You’ve made your bed. Go and lie in it.’
That is exactly my view. If Labor stupidly starts raiding the superannuation accounts and nest eggs of these big corporate types who are spending shareholder monies to push a Yes on this incredibly divisive and horrible-for-Australia Voice referendum, I cannot think of a single digit on either of my hands that I would lift to help them. Stupidly bad policy to attack super? You bet it is. Worth helping these corporates who basically hate our social and cultural and pro-democracy views? Nope. I’m with Senator Hawley.
Meantime here in Australia there is something all of us voters can do who think that this Voice proposal deals in malicious group rights (based on race or whatever you wish to call it), will undermine democratic decision-making, will lead to rent-seeking, will deliver the exact opposite of reconciliation (just look at the name calling galore from the Yes camp already), the list goes on.
We can inconvenience ourselves enough to avoid the corporates who are taking sides in this debate. Coles is out for me. If Woolworths goes down the same road then it’s IGA. You have to put your money where your mouth is a little, readers. And get ready for all sorts of charities to come out in favour of the Voice (since it’s more virtue-signalling that’s cheap and easy for the people who run them).
Well, they ultimately need charitable donations. Don’t give them a penny of your money. And if any university comes out in favour, write to the vice-chancellor and say that you are stopping all donations to your alma mater.
Remember, for the virtue-signalling lefty elites money still talks. DeSantis has the right idea. We only have our tiny spending but we can choose where it goes.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/the-lefty-corporate-class
************************************13 April, 2023
BOM: State of the Climate 2022
Warming has stopped. For how long? The warmest year so far was 2019. Note that they record temperatures in decades. Differences between individual years are so slight. And note the paucity of figures. That is because the differences are in tenths of one degree, sometimes only hundredths. And the total difference between now and 2010 is tiny
Australia has warmed, on average, by 1.47 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910, with most warming occurring since 1950. Every decade since 1950 has been warmer than preceding decades. The warming in Australia is consistent with global trends, with the degree of warming similar to the overall average across the world’s land areas.
Australia’s warmest year on record was 2019. The eight years from 2013–20 all rank among the 10 warmest years on record. The long-term warming trend means that most years are now warmer than almost any observed during the 20th century.
Warming is observed across Australia in all months with both day and night-time temperatures increasing. This shift is accompanied by an increased number of extreme nationally averaged daily heat events across all months, including a greater frequency of very hot days in summer. For example, 2019 experienced 41 extremely warm days, about triple the highest number in any year prior to 2000. Also in 2019, there were 33 days when national daily average maximum temperatures exceeded 39 °C, a larger number than seen in the 59 years from 1960–2018 combined. Increasing trends in extreme heat are observed at locations across all of Australia. Extreme heat has caused more deaths in Australia than any other natural hazard and has major impacts on ecosystems and infrastructure.
There has also been an increase in the frequency of months that are much warmer than usual. Very high monthly maximum temperatures that occurred nearly 2 per cent of the time in 1960–89 now (2007–21) occur over 11 per cent of the time. This is about a sixfold increase over the period. Very high monthly night-time temperatures, which are also a major contributor to heat stress, occurred nearly 2 per cent of the time in 1960–89 but now occur around 10 per cent of the time.
The frequencies of extremely cold days and nights have declined across Australia. An exception is for extremely cold nights in parts of south-east and south-west Australia, which have seen significant cool season drying, and hence more clear winter nights. This results in colder nights due to increased heat loss from the ground. The frequency of frost in these parts has been relatively unchanged since the 1980s.
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml
*************************************************Push for more government support of vocational education
Australian National University chief Brian Schmidt has called on the federal government to extend HECS loans to vocational courses, and to open the way for new hybrid institutions spanning higher education and vocational education, to give students the sophisticated skills needed for the next wave of jobs.
In an unusual move for a university leader, Professor Schmidt outlined his vision for tertiary education in his own personal submission to the government’s universities review, which will publish its first report in June.
At the end of this year he will stand down as ANU vice-chancellor after eight years in the job and he said his submission was a “distillation” of his experience. “I’ve thought a lot about higher education in the last seven and a bit years. We need to rethink the system from nose-to-tail,” he told The Australian.
Professor Schmidt said it was critical to bring together federally funded higher education system and the largely state-funded vocational education systems so that students could use HECS loans, which he would limit to non-profit education institutions, to do courses that spanned both.
He said university students also needed the sophisticated skills best taught in hands-on vocational education courses, and vocational graduates often wanted to upgrade their qualifications to degree level. “The current system doesn’t do hybrid well. If people can’t move between the two it’s problematic,” he said.
In his submission the Nobel prize winner also tells the universities review panel that Australia needs a clear and properly funded strategy for research that focuses on long-term national goals.
“We have in Australia no long-term vision for what research can do for the Australian people over time. We have a program here that lasts a year, a program there that lasts a year. We don’t have a national vision,” Professor Schmidt says.
He says the government should give universities clear research missions, such as “energy transformation” and then fund them to succeed both in basic research and in applied research that translates into technology.
He says it is vitally important for Australia to have a sovereign research capacity and it could not continue to use international student fees to pay for university research. “We outsource (the funding of) research to international students, including to strategic rivals. It’s not only not sustainable, it’s just not right,” Professor Schmidt says.
His thinking on faults of the tertiary education system is a far cry from his Nobel prize, awarded in 2011 for his joint discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating – evidence that space was imbued with a mysterious dark energy driving the galaxies apart. But in 2016 he made the surprise transition from astrophysicist to university administrator and wants to help create a tertiary education system that sets Australia up for the future.
He says an example of the new skills people need to learn – not just in post-school education but through their lives – is competency in working with artificial intelligence. “You’re either going to be replaced by ChatGPT-like things or you’re going to use them to be more productive,” he says.
In his submission Professor Schmidt warns that universities and vocational colleges need to be ready to compete with new low-cost, online-education companies that will offer courses at scale and threaten the future of public universities and TAFE colleges.
“These providers will deliver only a limited subset of activities, and use their cheaper costs structures to focus on those areas that are profitable, thereby reducing the financial viability of Australia’s TAFEs and universities, which have much broader societal expectations,” he says.
He says a hybrid education approach would “improve the agility of tertiary and higher education institutions to compete”.
Professor Schmidt’s submission also argues that HECS fees should be standardised for all courses, unlike the current system where annual fees range from about $4000 to more than $15,000 depending on the course.
He also tells the review panel that universities need to do more to give academic and research staff more career certainty. He blames the high level of casualisation of university staff partly on the “inappropriate (government) funding for teaching and research” but “some of it must be attributed to institutions putting other objectives ahead of the reasonable treatment of staff”.
He says the attraction of an academic career has diminished over the past two decades and that stipends for PhD students, who carry out much of the research work, must be improved.
*********************************************
Julian Leeser resigned because his position on the Indigenous voice to parliament was confused and untenable
Julian Leeser had no choice but to resign this week from the frontbench of the Liberal Party. Not just because shadow cabinet ministers will not get a conscience vote on the voice. Leeser had to leave because his position on the voice to parliament has been confused and untenable for too long.
Given what is at stake, the Liberal Party needs a more coherent constitutional conservative as opposition legal affairs spokesperson. Being a decent chap is not enough.
Resigning from shadow cabinet on Tuesday, Leeser said he was standing up for what he believed and resigning on a “point of principle”. Looking back over his involvement in the voice, it’s not easy to locate which principle Leeser is standing up for.
Very early on Leeser, along with Greg Craven, jumped aboard the voice train which, apparently unbeknown to them, was being driven by people who had in mind a completely different destination. The best face they can put on developments is that they jumped off before many thought it would crash. In truth, they still won’t disembark.
In 2017, Craven was on the record as supporting a voice to parliament. Leeser, along with Damien Freeman, founded Uphold and Recognise to promote two causes: to uphold the Constitution and to recognise Indigenous people. So far, not bad.
While there is much friction about what happened after, it’s common knowledge that Leeser, Freeman, Craven and Noel Pearson met in Craven’s office at the Australian Catholic University and agreed on a voice. According to Craven, “one thing was carved in fluorescent stone. We would never accept any model that involved conferring power on the judges.”
If Craven and Leeser thought their tryst with Pearson would help secure political bipartisanship to ensure a successful referendum, their naivety morphed into madness once they appeared to abandon constitutional conservatism.
After the Garma Festival last year, constitutional conservatives couldn’t possibly stay aboard a voice train that, via a new chapter in the Constitution, created an untested, poorly explained, race-based body with privileged access to parliament and all arms of executive government, with a final destination of co-government.
************************************************
Australia to struggle with inflation for longer in gloomy economy prediction
With government spending pushing total demand ahead of available goods and services, it is inevitable
Australians have been warned the inflation crisis is set to linger longer than expected as the Treasurer ramps up his rhetoric ahead of the upcoming budget.
Jim Chalmers, who will hand down his second budget on May 9, is in Washington for high level talks with his G20 counterparts which he says will be crucial to framing the economic statement.
While a global recession could not be ruled out, the Treasurer reiterated his hope Australia could dodge a downturn at home – despite persistently high inflation.
“We expect inflation in Australia to be higher than we’d like for longer than we’d like. This inflation problem in the global economy and in our own economy is a persistent one,” he told reporters in the US.
“We enter this new period of global economic certainty from a position of relative strength. We are confident but not complacent about how this will play out,” he said.
“We are optimistic about the future. but we are realistic about what a global downturn would mean for our economy.”
Earlier this week, the International Monetary Fund forecast the Australian economy would grow by just 1.6 per cent this year, followed by 1.7 per cent through 2024.
The Reserve Bank of Australia’s aggressive tightening of interest rates, from 0.1 per to 3.6 per cent over the past 11 months, was a major factor in the domestic slowdown.
Inflation peaked at 8.4 per cent in December, and fell to 6.8 per cent in the 12 months to February.
The RBA forecasts inflation to decline to 4.75 per cent over 2023 before easing to around 3 per cent by mid-2025.
Despite the Treasurer’s optimism, there are fears household incomes could collapse as higher interest rates take its toll on paypackets.
“This will only get worse through 2023 on the lagged effect of higher interest costs and as wages growth struggles to keep up with the pace of inflation,” Commonwealth Bank chief economist Stephen Halmarick told the Nine Newspapers.
In his gloomy forecast, he predicted the RBA could be forced to cut interest rates by the end of the year as the economy slowed.
Dr Chalmers said the government was responding to the “complex and challenging” environment.
“We do understand that people are under the pump, we‘ll help where we can but we’ll do that really responsibly because the best thing that we can do as a government when the global economy is as weak and as complex and challenging as it is right now is to provide that responsible economic management at home,” he told Nine.
************************************
12 April, 2023
‘Pseudo hotels’: Short-stays already outrank available rentals in nine Brisbane suburbs
Letting out your apartment as a short stay holiday letting gives the owner almost complete escape from government regulations. The lesson there is the deadly effect of government interventions in the normal rental market. Giving owners back more freedom could make a big dent in the housing shortage. The very large numbers of short stay properties shows how much housing is available. The government wants to convert the short stays into long stays but does not seem to realize that they are the biggest barrier to that
There are more properties available on the short-stay platform Airbnb than the private rental market in nine Brisbane suburbs – and industry leaders fear the supply imbalance will become worse.
Teneriffe already has 40 short-stay properties compared to 34 rentals but other inner-city suburbs risk tipping over the supply edge, including Bulimba and New Farm.
Short-stays are also on their way to overtaking available rentals in popular suburbs Kangaroo Point, Spring Hill, Auchenflower and Ascot, as Brisbane’s current vacancy rate remains at an all-time low of 0.8 per cent.
While thousands of Brisbane properties were listed on short-stay accommodation sites Airbnb, Stayz and Cheap Holiday Homes, only 679 properties were included in the Brisbane City Council’s official tally, after it introduced a self-reporting system last year.
Council confirmed more short-stay properties were yet to be added to the list, as the newly implemented Deckard Technology software system continued to find all short-stay properties advertised for 60 consecutive days.
The state government in October 2022 commissioned independent experts to delve into the effects of short-term rentals such as Airbnb and Stayz, with the report meant to be done by the end of the year.
A spokeswoman for Deputy Premier Steven Miles office confirmed the “preliminary” research had been completed in late 2022 and the government had moved to “expand” the work, which would now include what was happening in other jurisdictions.
“We need a clearer picture of how sites such as Airbnb and Stayz are affecting the tight rental market,” she said.
“This will be a significant piece of work, providing detailed analysis into the positive and negative impacts on housing affordability and availability, the tourism industry, property owners and communities.
“It will also explore how the impact varies across different regions – for example, the impact in Noosa is likely to be different to the impact in Brisbane.”
Some short-stay hosts using the Airbnb platform are currently pricing two or three-bedroom properties at more than $2000 a week compared to the current median rental price of $550 a week.
REIQ chief executive Antonia Mercorella said the lucrative short-stay property trend was unsurprising, as ongoing tenancy reform had “driven away some investors” towards the short-term market.
She said both state and local governments should be incentivising private investors to either stay or move to long-term leasing, rather than penalising short-stay hosts or “imposing other forms of punishment”.
“Private investors are vital to the long-term rental market to ensure we have adequate levels of rental housing,” Ms Mercorella said.
“We would like to see the government taking a ‘carrot’ approach rather than coming at investors with the stick.”
Airbnb host Hollie Gordon, who rents out her Teneriffe property to NDIS participants and flood victims, said being a short-stay host was far more attractive than a landlord.
“I’m someone that’s worked really hard to acquire a rental property and to give that freedom away to someone else to do with it whatever they want, modify it how they like, that scares me,” she said.
“Landlords have lost control of their properties.
“I don’t understand why the government is not looking into interstate migration instead of talking about us being greedy landlords – we’re not.
“We’re looking after our own community. “These are Brisbane residents we’re housing, not out-of-state tourists.”
Airbnb’s head of public policy for Australia and New Zealand, Michael Crosby, said the popular short-stay company was vying for a statewide registration scheme and was willing to help the housing crisis.
“Airbnb is keen to work together with a broad range of stakeholders and help play a part in helping to provide meaningful solutions and tackle the issue of housing supply and affordability,” Mr Crosby said.
“The proposal included the introduction of statewide registration schemes and codes of conduct in every state and territory, support for a tourism levy to fund housing and community projects, and support for government reviews of eviction protections to ensure that current systems are fit for purpose and provide adequate housing security for long-term renters.”
******************************************
'Gender-neutral' pronouns will be introduced in South Australian state parliament for MPs and dignitaries... even His Majesty King Charles gets a 'woke' new title
South Australia's parliament is doing away with 'gender-specific' terms including 'he', 'she', 'him' and 'her' and will introduce 'gender-neutral' pronouns.
The Lower House will adopt the changes as part of its standing orders with even 'His Majesty' King Charles to now be referred to as 'the sovereign'.
Instead of saying His or Her Excellency for state Governors such as Frances Adamson, she and all subsequent titleholders will be called 'the governor'.
'They', 'their' and 'them' and will replace all gendered pronouns in the rules of procedure while parliamentary committees will no longer have a 'chairman' but be presided over by 'the chair'.
The state's Labor government and the Coalition opposition jointly supported the amendments.
A spokesperson for the government led by Premier Peter Malinauskas said the change would 'modernise the parliamentary workplace'.
'With record numbers of Labor women elected to the parliament, it makes no sense for them to be called 'chairman' when overseeing a committee,' they said.
Opposition spokeswoman Michelle Lensink said the changes reflect 'community expectations' while simplifying and updating references 'in line with other jurisdictions across the country'.
The modified language comes with a raft of other measures to allow electronic attendance at committee meetings, changes to maternity leave, changes to questions on notice deadlines and removal of redundant standing orders.
Despite the changes only applying to the Lower House some of South Australia's Upper House MPs were far from impressed.
'Wokeism has even penetrated the workings of parliament,' SA-Best MLC Frank Pangallo said.
'I don't think (gendered pronouns) caused any harm or offence in our community. I think this is sort of the left elements in politics that are exerting themselves.'
Mr Pangallo argued parliament should be focused on issues such as the crises in health and the child protection system.
One Nation MLC Sarah Game said 'at the first instance, I feel that to remove him/her/he/she is ridiculous'.
Greens MLC Robert Simms supported the changes and said they were in line with modern workplace standards.
******************************************
Fake Aboriginal art again
Works "juiced up" by white supervisors
The National Gallery of Australia will launch an urgent independent investigation into whether white studio assistants painted on Indigenous artworks that are destined for its showcase winter exhibition.
The gallery announced on Monday it would examine the provenance of works in the Ngura Pulka: Epic Country exhibition of APY Lands art, which is scheduled to open in less than nine weeks and has been heavily promoted as “entirely” created by the the APY Art Centre Collective’s Anangu painters.
The unprecedented probe follows a four-month investigation by The Australian which uncovered allegations of white hands on black art produced by the collective, and a video of a studio manager painting on the canvas of leading Indigenous artist Yaritji Young, who will be featured in the NGA exhibition.
News of the investigation came amid calls by two senior Indigenous artists for the APYACC management to resign over the allegations. In a statement issued on Monday, the NGA said: “The National Gallery of Australia is concerned at media reports regarding the authorship of works in its forthcoming exhibition Ngura Pulka: Epic Country.
“The National Gallery announces that it is commissioning an independent review of the provenance and creation of the works in the exhibition, to assess provenance authorship and the extent of the ‘hand of assistance’.”
The gallery would not answer a range of questions about who would head the investigation, what its terms of reference would be, and how it would conduct such a complex review before the exhibition opened on June 3. It would also not state what it deemed to be unacceptable interference in the making of Indigenous art.
NGA board member Sally Scales, who is a member of the APYACC board and has staunchly defended the authenticity of the collective’s work, will recuse herself from the probe.
The gallery has used Ms Young in its promotion of the exhibition, quoting her attesting to the provenance of the works: “Artists out here are known for being brave and adventurous, we push new ideas while still protecting and keeping our Tjukurpa (sacred stories) strong for our children and grandchildren.”
Another of the leading artists featured in the exhibition spoke to The Australian at length about white interference in the APYACC’s studios, but then recanted her story after questions were sent to the collective’s manager, Skye O’Meara, about the allegations.
At least one of The Australian’s sources said on Monday that if she could be guaranteed anonymity, she would be prepared to talk to the NGA’s investigators about white studio staff painting on Indigenous art works. The source claimed that some of the paintings destined to appear in the NGA’s exhibition, Ngura Pulka, would “definitely have had a white hand in them”. She claimed that many of the “big ticket” artworks destined for a gallery exhibition or an expensive sale were routinely worked on by white studio staff.
Indigenous artist Fiona Foley, a former member of the Australia Council, said the scandal coming out of the APYACC had the potential to discredit and destabilise the Aboriginal arts sector and declared it was vitally important for the NGA’s investigation to be conducted properly.
“The multiple layers of nepotism, actual and perceived conflicts of interest and allegations of falsifying authorship have not been satisfactorily responded to by the NGA director Nick Mitzevich, or the NGA council or assistant director Indigenous engagement, Bruce Johnson McLean,” Dr Foley said. “Who will chair and make up the independent review team needs to be clarified? As it stands, it has similar overtones regarding reviews when ‘the police investigate the police’ on matters of misconduct and ethics.”
She added it was important to note the artists had not done anything wrong. “They’ve been forced into a situation that they feel very uncomfortable with because they are being asked to do things that are not part of their traditional dreaming story,” Dr Foley said. “I don’t see them being at fault. It is more like a type of coercion.”
Dr Foley has called for the management of the APYACC to resign in the wake of five artists and six studio staffers alleging to The Australian they witnessed significant interference by white staff in the collective’s studios, including by Ms O’Meara.
In a video obtained by The Australian, white studio manager Rosie Palmer is shown painting on Ms Young’s canvas at Tjala Arts in the remote APY settlement of Amata. In the same video clip her white colleague questioned whether the painting could “do with another rockhole”.
The APYACC claimed this was an acceptable practice, and described it as “background wash”, however numerous arts centre managers, artists and industry figures saw otherwise.
The NGA has promoted Ngura Pulka as one of the largest and “most significant First Nations community-driven art projects” and stated that all works were “entirely conceived, created, directed and determined by Anangu people”.
The NGA is partnering with the APYACC to put on the exhibition. A spokesperson for the APYACC said in the NGA’s statement: “We welcome the independent review and will fully and openly participate. It is important to all of our artists that there is no question as to the integrity of our process of the creation of our art.”
******************************************************
Social media censors not playing fair on Voice debate, letter claims
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has been urged to ensure that both sides of the Voice debate get a hearing and that accusations of “hate speech” are not weaponised to shut down “no” campaigners online.
The call comes after a series of incidents in which videos, ads, and other materials backing the “no” case against constitutional change and an Aboriginal “voice” to parliament were removed or blocked from major social media platforms, often on the basis of questionable claims or “fact checks”.
In correspondence seen by this masthead John Storey, who directs the legal rights program at the Institute of Public Affairs, asked Ms Inman Grant for a clear definition of “hate speech” and questioned her commitment to “take it down”.
The letter noted a number of incidents in which prominent pro-voice campaigners used “vitriolic” language to accuse those on the “no” side of racism.
These incidents included barrister Bret Walker SC reportedly saying that it is “racist” to refer to the proposed voice as a “fourth arm of government” and Professor Marcia Langton saying that those who wanted to shield the government from voice-related court action were guilty of “subconscious racism.”
Mr Storey added that “There is a widespread community perception that the large technology companies already moderate online content in a way that unfairly silences right-of-centre opinions.”
The letter also noted that “The current Commonwealth government is a strong proponent of an Indigenous Voice (and that) the eSafety Commissioner is an official of the Commonwealth government.
“Thus, the exercise of your considerable powers to limit online content, in the context of a political debate in respect to which the government has made its views clear, could be perceived to be state-sanctioned censorship of its opponents rather than the genuine restriction of harmful online abuse.”
“Given these concerns, the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to compel the removal of online material in the context of a political debate must be exercised with the utmost caution,” the letter stated.”
The IPA has also asked the Albanese government to consider broadening the scope of the Broadcasting Services Act to be widened to include social media companies for the length of the referendum campaign, to further ensure both sides get a fair hearing.
************************************
11 April, 2023
A public trustee Piranha again
They fund themselves by seizing money meant for the poor and disabled
Left without food, and only allowed access to a sliver of her disability pension, Rachael* describes her short stint under the care of a self-funding, independently operated government institution as a nightmare.
We can't tell you her real name, where she lives, what her job is or what her hobbies are. And we definitely can't show you her face.
It all began with a severe bout of mental illness, when a doctor raised concerns about Rachael's ability to make decisions and care for herself.
She was referred to the State Administrative Tribunal where, against her will, it was decided the state would take control of her finances.
The WA Public Trustee was appointed Rachael's administrator, which meant it had absolute control of her money and, through that, control of her life.
The Public Trustee did not make any contact for three weeks after it took control.
Rachael couldn't access her disability pension to pay for necessities, including food, because she was blocked from accessing her bank account after the administration took place.
She had to beg for access to her money via email after unsuccessfully trying to call the Public Trustee's office.
Her anonymous trust manager wrote back with a one-sentence response the next day.
"I can confirm that your [redacted] account that your pension was being paid into is now unblocked and $200 has been forwarded to that account for your use."
Rachael wonders why it took weeks for the Public Trustee to make sure she could afford to feed herself.
"Instead of coming out [of] hospital and trying to recover … I was getting a lot of stress by dealing with this stuff," she said.
"They didn't listen. They put me on, and since it started, it was such a nightmare."
The Public Trustee has previously denied responsibility for any instances where clients were unable to access money, and pointed the blame at banks for failing to understand administration orders.
Behind a veil of secrecy+
Rachael successfully removed the Public Trustee as her administrator by proving to the State Administrative Tribunal that she was capable of making her own decisions.
She wants to speak out about her short stint – only four months – under the Public Trustee's control.
But confidentiality laws mean it's illegal to publicise her identity, and similar restrictions are in place in most states across the country.
Under WA's Guardianship and Administration Act, identifying Rachael is a criminal offence with a potential penalty of one year's imprisonment, or a fine of up to $10,000.
It means even though Rachael wants to share her story, and she's no longer under the Public Trustee's control, we can't show her face.
The rules exist to protect vulnerable people from being exploited, but there have been calls in other states to repeal gag laws following a Four Corners investigation in 2022.
"Enabling people to talk about their own guardianship experiences outweighs the protective benefit of retaining the restriction," Queensland Public Advocate John Chesterman said last year.
The Public Trustee manages the assets of some of the community's most vulnerable people in their "best interest".
However, it relies on its clients — who are often deemed incapable of making their own decisions — to scrutinise their own affairs.
In Rachael's case, she was pressured to stop paying for security cameras and alarms at her home due to her limited income.
All the while, the trustee was using her money to pay for insurance she already had.
Just as she was only given access to her money for food after persisting, she was only refunded the cost of the unnecessary insurance after making a complaint.
It mirrors the experience of many who have negative experiences with the Public Trustee, according to WA Auditor-General Caroline Spencer.
*********************************************
Cancelled: Catholic intellectual group banned for transgender views
A Catholic intellectual group has been banned from holding its annual forum at a university hall over concerns about its views on transgender issues.
The Hobart-based Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies has for the past seven years held its annual “colloquium” at the University of Tasmania’s Jane Franklin Hall of residence.
It was booked again for the eighth such event, to be held in July this year, but the Hall has since withdrawn the booking out of concern about an advertisement for the event titled “Wokery and How to Deal With It”.
The advert included the claim that “elites” were undermining “objective truth” by teaching in schools that “girls can be boys, that boys can be girls, and that grown-ups should be punished for denying it”.
Jane Franklin Hall principal Joanna Rosewell confirmed and defended the cancellation, understood to follow a complaint about the ad.
“We have asked the Christopher Dawson Centre to find an alternative venue for its annual colloquium, usually held here, as the ideas expressed in the advertisement do not align with our values,” Ms Rosewell told The Australian. “We work with a diverse number of students including those from the transgender community. Our first goal at Jane is and must be supporting the wellbeing of our students.”
Christopher Dawson Centre director David Daintree, a former principal of the Hall for 18 years, said he was “shocked” and “disappointed” by the decision, which he labelled “repression”.
He conceded the ad may have offended some transgender people, but argued transgender people did not need the silencing of views that conflicted with their own.
“If you state something you believe that other people do not believe, you are in danger of offending them,” Dr Daintree said. “I believe in objective truth and one side is wrong when you talk about transitioning to another sex.
“I don’t feel I should apologise for expressing an opinion and that’s all we are doing in this call for papers (for the colloquium). If we had received papers that violently disagreed with that proposition then we would have included them if appropriate.”
Dr Daintree said the centre was set up and funded by the Hobart Catholic Archdiocese but was independently run. “Our brief is to justify and to make better known the Christian intellectual tradition,” he said.
“We’re not in the business of evangelising. We are in the business of saying, it’s a reasonable thing to be a Christian and that plenty of intelligent and thoughtful people have been and that faith and science are not incompatible.”
He was yet to find an alternative venue willing to host the event, which he believed could attract demonstrators. Transgender issues were not intended to be the “central core” of the colloquium. “That was just an instance I gave in the call for papers about the perception of truth but this is shaping up to be a very controversial one,” he said.
The University of Tasmania declined to comment on the cancellation, insisting the Hall was “independent of the university”.
**********************************************
Twiggy Forrest, Chris Bowen caught in green hydrogen fantasy
Green hydrogen is to renewable energy enthusiasts what gold was to ancient alchemists: the universal panacea that frees the human soul from disease and corruptibility and transports it to a perfect and everlasting state. They believe it holds the key to turning dilute, fickle sources of energy, such as solar and wind, into something vaguely useful.
That is the view of Andrew Forrest, a miner turned born-again renewable energy entrepreneur. Forrest’s company, Squadron Energy, is Australia’s biggest player in weather-dependent renewable energy. He is on record as predicting that renewables could squeeze coal out of the market by the end of the decade. But the real breakthrough will come with the development of green hydrogen, which, he claims, is Australia’s greatest resource.
“To make it, all you need to do is run electricity through water,” he told a Clean Energy Council summit in 2021. Water is the easy part. Generating the eye-watering quantity of electricity needed is a more formidable challenge.
Let’s assume global demand for hydrogen reaches 300Mt by 2050 and that the green energy superpower Australia is going to become produces one-15th of that total, as an influential Deloitte report suggests is possible. That would require about 900TW of electricity, which is roughly 3½ times Australia’s current annual output. The absurdity of the numbers sends green hydrogen into dreamy land even before we confront Forrest’s insistence that we do it with two hands tied behind our back.
For Forrest, the only genuinely green electricity is generated by weather-dependent renewable energy. The Minerals Council canvasses carbon capture and storage as an option but Forrest reckons that would be cheating.
Yet no amount of Forrest’s spin can overcome the iron law of energy density. Coal requires 25 square metres to generate a megawatt of electricity. A modern small modular nuclear reactor requires less than one square metre. A wind turbine plant typically requires more than 2000 square metres per megawatt, which means that even in a country as vast as Australia, the supply of available land is quickly exhausted.
In Queensland, where Squadron Energy is investing billions of dollars, wind and solar developments are being pushed beyond the boundaries of farmland into native scrub. In a rational world, Apple’s announcement last week that it was pulling out of a deal to purchase energy from Squadron’s proposed wind plant in the Upper Burdekin would be the beginning of the end for unreliable renewables.
An environmental assessment, released in December, found that 769 hectares of koala habit would be destroyed if the development goes ahead. It would involve the clearance of 662ha of Sharman’s rock wallaby habitat, 709ha of greater glider habitat and 754ha of habit that provides sanctuary for the red goshawk.
That a wind turbine development should even be considered on such a sensitive site shows how desperate the sector has become. Pushing renewables in such far-flung territory adds considerably to the cost. It requires wide roads to be cut through hillsides and the bulldozing of native tree, plus extra transmission lines.
The sheer weight of minerals needed for the construction of wind and solar plants brings other challenges, as Siemens Energy chief executive Christian Bruch acknowledged. “Never forget, renewables like wind roughly need 10 times the material (compared to) what conventional technologies need,” he said. “If you have problems on the supply chain, it hits wind extremely hard.”
Squadron’s Upper Burdekin development was already looking less profitable after it was forced to reduce the number of turbines from 139 to 80. Add to that the opprobrium foisted upon it by Apple’s withdrawal and the project looks to be in trouble. The kind of hydrogen Forrest is proposing is only green in the sense that it is technologically unripe.
Current international demand is so low as to be effectively non-existent compared to our exports of natural gas and coal. If international demand starts to accelerate, what’s to stop others cornering the market? The competitive advantage will belong to the jurisdiction with the cheapest electricity, and that’s not going to be Australia.
It’s little wonder that many with an eye on the capital markets are wondering if green hydrogen will ever get off the ground. In February, a meeting of federal, state and territory industry ministers called for the 2019 green hydrogen strategy to be “revised and refreshed” in the light of international developments.
President Joe Biden’s absurdly misnamed Inflation Reduction Act offers $US580bn of incentives for green innovation. Guy Debelle, a former Reserve Bank deputy governor, warned that Australia is at risk of being left behind by countries with generous subsidies, lower renewable energy costs and closer access to major industrial markets. He said the government would have to devote at least $15bn in public funds to counter a global hydrogen “subsidy arms race”.
A head somewhat cooler than the one sitting on the shoulders of the federal Energy Minister might conclude that this isn’t a fight Australia needs to be in. It would be better to focus our attention on the green economy games we can win; lithium, for example, where we are the world’s largest exporter; rare earths, where we’re the world’s second-largest producer; or cobalt, where we rank third.
Arriving at that conclusion, however, requires clear strategic thinking, indifferent to headlines and uncontaminated by hype. Policy formation in the 24-hour media cycle rarely happens that way
****************************************************
Melbourne principal says schools struggling to combat vaping as minister blasts ‘public health menace’
The principal of a Melbourne secondary school says students addicted to nicotine vaping have trouble with their concentration and behaviour. Photograph: Nicholas.T Ansell/PA
Aschool principal at a major Melbourne high school has spoken of the significant resources being allocated to combat vaping, as students addicted to nicotine struggle with concentration and behaviour.
“When they’re experiencing withdrawal or experiencing a craving for nicotine, they experience tiredness, irritability, restlessness and appetite changes,” said the principal, who asked not to be identified.
“We get reports from teachers of young people leaving class and being found vaping. I think that’s a really big challenge for a young kid addicted to vaping, to be able to get through a one-hour period.”
A recent survey of 218 school staff members across public, Catholic and independent secondary schools found nearly half (46%) reported finding a student with an e-cigarette on campus at least monthly, and one-third of principals who responded reported suspending or expelling students at least monthly for e-cigarette possession or use.
The health minister, Mark Butler, said on Tuesday that he regularly receives concerns about vaping “from parents and from school communities”.
“This has become a very serious public health menace,” he said. “We’re determined to take really strong action against it. All health ministers are committed to strong reform in this area but also recognise that it can’t just be done at a commonwealth level or at a state level alone. We need to do it together.”
The principal said while Victoria’s education department was providing resources to teachers, addressing vaping in schools was complex work that goes beyond just educating children, and relying on school resources alone is not enough.
“I couldn’t give you a hard and fast number on how much money we have spent addressing vaping,” she said.
“We have spent money on upgrading our physical resources such as bathroom spaces and putting vape detectors in those, but it’s the human resource and the time resource that I can’t put the number on. Each school needs to gather data from their own community to identify when, where and why vaping is occurring. We spent a fair bit of time and work doing that.”
The principal said while health and sport curriculums had been updated to incorporate the harms of vaping, parents needed to be educated too.
“With some parents who maybe have previously been smokers themselves or may use vapes themselves, it is challenging,” she said. “They may not see vaping as a big deal or priority. We do sometimes get parents that talk about the fact that their child is not smoking, so vaping is perceived as being ‘better’.
“A lot of the work we’re doing at the moment is really targeting kids, which is absolutely necessary. But I also think there’s a really important role that parents play.”
The federal government is considering which reforms to introduce before the end of the year to curb youth vaping. A University of Sydney health law researcher, barrister Neil Francey, said there was an urgent need for the Australian Competition Consumer Commission (ACCC) to enforce consumer laws to tackle the issue.
Francey, who has extensive experience in tobacco litigation, said marketing strategies used to promote vaping to children, deficiencies in age verification requirements, easy payment and delivery methods, and false and misleading marketing claims by many vaping companies are in contravention of consumer law. He said this marketing, often directed to children, amounts to “unconscionable conduct”.
However, he said while “the ACCC should urgently consider enforcement action, the practicability of securing compliance with the law is another matter”.
“Prosecuting false representations and seeking injunctions to restrain misleading statements and unconscionable conduct can only be on a case by case basis,” he said. “It can’t be done on an industry-wide basis.”
An ACCC spokesperson said that vaporiser products require “a tailored regulatory approach … best managed by the Department of Health and Aged Care under the Therapeutic Goods Administration regime”.
************************************************
Perth OnlyFans star defends massive billboard advertisement
She makes some pretty good points about freedom below
In what is understood to be an Australian first, Savannah – also known as WC Savage – currently has herself displayed across a super-sized billboard near an intersection in the Perth suburb of Osborne Park.
The advertisement, which shows her posed in a bikini at Coogee Beach, includes links and a QR code to her OnlyFans, which hosts her adult content.
The billboard has reportedly irritated businesses and parents, with local media reporting the council, the City of Stirling, and Savannah herself were coping with the brunt of their complaints.
Despite this, Savannah says the billboard stays unless she is ordered otherwise.
“Obviously, people are concerned about children seeing this picture of me in a bikini at the beach, which I think is a little far-fetched,” she told Perth’s 6PR.
“But each to their own. Obviously, the fact that OnlyFans is an adult content-creating website that caters to adult entertainment.”
According to reports in Western Australian media, the majority of complaints stemmed from children following the links or the QR code on the billboard. One went as far as to label the ploy, “insane”.
But Savannah rubbished any suggestion children would be able to “stumble” upon her explicit content.
“OnlyFans actually have layers of protection to stop underage people from accessing the site,” she explained. “You need to have your licence. You need to have a credit card even just to access the free site.”
Savannah also said what other’s children do online is not her responsibility.
“If young teenagers are scanning this QR code, then there should be parental blocks in place placed by their parents on their iPhones, tablets and computers and things like that, to stop them from being able to access sites like this and other sites that do create explicit content,” she argued.
“That’s what my parents did when I was younger. I know that schools do that their computer access and things like that. “I really do believe that that’s the responsibility of the parents.”
Local mayor Mark Irwin told 7NEWS it was out of the council’s hands, with its fate ultimately in the hands of the billboard’s owner. “Content and editorial control of what is displayed on the billboard is a decision made by a private entity,” he said.
As for a windfall from the billboard? Savannah said the approach, believed the be the first in Australia, is “doing really well”. “I obviously, have tried all different types of marketing over the years of being in the adult entertainment industry,” she said.
“I’ve tried all different types of marketing. This is something that has never been done before in Australia by an OnlyFans content creator, and very few people around the world have actually done this.”
Savannah offered some food for thought in her parting words.
“Honestly, if a picture of a young woman in a bikini is the worst thing that your children are going to see today, I really feel like we should be kind of grateful and have some perspective,” she said.
“There are so many worse things out there that the children could be seeing and experiencing than a young woman in a bikini at the beach.”
“Everyone has their right to feel how they feel, and have the opinion that they have, and if people want to complain, then I can’t stop them.”
************************************
‘Pseudo hotels’: Short-stays already outrank available rentals in nine Brisbane suburbs
Letting out your apartment as a short stay holiday letting gives the owner almost complete escape from government regulations. The lesson there is the deadly effect of government interventions in the normal rental market. Giving owners back more freedom could make a big dent in the housing shortage. The very large numbers of short stay properties shows how much housing is available. The government wants to convert the short stays into long stays but does not seem to realize that they are the biggest barrier to that
There are more properties available on the short-stay platform Airbnb than the private rental market in nine Brisbane suburbs – and industry leaders fear the supply imbalance will become worse.
Teneriffe already has 40 short-stay properties compared to 34 rentals but other inner-city suburbs risk tipping over the supply edge, including Bulimba and New Farm.
Short-stays are also on their way to overtaking available rentals in popular suburbs Kangaroo Point, Spring Hill, Auchenflower and Ascot, as Brisbane’s current vacancy rate remains at an all-time low of 0.8 per cent.
While thousands of Brisbane properties were listed on short-stay accommodation sites Airbnb, Stayz and Cheap Holiday Homes, only 679 properties were included in the Brisbane City Council’s official tally, after it introduced a self-reporting system last year.
Council confirmed more short-stay properties were yet to be added to the list, as the newly implemented Deckard Technology software system continued to find all short-stay properties advertised for 60 consecutive days.
The state government in October 2022 commissioned independent experts to delve into the effects of short-term rentals such as Airbnb and Stayz, with the report meant to be done by the end of the year.
A spokeswoman for Deputy Premier Steven Miles office confirmed the “preliminary” research had been completed in late 2022 and the government had moved to “expand” the work, which would now include what was happening in other jurisdictions.
“We need a clearer picture of how sites such as Airbnb and Stayz are affecting the tight rental market,” she said.
“This will be a significant piece of work, providing detailed analysis into the positive and negative impacts on housing affordability and availability, the tourism industry, property owners and communities.
“It will also explore how the impact varies across different regions – for example, the impact in Noosa is likely to be different to the impact in Brisbane.”
Some short-stay hosts using the Airbnb platform are currently pricing two or three-bedroom properties at more than $2000 a week compared to the current median rental price of $550 a week.
REIQ chief executive Antonia Mercorella said the lucrative short-stay property trend was unsurprising, as ongoing tenancy reform had “driven away some investors” towards the short-term market.
She said both state and local governments should be incentivising private investors to either stay or move to long-term leasing, rather than penalising short-stay hosts or “imposing other forms of punishment”.
“Private investors are vital to the long-term rental market to ensure we have adequate levels of rental housing,” Ms Mercorella said.
“We would like to see the government taking a ‘carrot’ approach rather than coming at investors with the stick.”
Airbnb host Hollie Gordon, who rents out her Teneriffe property to NDIS participants and flood victims, said being a short-stay host was far more attractive than a landlord.
“I’m someone that’s worked really hard to acquire a rental property and to give that freedom away to someone else to do with it whatever they want, modify it how they like, that scares me,” she said.
“Landlords have lost control of their properties.
“I don’t understand why the government is not looking into interstate migration instead of talking about us being greedy landlords – we’re not.
“We’re looking after our own community. “These are Brisbane residents we’re housing, not out-of-state tourists.”
Airbnb’s head of public policy for Australia and New Zealand, Michael Crosby, said the popular short-stay company was vying for a statewide registration scheme and was willing to help the housing crisis.
“Airbnb is keen to work together with a broad range of stakeholders and help play a part in helping to provide meaningful solutions and tackle the issue of housing supply and affordability,” Mr Crosby said.
“The proposal included the introduction of statewide registration schemes and codes of conduct in every state and territory, support for a tourism levy to fund housing and community projects, and support for government reviews of eviction protections to ensure that current systems are fit for purpose and provide adequate housing security for long-term renters.”
******************************************
'Gender-neutral' pronouns will be introduced in South Australian state parliament for MPs and dignitaries... even His Majesty King Charles gets a 'woke' new title
South Australia's parliament is doing away with 'gender-specific' terms including 'he', 'she', 'him' and 'her' and will introduce 'gender-neutral' pronouns.
The Lower House will adopt the changes as part of its standing orders with even 'His Majesty' King Charles to now be referred to as 'the sovereign'.
Instead of saying His or Her Excellency for state Governors such as Frances Adamson, she and all subsequent titleholders will be called 'the governor'.
'They', 'their' and 'them' and will replace all gendered pronouns in the rules of procedure while parliamentary committees will no longer have a 'chairman' but be presided over by 'the chair'.
The state's Labor government and the Coalition opposition jointly supported the amendments.
A spokesperson for the government led by Premier Peter Malinauskas said the change would 'modernise the parliamentary workplace'.
'With record numbers of Labor women elected to the parliament, it makes no sense for them to be called 'chairman' when overseeing a committee,' they said.
Opposition spokeswoman Michelle Lensink said the changes reflect 'community expectations' while simplifying and updating references 'in line with other jurisdictions across the country'.
The modified language comes with a raft of other measures to allow electronic attendance at committee meetings, changes to maternity leave, changes to questions on notice deadlines and removal of redundant standing orders.
Despite the changes only applying to the Lower House some of South Australia's Upper House MPs were far from impressed.
'Wokeism has even penetrated the workings of parliament,' SA-Best MLC Frank Pangallo said.
'I don't think (gendered pronouns) caused any harm or offence in our community. I think this is sort of the left elements in politics that are exerting themselves.'
Mr Pangallo argued parliament should be focused on issues such as the crises in health and the child protection system.
One Nation MLC Sarah Game said 'at the first instance, I feel that to remove him/her/he/she is ridiculous'.
Greens MLC Robert Simms supported the changes and said they were in line with modern workplace standards.
******************************************
Fake Aboriginal art again
Works "juiced up" by white supervisors
The National Gallery of Australia will launch an urgent independent investigation into whether white studio assistants painted on Indigenous artworks that are destined for its showcase winter exhibition.
The gallery announced on Monday it would examine the provenance of works in the Ngura Pulka: Epic Country exhibition of APY Lands art, which is scheduled to open in less than nine weeks and has been heavily promoted as “entirely” created by the the APY Art Centre Collective’s Anangu painters.
The unprecedented probe follows a four-month investigation by The Australian which uncovered allegations of white hands on black art produced by the collective, and a video of a studio manager painting on the canvas of leading Indigenous artist Yaritji Young, who will be featured in the NGA exhibition.
News of the investigation came amid calls by two senior Indigenous artists for the APYACC management to resign over the allegations. In a statement issued on Monday, the NGA said: “The National Gallery of Australia is concerned at media reports regarding the authorship of works in its forthcoming exhibition Ngura Pulka: Epic Country.
“The National Gallery announces that it is commissioning an independent review of the provenance and creation of the works in the exhibition, to assess provenance authorship and the extent of the ‘hand of assistance’.”
The gallery would not answer a range of questions about who would head the investigation, what its terms of reference would be, and how it would conduct such a complex review before the exhibition opened on June 3. It would also not state what it deemed to be unacceptable interference in the making of Indigenous art.
NGA board member Sally Scales, who is a member of the APYACC board and has staunchly defended the authenticity of the collective’s work, will recuse herself from the probe.
The gallery has used Ms Young in its promotion of the exhibition, quoting her attesting to the provenance of the works: “Artists out here are known for being brave and adventurous, we push new ideas while still protecting and keeping our Tjukurpa (sacred stories) strong for our children and grandchildren.”
Another of the leading artists featured in the exhibition spoke to The Australian at length about white interference in the APYACC’s studios, but then recanted her story after questions were sent to the collective’s manager, Skye O’Meara, about the allegations.
At least one of The Australian’s sources said on Monday that if she could be guaranteed anonymity, she would be prepared to talk to the NGA’s investigators about white studio staff painting on Indigenous art works. The source claimed that some of the paintings destined to appear in the NGA’s exhibition, Ngura Pulka, would “definitely have had a white hand in them”. She claimed that many of the “big ticket” artworks destined for a gallery exhibition or an expensive sale were routinely worked on by white studio staff.
Indigenous artist Fiona Foley, a former member of the Australia Council, said the scandal coming out of the APYACC had the potential to discredit and destabilise the Aboriginal arts sector and declared it was vitally important for the NGA’s investigation to be conducted properly.
“The multiple layers of nepotism, actual and perceived conflicts of interest and allegations of falsifying authorship have not been satisfactorily responded to by the NGA director Nick Mitzevich, or the NGA council or assistant director Indigenous engagement, Bruce Johnson McLean,” Dr Foley said. “Who will chair and make up the independent review team needs to be clarified? As it stands, it has similar overtones regarding reviews when ‘the police investigate the police’ on matters of misconduct and ethics.”
She added it was important to note the artists had not done anything wrong. “They’ve been forced into a situation that they feel very uncomfortable with because they are being asked to do things that are not part of their traditional dreaming story,” Dr Foley said. “I don’t see them being at fault. It is more like a type of coercion.”
Dr Foley has called for the management of the APYACC to resign in the wake of five artists and six studio staffers alleging to The Australian they witnessed significant interference by white staff in the collective’s studios, including by Ms O’Meara.
In a video obtained by The Australian, white studio manager Rosie Palmer is shown painting on Ms Young’s canvas at Tjala Arts in the remote APY settlement of Amata. In the same video clip her white colleague questioned whether the painting could “do with another rockhole”.
The APYACC claimed this was an acceptable practice, and described it as “background wash”, however numerous arts centre managers, artists and industry figures saw otherwise.
The NGA has promoted Ngura Pulka as one of the largest and “most significant First Nations community-driven art projects” and stated that all works were “entirely conceived, created, directed and determined by Anangu people”.
The NGA is partnering with the APYACC to put on the exhibition. A spokesperson for the APYACC said in the NGA’s statement: “We welcome the independent review and will fully and openly participate. It is important to all of our artists that there is no question as to the integrity of our process of the creation of our art.”
******************************************************
Social media censors not playing fair on Voice debate, letter claims
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has been urged to ensure that both sides of the Voice debate get a hearing and that accusations of “hate speech” are not weaponised to shut down “no” campaigners online.
The call comes after a series of incidents in which videos, ads, and other materials backing the “no” case against constitutional change and an Aboriginal “voice” to parliament were removed or blocked from major social media platforms, often on the basis of questionable claims or “fact checks”.
In correspondence seen by this masthead John Storey, who directs the legal rights program at the Institute of Public Affairs, asked Ms Inman Grant for a clear definition of “hate speech” and questioned her commitment to “take it down”.
The letter noted a number of incidents in which prominent pro-voice campaigners used “vitriolic” language to accuse those on the “no” side of racism.
These incidents included barrister Bret Walker SC reportedly saying that it is “racist” to refer to the proposed voice as a “fourth arm of government” and Professor Marcia Langton saying that those who wanted to shield the government from voice-related court action were guilty of “subconscious racism.”
Mr Storey added that “There is a widespread community perception that the large technology companies already moderate online content in a way that unfairly silences right-of-centre opinions.”
The letter also noted that “The current Commonwealth government is a strong proponent of an Indigenous Voice (and that) the eSafety Commissioner is an official of the Commonwealth government.
“Thus, the exercise of your considerable powers to limit online content, in the context of a political debate in respect to which the government has made its views clear, could be perceived to be state-sanctioned censorship of its opponents rather than the genuine restriction of harmful online abuse.”
“Given these concerns, the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to compel the removal of online material in the context of a political debate must be exercised with the utmost caution,” the letter stated.”
The IPA has also asked the Albanese government to consider broadening the scope of the Broadcasting Services Act to be widened to include social media companies for the length of the referendum campaign, to further ensure both sides get a fair hearing.
************************************
10 April, 2023
The social housing bandaid
A prominent architect, Tone Wheeler, advocates more social housing below. It's a pity he is not an economist or a sociologist, in which case he would not have such tunnel vision. What he overlooks is that social housing is mainly a bandaid placed on a sore that governments at all levels have created.
Even poor people have some money, even if only from Centerlink, and many Centerlink clients are satisfactorily housed on that income, even if it's only by living a frugal life and living in boarding houses. So how come there is any need for "social" (charity) housing?
In part it is because some people are feckless at managing their money and the taxpayer is expected to rescue them from their folly. But more often it's because commercially available housing is just so expensive and therefore very difficult to for a family to afford. And that comes down to one thing: supply.
In a market economy there would be much more housing available -- with its attendant lower prices. They are high now because of the restrictions that all levels of government place on new housing. There have always been NIMBYs pushing local government to prevent the release of land for new housing and now we have very expensive new requirements that new builds be "green" in various ways. And it goes on.
So an intelligent advocate of more housing would be attacking the restrictions on building it rather than the old, old and quite insatiable cry of begging for more government handouts
The Commonwealth lost interest in public housing, which fell to 5 per cent of all dwellings in the late 1990s.
After the millennium, privatisation of public housing took off. Existing low-scale projects were sold for redevelopment at higher densities. In return, developers were compelled to set aside a percentage of new dwellings, about 15 per cent, for social and affordable housing. Public housing was rebadged, run by community housing providers, not governments.
The Berejiklian government took to it with alacrity, selling off the public housing at Millers Point, together with the 1980s purpose-built Sirius apartments. Social housing numbers often failed to increase, or even match, the public housing that had been lost, which falls to just 4 per cent of the dwelling stock now.
Today’s rising property values, falling home ownership and greater wage disparity sees 10 per cent of all households seeking social and affordable housing. That’s more than three times the social dwellings currently available. State Labor governments all have plans with various levels of ambition, but most are starved of funds, and want a better-funded CSHA, intensifying the current housing policy debate.
Federal Labor has responded with the Housing Australia Future Fund, where dividends will pay for 30,000 new social dwellings over five years. The need, according to the Greens and many housing demographers, is more like 50,000 each year for 20 years, a tall order when we build less than 100,000 per year now.
The federal government is crying poor: with a very low tax/GDP ratio it lacks income to address the accumulated debt and demands for the NDIS, defence and submarines.
Anthony Albanese tells the story of his upbringing with a single mum on welfare in public housing, but in denying funding for those social programs for current battlers it seems social housing is not a priority for the federal Labor Party. Instead, it invents a defective magic pudding, and puts an inexperienced minister – Julie Collins – in charge of it.
More than 120 years of governments advocating for middle-class home ownership, rather than public housing, has finally caught up with us. A bold vision, supported by funding, is needed, or we’ll have yet another public housing policy failure, this one of epic proportions.
***********************************************
Voice 'a power grab by elites, academics': Mundine
Mr Mundine said he opposed the model for an Indigenous voice to parliament put forward by Anthony Albanese, saying that the priority should be to improve outcomes for disadvantaged Indigenous communities.
“We’ve been always pushing for regional and local outcomes, that is where the real issues are,” he told Sky News. More
“We saw Laverton, Ceduna and Alice Springs all those other places you can’t fix that from Canberra you have to fix that on the ground in those communities.“And we know democracy is the best way to do that… property ownership, freedom of speech and everything like that.” Mr Mundine said the Liberal Party could not support the voice in its current state, ramping up his criticism of the proposed model. “The way this voice is set up, the Coalition couldn't just support it,” he said.“It is a disaster, it is a power grab by a group of elites and academics, and I was very pleased to hear that and very pleased to support it.
***********************************************
UQ scientists discover special crab to fix Great Barrier Reef coral destruction
The deadly starfish can devour up to 90 per cent of living coral tissue, and has contributed to an estimated 40 per cent of coral loss on the reef.
Scientists from the University of Queensland have now found a special species of crab which can eat the crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) before it reaches adulthood and begins feasting on the endangered coral habitat.
A team of biological scientists from the University of Queensland including researcher Amelia Desbiens, tested more than 100 species of crab, shrimp, worm, snail and small fish to see which creatures were potential COTS predators.
To their surprise, they discovered the red decorator crab had an impressive appetite for COTS. “You can’t imagine our excitement, we were beyond stoked,” Ms Desbiens said.
“We cast a wide net and to find such a voracious predator – each red decorator crab devoured more than five COTS per day while most other species barely ate a single one.
“It’s one of the best predators of COTS we’ve seen and could be a natural buffer against future outbreaks on the reef.”
Prior to the red decorator crab revelation, scientists held little knowledge of which COTS predators were most effective, with few animals able to eat adult COTS due to their ability to defend themselves with their toxic spines.
The new discovery is expected to help scientists rebalance the Great Barrier Reef’s natural predator ecosystem, with the crab able to effectively limit COTS mass-reproduction and population outbreaks.
“There’s already an extensive COTS culling program along the barrier reef and I can see this research fitting into the program ... which is really exciting,” Ms Desbiens said.
“The reef has already faced a lot of stress for climate induced issues, hopefully culling can provide a bit of relief from those other stresses.
“The next step is to look for the predators across other (reef) locations further than Heron Island and start searching for these crabs in places where the COTS outbreaks have been a real problem. Redirect our attention to more vulnerable areas.”
UQ senior research author Dr Kenny Wolfe agreed, saying scientists were now “on the right path” to addressing the COTS outbreaks along the severely damaged coral reef.
“We’d like to conduct broader surveys on the Great Barrier Reef across areas with and without outbreaks to evaluate whether the presence of this crab can help predict the chance of COTS gaining a foothold,” Dr Wolfe said.
“This preliminary study sets us on the right path to resolving the role naturally existing predators could play in controlling COTS outbreaks.”
**************************************************
Conservatives need to fight back
The ‘left’ – and by this term I mean Labor, Teals, the moderates of the Liberal and National parties, as well as our loony-far-left Green friends – are very, very good at shaping public opinion.
So good that the ‘right’ in Australia are a minority reduced to a few brave souls still willing to stick their heads above the parapet and take a verbal bullet or two for the liberty of the nation. Thankfully only metaphorically, for now.
As I write this, the Queensland state government is trumpeting its Orwellian ‘hate crime’ laws banning the display of ‘hate symbols’ and jacking-up jail time for crimes that are ‘motivated by hatred or serious contempt’.
Sounds great, until you realise that the definition of ‘hate’ is totally subjective. Precisely whose definition of ‘hate’ will apply?
Professor James Allan of University of Queensland Law School, and a regular scribe for this publication, noted at a public event in Brisbane recently that UQ Law is widely regarded as ‘Australia’s most conservative’ institution for shaping the minds of our future judiciary.
He then immediately noted that only a handful of the school’s 40-or-so faculty could be regarded as ‘not being Labor or Green voters’. The point sent shivers down the spines of the libertarian and conservative crowd – if you think our judiciary is trending ‘Woke’ now, give it another 20 years and a jail cell may await anyone whose views tend right of Daniel Andrews. Better clean up those Facebook posts, or the cops will be cuffing you in your pyjamas in front of your kids in no time.
‘But what do we dooooooo?’ one earnest soldier in the crowd – her despair palpable – inquired.
‘Speak up,’ Allan replied.
Easier said than done if you want to keep putting food on the table in modern Australia. Speaking up about conservative positions on matters of identity can cost you your job and your reputation.
Even positions that were once considered moderately centre-right, such as expressing the view that if you were born with a penis you’re a man and no surgery or drugs can change that fundamental biological fact, are taboo in modern corporate and government Australia.
Refusing to participate in ‘forced expression’, such as not wanting to don a rainbow jersey for your team’s football match during pride week, may be career-ending. That’s ‘passive hate’ or a ‘microaggression’ against a ‘marginalised group’. Never mind the ones doing the objecting being hated and marginalised.
The left have so much control over the language nowadays that writing without lots of quotation marks has become impossible for those of us who don’t want to buy into their bizarre worldview.
It’ll be interesting to watch the anti-trans feminist movement as it tackles these new ‘hate speech’ laws. As a group that predominantly sits on the left, I’ll greatly enjoy seeing how they cope being on the other side of the intolerant violence of their fellow social justice warriors. Men tend to do fast physical violence, women tend to do slow tortuous reputational violence (yes, I’m stereotyping a bit) so I guess we are in for an unholy mix-up of the two.
Conservatives will need to be a lot smarter if they’re going to win this war. And it is a culture war. Forget the gaslighting of the left arguing, ‘What are you all so upset about, you crazy right-wing nut-jobs?!’ That’s just part of the strategy. Leaving us periodically all wondering, ‘Am I the crazy one?’ and whether we are one step away from alfoil headwear, is precisely the confused state of frustration and hopelessness they want us in.
We need to be courageous. We need to discover bravery. We need to be covert. Not everyone has to be as stupid as to start a national podcast and TV show and stick their head out as far as I am (yes, this is an unsubtle plug for the return of my weekly news commentary show The Other Side on ADH TV from April 14).
I’m past my prime and nobody in mainstream media wants to hire me anyway. But there are ways to play with the system and its massive contradictions and hypocrisy.
One is to start turning the language and games of the left back on them at work or school: ‘I’m having trouble feeling safe here. I’m part Persian and my conservative Zoroastrian father has strict views about homosexuality that make it very triggering and traumatic to have to see a rainbow pride poster every time I step into the coffee room – do you think we could take it down?’ That’ll suck up hundreds of dollars of staff time as the 20-somethings in HR try to remove the pain in their brain and solve your issue without offending anyone. If enough of us do it, every single day, maybe shareholders will start to notice the real cost of their feel-good ESG and DEI cult worship?
I exaggerate. But you get my drift. Have some fun. Be a bit of a nuisance. Use the Art of War technique of turning the enemy’s weapons back on them. And laugh. A lot. It’ll keep you both healthy and sane.
But we do suck at shaping the culture. And we simply can’t afford to stay silent any longer. A thorough web search and a call to the Queensland Opposition media office hasn’t yielded any media response to the government’s hate crime announcement (as at 3pm Friday). The Liberal-Nationals have completely – and very deliberately – checked out of the culture war. It’s a strategy that’s working superbly for them, don’t you think?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/lets-face-it-we-suck-at-this/
************************************9 April, 2023
Startling new figures show even MORE Australians are dying than first feared
No great mystery. The Covid panic led to Covid being prioritzed over all other forms of medical care -- with cancer screenings and treatment in particular being seriously delayed. And delaying cancer treatment will usually make it fatal. Normal priorities would have saved many lives
Australians are dying at a rate not seen since wartime but politicians are ignoring demands to find out why, critics say.
In 2022 there were 25,235 more deaths than would be expected in a normal year, 10,095 of which were directly caused by Covid with another 3,000 where the virus was 'a contributing factor'.
The rate of 'excess deaths' is calculated on a historical average of mortality for a given period and is weighted for shifting demographics, such as an aging population.
Last year saw excess mortality running at 15 per cent above the expected number of deaths, which is a rate of death Australia has not seen in the 80 years since World War II, according to Australian Bureau Statistics (ABS) figures released last week.
The final ABS figures for 2022 are higher than the 12 per cent rate of excess mortality reported for that year by an Actuaries Institute report in March.
The jump in deaths led to a Senate motion two weeks ago, sponsored by Victorian UAP Senator Ralph Babet, to hold an inquiry into excess deaths but this was voted down by the government and crossbench Senators.
Queensland LNP Senator Gerard Rennick spoke in support of the motion saying that statistically such a jump in deaths was a 'one in a thousand event'. ‘We deserve an inquiry,’ he said.
On Wednesday Sydney talkback radio 2GB host Ben Fordham joined calls for a probe into why Australians are dying in such comparatively high numbers. 'Sadly people in power don’t want to talk about it,' Fordham said.
'Does it have something to do with our one-track focus on coronavirus and other diseases and illnesses that were forced into the back seat while we fought off Covid?'
Fordham pointed to a warning issued by Cancer Australia in September 2021 noting that biopsies, scans and surgeries for the disease had plummeted in 2020 because of Covid lockdowns, meaning up to 20,000 cases may have been missed.
In 2022 the ABS recorded 10,000 more cancer deaths than the historical norm, representing a five per cent increase in mortality from the disease.
However, according to the ABS the majority of excess deaths in 2022 were Covid-related.
The bureau said 10,095 people died because of Covid, with an estimated 3,000 others deaths recorded where the virus was 'a contributing factor'.
There was also a 19 per cent increase in those dying of diabetes and a 15 per cent jump in dementia mortality.
There were marginal increases in the number of heart-related and respiratory infection deaths.
Fordham said without an inquiry the issue of excess deaths will be 'weaponised'.
He said on one side are those who want a return to lockdowns or other heavy restrictions on Covid spread. 'As we know Australians won’t cop that,' Fordham argued.
On the other hand there are those who are blaming the Covid vaccines for an increase in deaths.
He noted the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the watchdog on medical safety, had received reports of 900 deaths occurring within days of getting a Covid vaccine but had investigated those cases and found only 14 were because of the jab.
Fordham said the TGA had been so resistant to his inquiries about potential vaccine-related deaths that it raised suspicions. 'If we don’t investigate and come up with some firm answers those whispers will grow louder,' he said.
The TGA has consistently insisted the Covid vaccines are extremely safe and severe, and adverse reactions are 'rare'.
'COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and save lives,' the agency says on its website. 'They are closely monitored in the largest global vaccine rollout in history. 'Most side effects are mild and go away in a couple of days.'
In promoting the push for an inquiry, Senator Rennick claimed it was suspect that there was a jump in deaths after vaccine rollouts.
This is despite just 14 deaths being caused by vaccines in Australia, compared to 10,000 deaths caused by the virus itself last year alone.
The jump in deaths also aligned with the time Covid became widespread among the populations, meaning a larger proportion of the population were coming into contact with the illness - and dying.
But Senator Rennick said while there had been a jump in deaths in 2020 associated with the original Covid wave, that year had seen excess deaths suppressed by the national lockdown and lengthier ones in states such as Victoria.
Lockdowns prevent road deaths and other accidents that befall people in the ordinary course of life.
Senator Rennick argued after the vaccine rollout in April, 2021, all-cause excess deaths jumped by 1,000 and later 2,000 a month.
He argued that states with low or no Covid such as Western Australia and Queensland saw jumps of 9 and 10 per cent in deaths respectively.
'We need to look to see how many people died within a number of days from the vaccine, we need to look at the average rate of daily deaths,' Senator Rennick said in parliament.
Nations around the world are experiencing a surge in excess deaths, not all of which is explained by Covid.
In Britain, 650,000 extra deaths were registered in 2022, which represented a nine per cent increase compared to the more 'normal year' of 2019.
Peak doctors' body the Australian Medical Association (AMA) told Daily Mail Australia in September it was 'worrying' that deaths are climbing in Australia, but it reflected what is being seen overseas.
'We have seen the ABS statistics that mirror a worrying trend in other countries like the UK,' AMA President Professor Steve Robson said.
Prof Robson said it was unclear what was driving the excess deaths. 'There needs to be some research into why this is happening,' he said.
However, he pointed to some 'likely factors' that could be a hangover from the Covid period of isolation and restrictions. A major likely cause was that people either couldn't, or were scared of, seeing a doctor because of infection risk.
'People have avoided going to see the doctor for regular checks or to talk about a problem with their health or delayed a trip to the doctor and consequently seen their condition become more serious,' Prof Robson said.
'We need to do more to prepare the health system, both to address the impact of COVID on things like waiting lists but also to deal with those patients who have delayed accessing care and now require more serious intervention.'
Health Minister Mark Butler has been contacted for comment.
*****************************************************
Misogyny in drag: sexism has had a non-binary makeover
Imagine if a male Liberal politician said to a feminist activist: “Stay in the kitchen, darling.”
Imagine if he said uppity women who take to the streets to fight for their rights would be better off at home, looking after the kids or darning socks.
There would be uproar, right?
The Nine Newspapers press would overflow with think pieces on misogyny. ABC bigwigs would furiously commission discussions about old white men’s fear of liberated women.
And rightly so. The vast majority of us believe in sexual equality. People don’t take kindly to women being demeaned as the lesser sex.
And yet, something very similar to this scenario took place on Australian TV this week and the right-on barely batted an eyelid.
It wasn’t an old white bloke who said it, though – it was a hip non-binary activist in a skirt and heels. His name is Deni Todorovic. He was on Q+A. And in a clash with the Liberal Victorian party president Greg Mirabella over Moira Deeming, he said something that I believe was deeply misogynistic.
Deeming, of course, has been suspended from the Victorian Liberal party for the supposed crime of attending Kellie-Jay Keen’s Let Women Speak gathering in Melbourne. That’s the one at which oafish far-right idiots turned up, uninvited.
Todorovic said Deeming “got off way too easily”. She should have been expelled, he said. Yes, we can’t have women exercising their right to express themselves in public.
Then he said something genuinely repugnant. He slammed Deeming’s “audacity” in attending the event and said: “Stay in bed and watch Rage, doll. Like seriously, stay at home.”
Read that again. *Stay at home, doll.* What decade is this?
Doll? Who does he think he is speaking about? Deeming is a woman, an established politician and a mother of four. She’s no one’s doll. She’s not some second-class creature who can be instructed by a man to stay home and watch late-night music videos on TV.
Just imagine the storm if Peter Dutton had been on Q+A and had said about someone like Van Badham, “Stop going on about politics, darling. Just stay in bed.”
There would be a national meltdown. So why is it okay for Todorovic to speak so degradingly about Deeming?
Is it because she’s a Liberal, and the woke don’t care about women like that? Or is it because Todorovic calls himself “non-binary” and wears women’s clothing?
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe misogyny is always wrong, whether it’s coming from an old fella in a stiff suit or a young activist in blue eye shadow.
No one comes out well from this disturbing incident. Todorovic certainly doesn’t. The audience doesn’t – they laughed at his suggestion that the Deeming doll should stay in bed.
The presenter, Stan Grant, doesn’t. He failed to challenge Todorovic on his use of the word “doll”. Does Grant think it’s acceptable to call women dolls? Does the ABC?
And the Liberals don’t look good, either. Why didn’t Mirabella push back harder against the insulting of one of his colleagues? The Victorian Liberals’ suspension of Deeming was shameful. It was a yellow-bellied capitulation to the woke mob.
Deeming had no idea those fascist loons would opportunistically try to attach themselves to the Let Women Speak event. She merely wanted to express her perfectly legitimate view that women are real and women’s rights matter.
To punish Deeming for what a bunch of Sieg Heiling men did is cowardly, intolerant and sexist. If the Liberals won’t defend freedom for one of their own women, how can we expect them to defend it for anyone else?
Let’s be clear about what is happening here: a woman with a principled and personal interest in preserving women-only spaces has been monstered in the most horrible way.
Deeming has spoken about being sexually abused as a child and sexually assaulted in adulthood. This is why she is passionate about women’s rights and privacy.
It is extraordinary that such a woman has been witch-hunted and shamed. That she is mocked as a “doll”. That she is told to stay home. That woke audience members at the ABC cackle as she is disparaged.
Never let the right-on pose as a friend of women again. For we now know that if a woman expresses a view they disapprove of, they will throw her to the wolves. Bye, doll.
Sexism has had a makeover. We might call it misogyny in drag. Intolerance of women’s voices no longer comes from dinosaur blokes who are nostalgic for the 1950s but from youthful activists who worship at the altar of gender fluidity.
Their post-science, post-truth belief that anyone can be a woman – even a man – has led them to view womanhood as a frivolous, flimsy thing, and to view any woman who stands up for biological truth as a bigot.
I was brought up to respect women, to treat them as my equals, and to expect that they will enjoy every right I enjoy. I don’t want to see such equality overturned, whether by sexist throwbacks who think sheilas should stay in the kitchen or postmodern activists who think they should stay in bed.
**********************************************
Brisbane bakery removes hot cross from ‘Easter Time buns’
“This wouldn’t have happened in my time at Brumby’s. You can’t have Easter without hot cross buns. They’ve been synonymous with Easter celebrations since the 12th century in England.”
Sherlock, Sentinel’s chief experience officer, says the Group’s CEO Warren Ebert and the Sentinel staff will be celebrating their Easter morning tea in the Brisbane CBD office on Thursday with many hot cross bun
************************************************
The world’s flattest batteries
The sheer stupidity of thinking that batteries can replace electricity generators
Kites are thought to have originated in China over two thousand years ago. Since the original incarnations, kites have evolved into a low-cost fun activity enjoyed by kids and adults alike. The link between ancient kites and modern batteries is tenuous but tangible – kites and renewables are equally useless on calm nights, but batteries are meant to change that for renewables.
In order to dissect the ideological policies forcing renewables and their batteries into the grid, it is necessary to test whether batteries are adequate for the task of ‘firming’. With a relatively small network occasionally isolated from the rest of the grid and plenty of hype around large batteries, South Australia is a good place to start.
Could batteries meet the electricity demands of South Australia’s slumbering 1.5 million population overnight?
Despite the lamentations of the renewable lobby and its enablers, we must consider specific periods for a simple reason – electricity is not consumed or generated in averages.
We could take the demand over a twelve-month period, find the average per day, and crow about the small amount of storage required to keep the lights on, but that would be dishonest. No design – be it bridges, boats, pipes or electricity – ever considers averages except in the most cursory terms. The extremes are the only parameters that matter. Will it fall down, will it sink, will it rupture, will it meet demand?
OpenNEM’s excellent visualisation provides near real-time visibility of supply and demand on the grid. One can select the entire NEM, or a preferred state, and analyse the types of generators that are meeting electricity demand.
Accordingly, it can be shown that South Australia’s peak summer electrical demand is around 3,000 MW, while in the comfortable shoulder months, peak demand barely nudges above 1,500 MW.
Sun and wind were absent from South Australia during the 8 hours of midnight to 8am on Tuesday March 28, 2023. Electricity demand was entirely supplied by local gas-fired generators and imports from neighbouring Victoria – itself mostly powered by three large lignite burning power stations.
In this particular 8-hour period, the state consumed 11,000 MWh of electricity with a peak of 1,553 MW. Imports from Victoria totalled 4,600 MWh, with local gas power contributing 6,300 MWh, meaning 99 per cent of electricity demand could not be met by renewables.
Could batteries have replaced 10,900 MWh of gas and imports in this period?
Batteries require a minimum of two numbers to enable basic comparisons. The first is peak instantaneous output (MW), a measure of how fast the battery can discharge. The second is the energy stored (MWh), a measure of how long it can discharge. The world’s largest battery can be found in Moss Landing, California at 400 MW / 1,600 MWh.
To calculate how many batteries are required to meet the instantaneous grid demand, we divide 1,553 MW by the peak output of the world’s biggest 400 MW battery.
1,553 / 400 = 3.88 of the world’s biggest batteries
You can’t have a portion of a big battery. Well you sort of can, but this is a quick model so we will round up to an even four batteries with 1,600 MW combined output – about 50 MW above our peak demand.
Ok, now let’s check the other number, the storage capacity in MWh.
Multiply the number of batteries by their individual MWh number to get the total MWh available from all four batteries.
4 x 1,600 MWh = 6,400 MWh
That’s significantly less than the 10,900 MWh needed.
We need to add more batteries to exceed the storage threshold, or the batteries will run out of juice before the 8 hours are up. This takes us up to six batteries. Six batteries will only supply 9,600 MWh at their combined peak output of 2,400 MW. However, a battery lasts longer if its output is below maximum, so six batteries will do the trick here.
We have established that six of the world’s biggest batteries can get sleeping South Australians through 8-hours of no wind and no sun.
Now let’s extend our thinking to the periods just outside the 8 hours. Calculations show that for those batteries to last the full 8 hours, they needed to be at least 70 per cent charged beforehand.
In the hours from 8am to 10am six of the world’s flattest batteries aren’t looking so great to morning commuters. Commuters who may take for granted that the biggest and most complex machine in the state will provide electricity for their barista-made coffees, elevators up to open plan offices, computers and lights, servers and zip boilers, printers and air-conditioning, coffee makers and fire detection systems.
It took local gas and imported coal to meet almost 90 per cent of electricity demand from 8am to 10am. There was no spare power to charge the flat batteries. In fact, across the entire day the ‘spare’ power available to charge batteries (identified as exports to Victoria) totalled just 2,000 MWh.
There is one last sting in the battery tail. One might be tempted to assume all the 2,000 MWh applied to the battery gets stored in the battery, but that’s not how these things work. Energy losses means a battery only stores about 90 per cent of the energy applied, which brings us down to 1,800 MWh. Less than 20 per cent of a full charge, lasting about 1 hour at the original conditions.
Better hope for some wind the next night, or the world’s flattest batteries won’t be much help.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/the-worlds-flattest-batteries/
************************************‘We can’t produce miracles’: Minns rules out rent cap, promises supply drive
Some refreshing realism from a Leftist about the shortage of rental accomodation
NSW Premier Chris Minns has dashed tenants’ hopes for immediate relief from skyrocketing rents by ruling out a cap on rent increases, but promised major efforts to increase housing supply to ease price pressure in the long term.
An unprecedented squeeze helped raise the median Sydney apartment rent to $620 a week in March, up from $500 a year ago, with more pain on the way as migration restarts post-COVID and supply remains stagnant, and vacancy rates remain at or below 1 per cent.
Minns refused to countenance an ACT-style rental cap on Thursday, saying he was focused on long-term reforms to speed up the planning system and build more homes.
“I’m ruling it out,” he said. “We believe that would have an impact on supply, and we need to get supply going. The vast majority of rental market and new supply in the NSW marketplace has got to be provided by the private sector.”
Minns said the housing and rental crisis had been ongoing for years and in the short-term “I’m not going to proclaim that we can produce miracles”.
The premier acknowledged the stakes were high as young people and essential workers – including the paramedics he was standing beside following a graduation ceremony – were leaving Sydney due to the ballooning cost of housing.
“If we don’t get this right and start getting supply moving in this state, we will lose a generation of young people,” he said.
During the election campaign, Labor said it would rebalance Sydney’s population growth eastward and increase housing density near major transport hubs, including the new metro lines, as the west had borne the brunt of the city’s growth.
Minns said on Thursday his government now had a clear mandate for that policy. He said his new planning minister, Paul Scully, had also been tasked with clearing out the bureaucracy and red tape associated with development approvals.
“I’ve spoken to many builders who say it is easier to get approvals or quick decisions in Queensland than in NSW,” he said. “We’ve got an artificial bureaucratic level on top of it.”
All states are grappling with a rental crisis as vacancy rates plunge to record lows. The Queensland government recently floated the idea of a quantum cap on rent rises, ultimately deciding to limit increases to once a year, as is the case in NSW and Victoria.
The ACT limits rent increases to 110 per cent of inflation as measured by the consumer price index. Landlords can apply to a tribunal for increases beyond the cap.
Domain data shows the median house rental in Sydney is now $660 a week compared to $500 in Melbourne and $560 in Brisbane. In many parts of Sydney, the median unit rental is now $700 a week or higher, including the eastern suburbs ($790), the city and inner south ($760) and the northern beaches ($700). In the inner west it is $620 and in Ryde $600.
Greens housing spokeswoman and MP for Newtown Jenny Leong said she would introduce a bill on the first day of the new parliament to freeze rents for two years, and Labor MPs should make good on their election promises to help renters in their communities. “My understanding is there’s support from interesting parts across the parliament for that kind of action,” she said.
Minns said the government’s policy commitments for renters were ambitious, including a ban on no-fault evictions, relaxed rules for pets and an affordable bond scheme for renters who move properties. “But it really does come down to supply,” he said.
The Tenants Union of NSW condemned Labor’s stance, with chief executive Leo Patterson Ross saying there was nothing in the plan to reduce rents relative to income.
“Rent regulation is a common and ordinary part of many advanced economies. We should be looking at all the options available to bring the crisis under control.”
***********************************************
7 April, 2023
Concentrated solar power?
This idea has always been attractive and exciting but it has been around now for long enough for us to assess its practicality. And the one certain thing about it is that is trouble-prone and often fails. You can imagine how dicey anything is going to be that relies on moving molten salt round at at 550 degrees C. The one thing it is good at is eating up goverment subsidies
The best-known such project is the Ivanpah installation in California. See below for some history of it:
http://jonjayray.com/short/ivanpah.html
Concentrated solar power (CSP) uses mirrors to focus heat from the Sun to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity.
While CSP was once the great hope for replacing coal and gas-fired generation, it's now generally considered to have been eclipsed by cheaper forms of renewable generation, like solar panels and wind turbines.
Recently, however, it's been making a quiet comeback.
The reason for this boils down to three words that describe one of the major challenges of decarbonising the grid: overnight energy storage.
The CSIRO's Renewable Energy Storage Roadmap, released last week, predicts that by 2050, CSP will be the cheapest way to store energy for 8–24 hours.
Developing this "medium-duration" storage is a necessary step to switching off coal- and gas-fired generators that produce most of the power we use at night.
For this reason, CSP projects are starting to gather momentum.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) recently approved $65 million in funding for a Sydney-based company, Vast Solar, to build the country's first commercial-scale CSP plant in Port Augusta, South Australia.
So how does CSP work?
And what role will CSP play in a net-zero Australia?
A technology that once rivalled solar panels
The idea of CSP is so simple that the technology hasn't changed much in decades.
Italy built the first CSP plant in 1968, and California installed the first commercial-scale array in 1981.
At the time, solar panels were expensive and mostly used in consumer electronics, whereas CSP relied on familiar technologies, such as steam turbines.
CSP plants also looked impressive: The popular "power tower" design featured a circular field of thousands of mirrors, focusing their light on the crown of a central tower, which in some cases soared taller than 200 metres.
But then, more efficient panels and larger factories drove down the price of photovoltaics (PV), while CSP plants ran into problems with leaking fluids and dirty mirrors.
In 2019, South Australia scrapped a $650 million project to build Australia's first commercial-scale CSP after the company behind the project revealed it could not raise funding.
"It's been a bit of a tale of woe in Australia," said Keith Lovegrove, director of the Australian Solar Thermal Energy Association. "We've actually managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory a couple of times."
As of 2021, the global installed capacity of CSP was 6.8 gigawatts, which was many hundreds of times less than the figure for photovoltaics.
But CSP is not dead. Spain, Morocco, South Africa, Israel and other countries are using CSP in their grids, while China has dozens of projects underway.
"China is the most active place at this, at this very moment," Dr Lovegrove said.
CSP cannot generate daytime electricity as cheaply as solar PV, but it has one advantage: built-in storage.
The heat from the Sun is stored in a medium such as molten salt. When the Sun goes down, this stored heat can be tapped to drive the turbine and generate electricity.
This combination of generation and storage makes CSP "dispatchable", meaning the power can be sent to the grid when it's needed. "The whole point about CSP is that it's dispatchable renewable generation," Dr Lovegrove said.
"It's generation you can have when you need it at night, or peak periods. It comes at a higher price because it's got this added value and complexity."
*********************************************
Andrew and Nicola Forrest lose bid to build irrigation project that traditional owners fear could kill mythical sacred serpent
Valuable immigration project held up by primitive superstition
A pastoral company owned by West Australian billionaires Andrew and Nicola Forrest has lost an appeal to build an irrigation project in a Pilbara river sacred to traditional owners.
The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) released a decision late on Thursday afternoon refusing an appeal by the Forrests of the controversial Section 18 provision of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The family's cattle company Forrest and Forrest Pty Ltd lodged an application in 2019 to build two granite quarries and 10 weirs along the Ashburton River, which runs through Minderoo Station, about 1,300 kilometres north of Perth.
Forrest and Forrest Pty Ltd needed a Section 18 approval, the same kind of permit which allowed Rio Tinto to destroy the 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters, to be able to build the weirs.
This was because the river from its mouth near Onslow to inland near Nanutarra is a registered Aboriginal heritage site where the Thalanyji people believe the water serpent Warnamankura lives. Warnamankura created the river, according to Thalanyji belief, and still travels up and down it to protect the country. Traditional owners feared the weirs could kill the water serpent spirit in the river.
Any activity like the extraction of minerals or construction of bridges and other infrastructure in the river requires Section 18 approval.
Former WA Aboriginal affairs minister Ben Wyatt refused the Section 18 application at the start of 2020 because of the area's significance to the Thalanyji and because he did not think the project had enough public benefit.
The Forrests wanted to build the weirs, which still allowed water to pass through them so the river flowed, so more water could be held back longer to drought-proof the station and allow for an expansion in cattle numbers.
One weir had already been built in 2010 in consultation with the Thalanyji.
The last tribunal hearing into the case was held nearly two years before Thursday's decision. In the decision, Justice Janine Pritchard and two other tribunal members found the entirety of the river was of spiritual significance to the Thalanyji.
"We have found that in the Thalanyji culture, the river is regarded with deep respect and reverence," they wrote. "From the Thalanyji people's perspective, the implementation of the ... project, which will affect the natural flow of the river, risks killing or harming the water snake, or causing the water snake to become angry. "And that that would have a significant adverse impact on the Thalaynji people."
Lawyers for the Forrests said the entire river was not a site under the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The tribunal panel stated there was no way the weirs could be built in a way that minimised the impact on the river as a site of spiritual importance.
It also decided the primary benefit of the project would be a private one for the Forrests and generally did not have weight in benefiting the overall general interest of the community.
The tribunal panel did find, however, the increased beef production and creation of jobs would have community benefit.
The decision was made under the old Aboriginal Heritage Act which has since been replaced. But the outcome could still have greater ramifications as a test case for how the tribunal deals with the belief systems of Traditional Owners under the new Aboriginal Heritage Act.
The new law gives native title holders the ability to appeal government decisions allowing for sacred sites to be damaged or moved unlike the previous version, where the right was only held by proponents.
Native title group Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation (BTAC) released a statement saying it welcomed the SAT's decision.
"We are grateful the decision puts our spiritual connection and culture before private cattle interests," a BTAC spokesman said.
"The Thalanyji people have been custodians of the river for over 60,000 years, and damage to the river rightfully should not be allowed for the sole benefit of a local pastoralist."
The statement said the decision provided hope that "the lessons needed after the destruction of Juukan Gorge are being learnt".
********************************************************
Covid’s solar sacrifices
Rebecca Weisser
Human sacrifice was common in many parts of Mesoamerica, so it is unfortunate for the Aztecs that they are largely lumbered with its odious reputation. Yet it didn’t seem odious to Aztec priests. As they explained to the Franciscan missionaries who put an end to the practice, in ripping out a beating human heart they were liberating a fragment of the Sun so that it could rejoin the orb on a trail of blood. And as every Aztec knew, without a constant supply of hearts, the cosmos would not continue. Were there cosmos-powered-by-beating-hearts denialists? Who knows, but Aztecs who said the wrong thing slit their own tongues to avoid bringing down the wrath of the gods.
Disrespecting today’s pieties can also be costly. Outgoing NSW Liberal premier Dominic Perrottet couldn’t bring himself to speak ill of his state’s looming renewable energy disaster that will bring on blackouts and bankruptcy. As Yeats might have said, the best lack all conviction while the woke are full of passionate intensity.
Labor also created the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency which have locked federal governments into spending billions on unreliable energy and exorbitantly expensive batteries but still only provide 8 per cent of our energy. It will be no more possible for Australia to transition to net zero emissions with renewables than it will for the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, the need for batteries to store sunshine and wind is fuelling an insatiable demand for cobalt. It’s another bonanza for China which, along with producing most of the world’s solar panels, owns most of the world’s cobalt mines, located in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has no qualms about sending children into toxic mines that make Dickensian London look like a worker’s paradise. Why should it worry when wealthy Westerners put fuel fetishes ahead of children’s rights?
China will be celebrating Prime Minister Albanese’s deal with the Greens this week to stymie dozens of new fossil fuel projects. The PM says not all 116 coal, oil and gas projects in the pipeline will be stopped. After all, some are owned by Chinese investors keen to ship coal to China. Why wouldn’t they when China is fast-tracking the construction of 106 GW of new coal power projects, four to five times more than Australia’s entire coal-fired power capacity.
But when it comes to green hypocrisy no one does it better than former US president Barack Obama who jetted into Australia this week on a private plane. He gadded around Sydney and Melbourne accompanied by swarms of vehicles and helicopters, while lecturing his adoring audiences on the need to cut carbon emissions in line with US President Biden who said last week, that the climate emergency was ‘Code Red’.
What are Obama’s carbon emissions each year? He’s unlikely to be counting but a report released in 2021 says that in one hour, a private jet emits two tonnes of carbon dioxide whereas the average person in the EU only emits 8.2 tonnes in a year. Apparently, one per cent of people generate 50 per cent of the aviation sector’s carbon dioxide but no one expects celebrity green preachers to give up their sins of emission any time soon.
Victorian Premier Dan Andrews headed off to China this week. He was tight-lipped about what he would discuss but we can be pretty sure that China’s ballooning carbon footprint or human rights abuses won’t be on the agenda.
Yet when it comes to ripping beating human hearts out of chests, Australia’s public health authorities make the Aztecs look like amateurs. Last Saturday, the Australian newspaper ran for the first time a front page story about a 24-year-old woman whose neurologist confirmed that she was profoundly injured by the vaccine, dying eight months later. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) hasn’t bothered to contact her parents or investigate her case. It is waiting for the coroner’s report however long that takes.
An evaluation of the Pfizer vaccine produced in January 2021 has also just been released thanks to a persistent freedom of information request. It shows that the TGA knew that immunity waned rapidly after five weeks and that Pfizer had done almost no tests on whether the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) or the mRNA damaged genes or caused cancer, or whether repeated exposure was toxic. To top it off the study of the LNPs showed that it did not stay in the muscle it was injected into, as people were told, but it travelled in the blood throughout the body including to the reproductive organs and the bone marrow. This barely tested product was injected into 97 per cent of Australians, largely due to government and corporate mandates. Coincidentally or not, the nation now has the greatest increase in excess mortality in the post-war period. Yet Australian health authorities continue to insist that Covid vaccines are safe and effective. Without the arrival of Franciscan friars, it seems the human sacrifices are set to continue.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/covids-solar-sacrifices/ ?
*************************************************************
Women work harder than men – phooey!
Bettina Arndt
‘Women work harder than men,’ so read a sexist headline for an article earlier this year. Hardly unusual, given that the overburdened woman is a favoured theme with a media intent on singing women’s praises and denigrating men at every conceivable opportunity.
But this anthropological study takes the cake. It involved two female anthropologists who, believe it or not, gave Fitbits to farming and herding groups in the Tibetan borderlands. Fitbits are activity trackers which were used by the herding groups to measure the steps taken by men and women in their working day. The anthropologists found that these Tibetan women walked on average just over 12,000 steps per day, while men walked just over 9,000 steps.
‘Women work much harder than men,’ proclaimed the elated anthropologists, claiming that this ‘sheds light on the gender division of work across many different kinds of society’. That makes the assumption that the number of steps matters more than other metrics for measuring work, such as effort in physical lifting, danger in jobs like the village blacksmith, let alone the value of the job, the skills required, and the income generated.
No matter. More grist to the mill celebrating women and putting down men…
The overworked women theme gets a run every time The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes data on how Australians use their time. In the past whenever this data set was released, the Bureau pandered to the feminist narrative with press releases highlighting men’s failure to do as much housework and childcare as women, rarely even mentioning the hugely disproportional amount of paid work done by men.
There’s been complaints to the Bureau about this and finally the organisation responded with a more balanced headline last year when the latest results were published. ‘Females do more unpaid work, males do more paid work,’ said the ABS media release, but naturally this resulted in flurry of news reports highlighting women’s burden and not even mentioning the male contribution. Totally omitted from all media coverage was the fact that the amount of extra work done by men is huge – men work 46 per cent more paid hours than women.
The ABS does not make it easy to figure out who really works harder overall. We decided to take a look at total contributions to the household, including childcare, domestic activities, as well as time for education and employment-related activities. That gives a measure of how busy men and women are, but excluding personal activities like recreation, shopping, personal care, social interaction etc.
Looking at the data this way, we find all the previous surveys showed men were busier contributing to their households than women. But last year the results were from a survey taken during Covid lockdowns when there wasn’t so much paid work going on, and this showed women as fractionally busier, namely 15 minutes per day.
But here’s the truth about how men pulled their weight during Covid for their families and the response they should have received if we had a fairer media.
Fathers worked 70 per cent more hours than partnered males without children – an average of 5:33 per day vs 3:16. Thanks Dads for working so hard to provide for your families.
Partnered women without kids worked 27 per cent less time than unpartnered women – 2:34 vs 3:32. That’s so generous of you to support them, guys.
Male sole parents spent 170 per cent more time educating themselves than females. What a great example for your kids.
Male sole parents also coped much better than females – being much less likely to feel rushed or pressed for time. Good job, Dads.
Men spent 38 per cent more time helping out friends and neighbours. Your community appreciates that support.
Men also increased the amount of time spent on domestic activities by 34 per cent (women’s time didn’t change). You showed them that given a chance, men do their bit.
When child-care facilities closed down during Covid, it was mainly fathers who stepped up – increasing child-care time by 67 per cent compared to previous surveys (female increase was 10 per cent). Thanks, Dads. We know many of you loved that extra time with your kids.
All this talk about unpaid work provides a convenient smokescreen diverting attention from the central fact that men’s hugely greater paid working hours make male earnings absolutely critical to the family enterprise. It may be very unfashionable to talk about men as breadwinners but that’s still the yoke that most partnered men bear.
Many years ago, I wrote an article for the Fairfax newspapers’ Good Weekend magazine about who gets the better deal in marriage. It was a real struggle getting the article approved.
In it I told a story about a Victorian teacher, Mary, who had been planning to retire early from her job. But then her surveyor husband, John, accepted his company’s early retirement package to pursue his life-long dream to work as an artist. When I interviewed Mary, her husband was painting three days a week and spending the rest of his time on community work. He was as happy as Larry.
Mary loved her job but wasn’t keen on spending ten more years in a very demanding, stressful position. ‘I’d prefer to be part-time but then I think, “No, I can’t. I have no choice.”’
She envied John’s freedom. ‘Who did you have lunch with today?’ she’d ask him, through gritted teeth. ‘I ask about his day and feel like stabbing him to death!’ she said, with a good-natured chuckle. She admitted she can’t understand why men aren’t complaining more about their side of the deal. ‘I don’t understand why it doesn’t build up more resentment.’
Well, we live in a society that is so busy highlighting women’s drudgery that men simply aren’t allowed to complain about being forced to work full-time all their lives to pay the mortgage, often in jobs they hate, whilst many women still have choices. They often have the option of dropping out of the workforce to care for young children and then, returning to shorter working hours if at all, and retiring far earlier.
The result, of course, is far less superannuation. I wrote two years ago exposing feminist myths about older impoverished women and privileged men, pointing out that women’s lower super is a direct result of a lifetime spent working less than men. They get to spend their partners’ higher earnings – women control the purse strings in most relationships – and they are usually beneficiaries of their partners’ retirement benefits.
Naturally, in a civilised world, there wouldn’t be a competition about who works harder. Sensible folk realise men and women must work as a team to share the burdens and rewards of family life. But that reality doesn’t suit the feminist narrative promoting winners and losers in their endless gender war.
Finally, two funny little good news items.
The first emerged with the release of another survey from the ABS – this time the Personal Safety Survey, the source of Australia’s best data on domestic violence. The Australian reported the exciting news that despite all the alarmist reporting predicting a second ‘pandemic’ of domestic violence during lockdown, that violence actually fell during that period. This important news was ignored by all other media.
Back in August 2021, I wrote a blog about the feminists’ great Covid domestic violence fundraiser which revealed that all the proper evidence at that time was showing no increase in violence. But despite this, the feminist’s lobbying produced an astonishing 150 per cent increase in the domestic violence industry’s annual handout from the Feds – leaping from $100 to $250 million per annum at least until 2022-23.
Surely, we can find some parliamentarians to ask questions in Senate Estimates suggesting this money be paid back, now that official proof is in that it was based on a fraud?
Then there was delightful news from ANROWS, showing we may be winning the propaganda war. Their latest four-yearly survey shows almost half of Australians believe women and men equally commit domestic violence, more than 1/3rd believe that women going through custody battles make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence, while a similar number believed it is common for sexual assault accusations to be used as a way of getting back at men.
The ABC naturally expressed much alarm at this development. But we were rejoicing. The truth is finally winning through. Hallelujah.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/women-work-harder-than-men-phooey/
*******************************************‘To call me a greedy landlord is far from the truth. I’d rather be a tenant‘
A survey of property investors has revealed many are struggling to keep up with their soaring mortgage repayments, and were concerned about government suggestions of a possible cap to rent increases.
Conducted last week by the Property Investors Council of Australia (PICA), the survey heard from “dozens of investors” who voiced concerns about their financial situation in the face of rising expenses and about any possible rent caps.
The survey was conducted after Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk made comments last Monday about “very seriously” considering how a rental cap could be put in place.
That comment caused a firestorm of backlash from the property sector and investors alike, with Deputy Premier Steven Miles hosing down the comments the following day. Dr Miles said there needed to be a “conversation” on whether a limit should be placed on the size and frequency of rent increases, accepting that investors needed to “see a return on their investment”.
24 hours later, Ms Palaszczuk fronted The Today Show, saying one “option” was to limit rent increases to “once a year, rather than twice a year”, reaffirming the state government would not implement a “rent freeze”.
But economists, including the Grattan Institute’s Brendan Coates, said interfering in the market by putting a cap on rents was bad policy and would make the “race for space even worse” by discouraging investment in rental housing and reducing supply.
PICA chair Ben Kingsley said the latest attack on investors was proving a bridge too far for many and showed the Queensland Government failed to understand the basics of supply and demand.
“Those tenancy groups, and now the State Government, who are lobbying for a rent cap, or freeze, are claiming some sort of market failure is the reason why, well, we want to know from them, how is reducing investor demand and rental housing supply going to improve the situation for Queenslanders?” Mr Kingsley said.
“New arrivals to Queensland try before they buy, meaning they rent, but if there are no rental properties — because no investors can trust the government to allow a free market to operate — these new arrivals won’t have anywhere to live, business won’t be able to employ staff, and the Queensland economy and its citizens will ultimately be the biggest losers.
“Another question that needs to be asked is: ‘What does the government believe is an ‘acceptable’ percentage of cost increases that a landlord should be able to pass on to tenants?’ Are they insinuating that costs can be uncapped but income must be capped?” The average monthly rental price in Brisbane has increased by $290 over the past year, but repayments on a $500,000 mortgage have increased by more than $800 per month over the same period, according to PIPA.
Among the survey respondents was investor Marcus, who said that the land tax alone on his investment properties had increased by 25 per cent in 2021/22, and his latest land tax assessments had gone up by between 18 and 35 per cent. “I’m very mindful of trying to keep the rent affordable for my tenants and I have only just put up the rent to one property by 10 per cent,” he said. “Some tenants are still paying the same rent from years ago. “To call me a greedy landlord is far from the truth. I’d rather be a tenant at the moment.”
Property Investment Professionals of Australia (PIPA) chair Nicola McDougall said it appeared that the State Government had learned nothing from its failed land tax regime less than six months ago. The Palaszczuk government was forced to scrap its controversial land tax after her fellow state and territory leaders slammed the plan. The tax would have applied to interstate investors who owned properties in Queensland, and would have required other states to share ownership records.
Ms McDougall said the kneejerk rent cap comments were likely in response to a damning Queensland Council of Social Service report that revealed 300,000 people across the state were experiencing housing insecurity amid soaring rental prices and inadequate social housing supply. The Blueprint to Tackle Queensland’s Housing Crisis report revealed the rate of homelessness surged 22 per cent since 2017 – nearly triple the national rate.
“PIPA research last year also showed 160,000 rental properties had been stripped from Queensland markets in just two years – with even more investors set to sell if rental caps are introduced,” she said.
“Without any meaningful solutions by the state government to increase rental supply in the Sunshine State – and therefore stabilise rents – the Premier will likely go down in history as the leader who forced more Queenslanders into homelessness than ever before.”
Many readers argued that if a rent cap was imposed, the State Government should also cap rates, water, electricity, insurances and other costs.
************************************
6 April, 2023
Labor backs CPI-linked wage rises for low-paid
Leftist policies often sound fair and reasonable to start with. But then the adverse results of them start coming in. And the idea of a big wage rise for the lowest paid seems wonderful at first. And puts the government in a very good light as "caring".
But the idea is in fact a policy to throw many poor people out of a job. People who are very low paid are low paid for a reason. Their services are seen as worth only a minimum. And in many cases that will be a bare minimum. Raise what you have to pay them and that pay will exceed the value of what their services are worth. So they will be fired. Employing them will have become a losing proposition and no longer be seen as worthwhile. Not all of the low paid will be laid off but many will be. Not so much of a warm glow in that
Hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers should receive inflation-linked pay rises, the Albanese government has urged, as business warns the economy risks being plunged into recession if unions succeed in their push for a 7 per cent increase for 2.6 million workers.
Urging the Fair Work Commission to ensure the real wages of the lowest paid “do not go backwards”, the government submission to the annual wage review will seek to limit the inflation-linked rises to workers on the national minimum wage and lowest award rates.
Employer groups said granting the ACTU’s “economically reckless” claim for a $57-a-week increase would add $12.6bn a year to employer costs.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry will urge the commission to limit the pay rise to 3.5 per cent, which at $28 a week would represent a real pay cut but be the highest ever proposed by the employer group.
In a joint statement, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke said economic conditions remained challenging, with Australians facing high inflation due to supply-chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine.
“While nominal wages growth has lifted, high inflation has seen real wages fall behind,” they said.
“This is having the greatest impact on Australia’s low-paid workers and their families – many of whom don’t have the savings to fall back on or wages that cover the rise in living costs.
“These workers are more likely to be women, under 30 years of age and employed as casuals. The government does not want to see them go backwards.”
Labor’s stand in support of low-paid workers came as the government appointed five people with union backgrounds to the commission, declaring it wanted to fix the Coalition’s “shameless stack” of the tribunal with appointees from employer backgrounds
**********************************************************
Liberal party will not support Albanese's "Voice"
This means that the referendum will be lost. Referenda in Australia always are if there is substantial opposition to them
Mr Dutton revealed on Wednesday the Liberal Party would oppose Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's policy in its current form - a decision the PM described as a significant blow in the lead up to the referendum.
Mr Albanese said he was disappointed but not surprised by the Liberals' decision and took aim at Peter Dutton's suggestion the party would support symbolic constitutional recognition for Indigenous people without the element of the Voice.
'It appears some people don't want a Voice; they'd rather have a whisper,' Mr Albanese said, noting it is a blow not to have bipartisan support on the matter and it would make it more difficult for the referendum to succeed.
The Liberal Party room voted on Wednesday to reject the government's proposed model for an indigenous body, known as the Voice, which would be formally recognised in the constitution and give advice on any proposed laws which affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait people.
The Liberals will now campaign against the Voice in the upcoming referendum and would instead propose local and regional Voices which would be legislated but not embedded in the Constitution.
But Mr Pearson argued the Coalition had 11 years in power to enact a 'proper proposal for recognition'.
'I see the leader of the Liberal Party Peter Dutton as an undertaker, preparing the grave to bury Uluru and I think that that is a very sad day for Australia that we can't have bi-partisanship in this important national enterprise.
Mr Albanese spoke further to the decision on Thursday morning, accusing Mr Dutton and his party of 'taking the low road'.
'This pretence of ''we are up for discussion'' whereas everyone knows that from day one, Peter Dutton, the person who walked out on the apology to Stolen Generations... is now walking away from his responsibilities.
'He is defined by what he is against, not what he is for. He has not learned or heard any of the messages that were given in May last year or in Aston on Saturday. He is determined to just be negative.'
Key moderates Andrew Bragg and Bridget Archer were quick to break ranks to signal their support for the Voice after their party room agreed to allow backbenchers a conscience vote on the matter.
Ms Archer almost immediately confirmed she would defy the party line and campaign for a 'yes' vote and said the Liberals' verdict on the Voice was the latest in a series of decisions which had tested her faith in the party.
The outspoken Tasmanian backbencher, who has crossed the floor to vote with Labor in the past, told the ABC after the party room meeting that she thought the Voice was worth fighting for and there was a 'moral imperative' to back the proposal.
***********************************************
When "petrochemicals" is a naughty word
When the federal government confirmed a $1.5 billion funding commitment for a new industrial hub near Darwin Harbour late last year, it was hailed as a "pathway towards decarbonisation".
But the promise of renewable hydrogen, critical minerals and carbon capture and storage also included another industry — petrochemicals.
So after green groups mounted a campaign against the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct, the NT government hatched its own strategic response.
It removed the term "petrochemicals" from official websites about the project, as reported by the ABC last year.
At the time, it was not known which department was involved in the decision to scrub out the term, nor what was being said internally about the deletion.
But emails obtained by the ABC have confirmed staff in the Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet were tasked with removing the references from more than a dozen government websites.
This was despite the fact the government continues to seek approval from the NT Environment Protection Authority (NTEPA) for "low emission petrochemicals" to be among the mix of industries at Middle Arm.
******************************************************
To abolish racism, fix the constitution
It remains puzzling and baffling in the extreme that well-intentioned and intelligent people go on insisting that the proposed Indigenous Voice to parliament is not racist. One writer in the Australian (unnamed here to protect the guilty) doggedly wrote that the Voice is not a racist proposal, it just singles out Indigenous people because of ‘their descent from the earliest inhabitants’. Eh? Doesn’t ‘descent’ equal ‘race’? My ‘race’ is the forebears I am descended from.
When otherwise thoughtful defenders of the Voice resort to such thimble-and-pea tricks with language it is time to be blunt about racism.
They keep insisting it’s not racist to insert a provision into our constitution that provides both ‘recognition’ and ‘consultation’ (Prime Minister Albanese’s words) to some Australians based on their race (their ‘descent’), and denies similar ‘recognition’ and ‘consultation’ to other citizens on the basis that they are descended from the wrong sort of people.
And why is this not racist? Because they are the good guys, and they oppose racism. They aim, they tell us, at ending systemic racism in Australia. Racism is the black cloud hanging over this nation, and it must be driven away. That’s their mantra.
Since they keep telling us it’s racism they oppose, let’s take them at their word. Let’s take them seriously, and offer them an end to all possibility of racism under the federal government.
How would the Voice cheer squad cope if we proposed a referendum to insert into the Australian constitution a blanket ban on racism? How could they possibly object to that? Especially as the anthem they constantly sing is about ‘bringing us all together’ and ‘uniting Australians’. What could be more uniting than outlawing racism?
Section 51 (xxvi) of the constitution currently allows the Commonwealth to make laws concerning the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. So, let’s replace those words with: ‘The Commonwealth shall make no laws with respect to the race of persons, and it shall be illegal to specify race in any laws or regulations.’
That’s a fairly comprehensive rejection of racism, isn’t it?
Isn’t that what they say they want? An end to all racism in Australia?
Whenever we complain that inserting the Indigenous Voice into the constitution will make the constitution racist they claim it already is – and point to Section 51 (xxvi). Well, if that’s the problem, then that’s the bit that should be changed.
We are often told that law has an ‘educative effect’. When a law is changed it signals to the population that this value (embodied in the law, whatever it may be) matters to our society. So, if racism is the problem, let’s embody a ban on racism in our constitution and send the most powerful signal possible to all Australians that racism is totally unacceptable.
Recently the ACT Human Rights Commission released the results of a survey of more than 2,000 young people (aged up to 24) on the subject of racism. The report says that racism and discrimination are rife. Well, let’s use the ‘educative power’ of a small but significant change to our constitution to say that racism does not belong in Australia.
Of course, a constitutional rejection of racism would change the way the Commonwealth government operates.
For instance, the National Indigenous Australians Agency would have to become the National Isolated Australians Agency. It would have to care for people on the basis of need not race. It would provide welfare and life improvement for people in remote and isolated Australia on the basis of their need, not their race.
And Native Land Councils around Australia would have to become Community Land Councils – representing everyone who lives on their land regardless of race.
In a number of policy areas this change to the constitution to comprehensively banish racism may mean a bit of shake-up.
But such a constitutional change would embody the opposition to racism spelled out by Martin Luther King in his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech on 28 August, 1963 in Washington DC. The proposed amendment to the Australian constitution would capture Dr King’s famous vision: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.’
The change to Section 51 (xxxvi) would make it impossible for the Commonwealth to ever judge anyone ‘by the colour of their skin’. That would bring a steel shutter down on racism once and for all.
The key to getting a majority of states and a majority of citizens to vote in favour of outlawing racism in the constitution would be to make the underlying principle clear – namely, that race does not matter.
This may make the wildly woke purveyors of identity politics curl up in the foetal position and start sucking their thumbs. To them race is all-important. They claim you are defined by your race. How you feel, how you are treated, how you are regarded, is all based on your race. It is, they say, your key defining characteristic.
However, those of us who stand with Martin Luther King get his message – race does not matter. The ‘content of your character’ matters, not ‘the colour of your skin’.
The Australian constitution needs to be changed to reflect how trivial and unimportant race is.
To biologists your race is almost invisible. Science tells us that genetic differences between races occupy a mere seven per cent of human DNA. In other words, people of different races share 93 per cent of their humanity.
The illusion that race matters is the result of an unfortunate coincidence – the skin is the part of the body that is seen by other people. So, the mistake made by racism is to regard skin colour as a central, defining characteristic of a human being. The 7 per cent of difference DNA makes between races is entirely superficial. It changes nothing important. Race is literally skin-deep.
Racism ignores the 93 per cent of shared humanity. The X-ray vision of the molecular geneticist reveals the unity of our species. Race does not matter.
The science of genetics says race is unimportant. Logic and common sense say race is unimportant. So, let’s embody that in the Australian constitution by changing the wording of Section 51 (xxvi) outlawing racism completely and forever.
That will really bring Australians together!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/to-abolish-racism-fix-the-constitution
************************************5 April, 2023
Conservatives fail dismally worldwide and in Australia
Below is the opening salvo of a long and carefully argued article by Greg Sheridan that reaches some dismal conclusions about the future of conservatism.I am not so pessimistic for two reasons:
1). It is impossible to overestimate the Leftist talent for making a mess of things. And we are right in the middle of a huge mess: The cost of living crisis. It is a crisis in most of the Western world and Leftist governments in Australia and the USA are in the middle of it.
So far both those governments have fairly successfully avoided blame for it but as the years roll on with continual price rises, conservatives are going to be saying: "You have had 3 (or 4) years to fix this and you have failed. We need a new broom. So the conservatives will be back in almost regardless of what they say or do.
And Leftist unbridled spending IS the major cause of inflation so conservative fiscal restraint will ameliorate the cost crisis and gain credibility again.
2). Donald Trump may well get back in. And he has vowed to rip Leftist idiocies to shreds. And with a GOP Congress on his coat-tails he may do just that and re-establish conservative ideas as something to be reckoned with.
Whatever the result of the critical Aston by-election, conservative politics is in the midst of crippling, perhaps mortal, crisis within Australia, and around the Western and democratic world.
In Australia, conservatives hold office neither nationally nor in any mainland state or territory. Worse, they seem intellectually and politically exhausted, and don’t look as if they’re on the brink of posing a serious electoral challenge in any jurisdiction. Peter Dutton is a substantial politician but he is miles behind Anthony Albanese. Most Coalition state leaders are anonymous and ineffective.
But they’re in good company internationally. For some version of the same crisis is evident in most democratic nations from North America to Europe. There are a few exceptions but the tide is mostly out for conservatives. Of course, politics mostly runs in cycles. And conservative wisdom will be needed again, eventually.
But today conservative ideas don’t set the agenda. The conservative crisis is part of a larger crisis throughout Western civilisation. In time, the centre-left parties that rule will face their own crisis because without exception they are leading the nations they govern to live way beyond their means. They are also indulging ideological dynamics that are intensely destructive in the long term.
The last great conservative era was the 1980s. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and even Malcolm Fraser all led self-confident conservative governments. The world’s most authoritative moral figure was Pope John Paul II, a theological and social conservative and communism’s worst nightmare.
Compare today. Joe Biden and the Democrats rule in Washington, Albanese and Labor in Australia, Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives are more than 20 per cent behind Labour in Britain, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope, Francis, who, politically if not theologically, is of the global left. Conservative ideas motivate no reform movement, they are no longer the fizz and sparkle of intellectual life.
****************************************
Innocent cop fired by politically correct NT police
He had to be fired to please Aborigines
Zachary Rolfe has been dismissed by the Northern Territory Police Force despite being acquitted of murder over the shooting death of an Aboriginal teenager.
Mr Rolfe shot Warlpiri-Luritja man Kumanjayi Walker dead during a botched arrest in November 2019 at the remote community of Yuendumu, 300 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs.
A statement issued by NT Police on April 4 confirmed Mr Rolfe was sacked 'due to serious breaches of discipline'.
'A 31-year-old male police officer has been dismissed from the Northern Territory Police Force effective 4th April 2023,' the statement read.
'The officer was dismissed under section 78 of the Police Administration Act 1978 due to serious breaches of discipline during their policing career.'
Mr Rolfe, a former constable, was charged with Mr Walker's murder three days after his death on November 9, 2019, but was acquitted in March 2022.
Four NT police officers arrived at Yuendumu to arrest Mr Walker but the 19-year-old resisted, stabbing Mr Rolfe in the shoulder with a pair of surgical scissors.
In response Mr Rolfe's partner Adam Eberl punched Mr Walker in the head, then Mr Rolfe struck the boy in the face, before firing his Glock pistol into Mr Walker's back.
Mr Rolfe shot Mr Walker two more times in the torso. A post-mortem examination would later determine either the second or third shot killed him.
The jury that acquitted Mr Rolfe heard that he acted in good faith, in the reasonable performance of his duties and in the defence of himself and his policing partner in firing his gun after being stabbed.
The ABC reported that Mr Rolfe's dismissal may be linked to his 2,500-word open letter, which was published online in February.
In it Mr Rolfe claimed he would have 'got a medal' for his actions if the incident had occurred in another state.
The letter was critical of police leadership and the continuing coronial inquest into Mr Walker's death.
Meanwhile, Mr Rolfe's father, Robert Rolfe, called out Police Commissioner Jamie Chalker, saying the territory's top cop 'must go'.
Mr Rolfe claimed a 'petty vendetta' led to his son's dismissal. 'We can’t allow Chalker to keep on getting rid of good police officers,' Mr Rolfe told Sky News Australia.
Mr Rolfe sr also claimed 'the government have now lost confidence in Chalker'.
**********************************************************
University cheats on notice after launch of ChatGPT detection software
Australia’s universities will gain access to new technology designed to crack down on cheats using ChatGPT but some top institutions are shunning the software as teachers look to redesign tests to combat the rise of artificial intelligence.
Most universities nationwide will on Wednesday have the option of using popular anti-plagiarism software service Turnitin to detect whether a student has used a chatbot to help write an essay or complete an assessment.
But some of the country’s biggest institutions including the University of Sydney, Monash University and Deakin University have said they will not use the software – at least initially – and are instead ramping up other detection methods to catch students using ChatGPT to write papers.
Academic integrity expert at the University of NSW, Cath Ellis, said there is a “real fear” the detection tool could lead universities to falsely accusing students of using ChatGPT to do their work.
“We could also end up with a massive tidal wave of referrals coming through from academics that we can’t handle, many that could be false accusations,” she said.
“Turnitin are releasing this tool, but the perception among the higher education sector is that the type of testing that has been done hasn’t been effectively communicated.”
James Thorley, regional vice president of Turnitin, claims the company’s new tool can identify if a student has used an AI chatbot in their work with 98 per cent confidence. He said about 780 high schools in Australia used Turnitin and will have access to the new tool.
“Banning ChatGPT isn’t feasible long-term,” said Thorley. “This detector isn’t just about maintaining academic integrity but is also about understanding how AI writing tools are changing the future of assessment,” he said.
However, Benjamin Miller, an English lecturer at Sydney University, said he is opting to redesign assessments for his first year students to deal with chatbots.
“I immediately started thinking about the ethics of using ChatGPT in academic writing, and I was surprised how well it could write and how widespread its use is,” he said.
“I now give students a sample of writing that ChatGPT has created, and they will be tested on how well it analyses and demonstrates critical thinking. They are also tested on how they exceed the capabilities of a chatbot.”
“ChatGPT isn’t great at analysis and evaluation, and often doesn’t connect ideas across paragraphs, so you can often pick up if it’s been used that way.”
A spokesperson for Sydney University said the institution would not be using Turnitin’s new AI detection feature immediately.
“We aim to avoid making major changes to our systems mid-semester, and without adequate testing or visibility, or time to prepare staff,” they said.
‘We could also end up with a massive tidal wave of referrals coming through from academics that we can’t handle, many that could be false accusations.’
Cath Ellis, Academic integrity expert at the University of NSW
The university said it would be reviewing the feature’s capability to see if it would help markers when assessing if a student’s work was original.
The university is also ramping up face-to-face supervision during oral exams and more pen-and-paper assessments.
Monash University has also decided against using Turnitin’s tool “given the technology is in its infancy”.
Deakin University said claims Turnitin’s tool has a 98 per cent accuracy rate in the detection of AI-generated text have not been verified by the institution, and flagged concerns it had been trained using out-of-date AI text generator models.
“Until the university can test its efficacy, Deakin has chosen not to apply the tool in the marking of student assessments,” said Associate Professor Trish McCluskey, Director, Digital Learning.
“This is to protect student data and is in line with the approach adopted by a growing list of global education providers, and we expect many Australian universities will follow our lead.”
However, UNSW said the feature would be available for academics to consider cautiously, but that staff would not be relying on it in any way.
**********************************************
TikTok is to be banned from government devices over security fears. How big is the threat and could it soon be banned for everyone?
The claim is that TikTok is politically biased. But so are all social media. So why pick on TokTok? Because it is Chinese, I suspect. Good old-fashioned racism, in short
For months, governments across the world have rattled their cyber sabres, threatening to cut TikTok off at the knees.
The reach and influence of the popular app, harnessed by everyone from porn stars to politicians, is undeniable, with more than 1 billion monthly users when measured in 2021.
But yesterday, the Albanese government finally swung its own sword, announcing that public servants would soon be banned from having the popular app on their work-issued devices, over fears it could be a secret Chinese tool.
The move made Australia the last nation in the Five Eyes intelligence network — which includes the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand — to forbid officials from using the app, over concerns that it could be used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for political interference.
But while TikTok will soon be wiped from the public service's phones, it raises three key questions for everyday Australian who use TikTok on the train or in front of the TV:
How dangerous is TikTok, really? It depends on who you ask.
There's no doubt that TikTok has become a powerful platform which is being used to directly reach new and younger audiences, who have long been untethered to traditional broadcasting because of age, interest or, more likely, both.
The ban has, predictably, infuriated TikTok which is owned by ByteDance, a multi-billion dollar Chinese internet giant, that fiercely denies it poses any risk to national security.
TikTok's Australian boss, Lee Hunter, said there was no evidence the app was a security risk to Australians.
"We're extremely disappointed with this decision. In our view, this is driven by politics and not by fact," Mr Hunter said.
But Fergus Ryan, a China analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that's not true.
"We've known for years now that TikTok user data is accessible in China, and because of the suite of national security laws that are in place in China, it means that there's effectively no barrier between user data and the Chinese party state," he said.
Mr Ryan said that type of data was incredibly valuable to a foreign government.
He said the greater risk facing Australians was political interference because of the "enormous leverage" that China's government has over ByteDance, due to Beijing's national security laws.
"It would be trivially easy for ByteDance, having been compelled to by the CCP, to either promote or demote certain political messages, and the effect that has is to distort the political discussions that Australians are having on that app," he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-05/tiktok-banned-government-devices-security/102188182
************************************4 April, 2023
Anthony Albanese bans TikTok on government devices
A gross invasion of free speech. Even banning it on government devices only is dubious. The fact that is is Chinese-owned seems to be the problem for the government. Sounds racist to me. Racism and paranoia are often companions. The whiff of racism should help the High Court to reject any widespread such ban on free speech grounds
All government and department issued devices used by politicians and public servants will no longer be able to have the TikTok app installed, however the ban signed off on by the Prime Minister does not apply to use on private devices.
Similar restrictions have already been introduced by Australia’s Five Eyes security partners the US, UK, New Zealand and Canada, as well as the European Parliament.
Security officials have raised concerns the Chinese Government could access data collected by TikTok, who’s parent company ByteDance is based in China.
TikTok general manager Australia and New Zealand, Lee Hunter told News Corp on Monday night the company was “extremely disappointed” by the reported decision, suggesting if confirmed it has been “driven by politics, not by fact”.
“We are also disappointed that TikTok, and the millions of Australians who use it, were left to learn of this decision through the media, despite our repeated offers to engage with government constructively about this policy,” he said.
“Again, we stress that there is no evidence to suggest that TikTok is in any way a security risk to Australians and should not be treated differently to other social media platforms.”
Mr Hunter said TikTok’s millions of Australian users deserved a government which treated all businesses fairly, “regardless of country of origin”.
The US Congress is currently consider a bill that would go even further by banning TikTok and any other platforms with links to foreign governments entirely.
Australia is not currently considering any widespread bans on TikTok.
***********************************************
Capitalising on climate anxiety: what you need to know about 'climate-washing'
People are increasingly making choices about which products to buy and which service providers to use on climate change grounds. With concerns about climate change now affecting most Australians, businesses that promote climate-aligned practices and make emissions-reduction promises have a competitive advantage over those that don’t.
But sometimes these claims fail to live up to reality. Climate-related greenwashing, or “climate-washing”, communicates a message that exaggerates or misrepresents climate credentials through advertising, branding, labelling or reporting.
Examples include where corporate marketing and government campaigns promising “net-zero emissions by 2050” are not backed by a credible plan. Or products are promoted as “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” when they’re not. It also includes where banks and other investors claim to fund a “cleaner future” when this is not completely true, potentially masking climate-related financial risk.
Climate-washing is a problem because the offending businesses capitalise on climate anxiety. It also allows businesses lacking robust credentials to gain customers and market advantage on false pretences. Ultimately, it also hinders rather than helps progress towards emissions reduction goals.
In March, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced a crack-down on climate-washing and greenwashing. This followed an ACCC report revealing claims made by more than half the 247 Australian businesses reviewed in an internet sweep raised concern. The ACCC has said it will now undertake enforcement, compliance and education activities.
On Wednesday the Senate agreed to establish an inquiry into greenwashing by corporations in Australia. The inquiry will investigate the impacts of greenwashing on consumers and the environment and will identify the legal and regulatory actions needed to stop it.
The credibility gap
The imperative to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century has been consistently reinforced by climate science. This includes, most recently, this month’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
One of the upshots has been a deluge of net-zero strategic marketing. Particularly in the case of large climate change contributors – such as fossil fuel companies, airlines and the meat industry – adopting a net-zero narrative switches public perception that the company is part of the solution, rather than the problem.
Climate-washing essentially describes a gap between what’s promised and what’s likely to be achieved. This “credibility gap” can be due to factors such as over-reliance on speculative technology, offsetting, and modelling that’s outdated or hasn’t been properly verified. Although there’s a big global push toward transparency, many entities don’t adequately disclose the data and assumptions behind their promises.
Complaints and court cases
Last week, a group called Flight Free and their lawyers approached the ACCC over Etihad Airways advertising that said, “flying shouldn’t cost the earth” and “net zero emissions by 2050”. The ads were shown prominently at a soccer match in Melbourne last year. Flight Free says the advertising is misleading.
The Etihad complaint follows the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility’s Federal Court proceedings against gas company Santos. Currently afoot, this complaint challenges Santos’ “clean fuel” and “net-zero by 2040” claims.
Earlier this year, corporate watchdog ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investment Commission) initiated proceedings against super fund Mercer for allegedly misleading investors into thinking their investments in a “sustainable” investment option excluded fossil fuels.
Around the world, there’s been a recent rise in climate-washing litigation. Multiple complaints allege that the football association FIFA falsely advertised the Qatar World Cup as “fully carbon neutral.”
In aviation, there’s a pending court case against KLM targeting its “fly responsibly” campaign, and there’s also been a successful challenge to RyanAir’s low-carbon campaign.
Product complaints have ranged from allegedly climate-neutral bin liners, to “climate-controlled pork” in Denmark, and “climate-neutral croquettes” in Germany.
How is climate-washing regulated?
Climate-washing is a form of misleading and deceptive conduct, which is regulated in Australia under federal competition and consumer law.
Climate-washing that relates to financial products and services is regulated under securities and investments law.
Both the ACCC and ASIC monitor climate-washing.
Globally, concerns over climate-washing have led to action by the United Nations. A High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities was formed last year to target climate-washing. The group has a “zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing” mantra, and delivered a report at November’s Climate Change COP in Egypt, which contains a “how-to” guide for credible, accountable net-zero pledges.
*************************************************
Have we militarised medicine?
Julie Sladden
‘In the absence of information, we make up stories.’ These words remind me we need truthful, unhindered, and accurate information to build understanding. The way to get information is to ask questions. And the way to get good information is to ask good questions.
Plenty of questions have been raised over the past three years, even with all the censorship. But things have taken off in recent weeks with ‘corker’ questions being asked in the US Government, the UK Parliament, and even our Australian Senate.
It’s made for some popcorn-worthy viewing.
Questions… Over the Covid era I’ve had plenty of them. Some answered, but most are not.
Questions like:
Why did our governments propagate so much fear during the pandemic?
Why wasn’t there any effort dedicated to exploring early treatment options?
Why were possible early treatment therapeutics banned from use in Australia despite widespread use overseas?
Why did AHPRA feel the need to tell medical professionals to effectively ‘fall in line’ with the vaccine rollout?
Why were healthy populations forced to vaccinate, or lose their jobs, access to education, or essential services?
Why does the provisional approval of the Covid so-called ‘vaccines’ continue despite data clearly showing alarming rates of significant adverse events? Rates that have seen previous vaccines suspended.
Why?!!!
Thankfully, I’m not the only one asking questions.
Renowned US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, has been asking questions and has not stopped since the pandemic began. For the past three years McCullough, and doctors like him, have dedicated their lives to researching, treating and ultimately saving the lives of Covid patients around the globe.
I had the opportunity to ask Dr McCullough a few of my questions on his recent visit to Australia. He started with an interesting comparison between Australia and Texas.
‘Texas has 29 million people, Australia, 26 million people. Texas has great cities, like Australia has great cities. It’s the same virus, we’re largely the same people… Texas and Australia would be a fair comparison.
‘Our hospital made its own decisions about the closure of operating rooms and catheterisation laboratories and when to reopen them. Quickly, in Texas, many different doctors and clinics began to learn how to treat the illness. And that took a lot of anxiety away from people and they felt like there was a way in which the problem could be managed and avoid hospitalisation and death. That was really the critical feature.’
He added:
‘Texas was not perfect. We certainly had hospitalisations and deaths. But we had strong advocates. We had a senator, from the very beginning, who reached out to many of us – Senator Bob Hall. And he said: “I want to know what’s going on. I want to have town halls. I want the doctors to get on calls and tell me what’s going on in your ERs in your health systems. Are you learning how to treat it? Are there innovations?”’
In Australia, it was a different story. The ‘top-down’ flow of information involved very little consultation from coal-face doctors who were faced with managing the disease. As Australian doctors watched the pandemic unfold around the world, we had the advantage of learning from doctors abroad who were gaining extensive experience in early treatment. It wasn’t all sunshine and roses. Watching McCullough testify to the Texas Senate Committee in late 2020, his frustration at the lack of focus on treatments for patients with Covid was clear. Undeterred he, and others like him ,including Dr Pierre Kory who joined McCullough on his visit to Australia, have been instrumental in providing information to the world about how to treat the infection. Their protocols included drugs like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and repurposed drugs known for their pharmaceutical abilities to address various stages of the disease.
Meanwhile, Australia banned hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of Covid on March 2020. March! Ivermectin followed later in September 2021, curiously around the time many mandates came into effect as people were funnelled down the ‘vaccine or bust’ route.
Why?!!!
‘I have the same question,’ mused McCullough, who says hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are currently used as first-line treatment in two dozen countries around the world.
I asked McCullough what his thoughts were on the role of medical boards and medical regulation.
‘You’re referring to AHPRA,’ McCullough deduces. ‘The role of that body, in my view, is clinical competence. And then, being sure that the doctor or the professional is free of major behavioural issues, drug abuse, etc. That’s their role. That is the role. Prior to Covid, they had no special stake in any disease… The aberration was Covid. And we saw, both in the United States and Australia, these bodies take a particular interest in Covid. That they were going to determine what can be said and what couldn’t be said they weren’t going to determine what drugs could be used and not used. This is the first time in medicine that these bodies took on this very unusual aberrant behaviour.’
Aberrant is one word for it.
We explored the other ‘aberrant’ behaviours of the pandemic response along with The Spectator Australia’s Alexandra Marshall and historian John Leake. Leake co-authored Courage to face Covid-19 with McCullough. Soon we arrived at one of my biggest ‘why’ questions: why had we been funnelled down a ‘vaccine or bust’ path?
One word: countermeasures.
Countermeasures are devices and strategies used to eliminate an attack by an enemy force.
I first heard this term back in December 2022 thanks to the work of Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova, who researched the legislative framework that enabled the ‘warp speed’ response to the virus. A framework that had its foundations laid decades ago. Indeed, it’s the only explanation I’ve heard that helps make sense of the ‘aberrant’ behaviours we’ve witnessed over the past 3 years.
‘The military has biological threat programs. There’s one for smallpox, monkeypox, there’s one for anthrax,’ explains McCullough in a recent presentation. ‘The military came up with the idea of messenger RNA vaccines, not Pfizer or Moderna, and NOT operation warp speed.’
Turns out the military has been playing with mRNA vaccines for over a decade. And the combination of three legislative items – Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), Other Transaction Authority (OTA), and the PREP Act – enabled what many suspect could be the origins of the first worldwide military operation in medicine. The EUA gets rid of the FDA ‘safety and efficacy’ regulations under EUA so the FDA has no oversight; the OTA enables the Department of Defence to order undisclosed ‘military prototypes’ from pharma; and the PREP Act, which enables the plan to be rolled out.
‘A military program was announced by Health and Human Services … and the Department of Defence, who ushered us into this vaccine era,’ continues McCullough. ‘The military emergency use authorisation is a mechanism to get rapid new technology into the military. It’s not a mechanism for the public. Its first application broadly to the public was the Covid pandemic. That’s the reason why the FDA doesn’t seem like they have any ownership over this. They can’t seem to respond to it. Because it’s a military program. This has a military origin to it. And the program is executed like a military program. No one will be spared. There are no exceptions.’
Think about it. If a virus emerged (from a US-funded lab, no less) and was interpreted as an act of ‘bioterrorism,’ what would a response to that look like?
Would it look like a single-minded, fear-fuelled, authoritarian-style military operation to get every man, woman and child ‘countermeasured’?
It might just look like that.
I have more questions.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/have-we-militarised-medicine/
************************************’Stupid American trucks’: Aussies erupt as hated US trend takes over
I am surprised that vehicles larger than our parking spaces are allowed
Backlash is mounting as the trend of monster US-style pick-up trucks continues to take over Australia, infuriating countless locals and causing havoc by taking up multiple parking spaces per vehicle.
In recent years, sales of American “pick-up trucks” have been booming Down Under, with figures proving the US vehicles – like the RAM 1500 and Chevrolet’s Silverado – are exploding in popularity.
In 2021, General Motors Specialty Vehicles (GMSV) reported 2118 Chevrolet Silverado sales, and late last year, the 5000th locally-remanufactured vehicle came off the assembly line in Victoria.
And RAM Trucks revealed in October 2022 that 604 units had been sold in September – up 45 per cent on 2021 year to date, with a total of 17,115 RAMs sold to Australian customers since production began.
This surge in demand has seen other car giants sit up and take notice, with one of America’s best-selling vehicles – the Ford F-150 pick-up – on its way to Australian shores this year, followed by the expected arrival of the Toyota Tundra in late 2023 or early 2024.
Like the popular RAM 1500 and Chevrolet Silverado, the F-150 will also be imported as a left-hand-drive model, and then converted to right-hand-drive locally, with that relatively new conversion capability emerging as one of the major forces driving the surge.
But while more local motorists are embracing the trend than ever before, others are hitting back.
Reddit has been flooded with complaints about the trend recently, with many sharing photos of obnoxiously-parked utes.
In one recent example, a pick up was photographed taking up four spaces at a Jaycar carpark, with the person who snapped the photo slamming the “stupid American trucks”.
Countless commentators responded by arguing that they were “not a tradie vehicle” and that there was little practical use for trucks that size Down Under.
“Not a tradie vehicle. Probs an upper manager of some building group who has never touched a tool other than his own,” one frustrated Australian wrote.
“Not even an upper manager. Can be some eshay kid of cashed-up bogans,” another responded.
“Guy near me has one, I can sure tell you he’s not a tradie. These things seem to be the domain of construction site managers and insecure white collar workers,” another one wrote, with another adding: “And Boomers towing a 200k caravan.”
“I’ll be honest, 99 per cent of tradies I work with f***ing hate these things. It’s usually some 60-year-old grey nomad that thinks his 900kg Jayco popup needs a vehicle that barely fits in an Australian lane to pull it,” another said.
The vehicles have become so ubiquitous they’ve even been given an Aussie nickname – the “emotional support vehicle”, or ESV – mockingly implying owners of these cars only buy them to compensate for their own shortcomings.
A variety of other creatively insulting nicknames have also been termed, including “Seppo” (short for septic tank, which rhymes with Yank), “Yank tanks” and “freedumb trucks”, as well as a string of others that are too crude to publish.
“These ESVs make me irrationally angry. I can’t fathom the type of t*rd who buys these,” another furious Australian wrote.
“They’re not better at anything than more reasonable tradie cars. They’re totally impractical. They stick the middle finger up at the planet. I hate them so much.”
In another example, an ESV was also snapped taking up multiple car spaces in an indoor car park, attracting similar ire.
“ … this isn’t about utility, it’s just being about saying a big agressive f**k you to everyone else,” one person wrote, with another pointing out that these vehicles were “bigger than the Australian Standard parking spaces which were designed to accommodate the largest 4WDs or a small van from approximately 2004”.
“Fun fact: It has a smaller load capacity than a 2WD HiLux Workmate … I don’t understand how these types of trucks are so popular when they’re so woefully incapable,” another posted.
“Carrying capacity sucks, towing capacity sucks, handling sucks, braking sucks, off-road ability sucks, fuel economy seems like they’re actively competing for the worst numbers … and yet they’re still insanely expensive and people are falling over themselves to buy them.”
And in yet another example, another of these vehicles was photographed taking up three car bays outside a BatteryWorld outlet, with a Redditor posting it was likely “used to carry fragile egos”.
Meanwhile, many Australians have suggested printing off insulting stickers and slapping them on the vehicles when they are spotted taking up multiple car parks.
Alex Jeffs, automotive expert at comparison site Finder, recently told news.com.au that there were several reason for the popularity of these vehicles, including Australia’s historic passion for utes.
“Covid for instance saw the rise of the staycation. With more people buying caravans, many of these large trucks have much larger towing capacities than your standard ute,” he said.
“The popular RAM 1500 can tow 4.5 tonnes compared to the Toyota HiLux, which is one of Australia’s favourites and good for 3.5 tonnes.
“You also see a lot of them kitted out with toolboxes and the like in the back and as some of these large trucks are being used for work purposes, there are tax incentives that make them appealing to businesses.”
************************************************
3 April, 2023
Nurses, midwives at call for 24/7 onsite security after violence, threats in regional SA hospitals
The area has an extensive Aboriginal population and there is no doubt that is the principal problem. The Left never stop stirring up trouble among Aborigines. The "Voice" controversy is just one example. As a result, many Aborgines are angry and take it out on nearby whites
Staff are being spat at, kicked and threatened with violence at a regional South Australian hospital and urgent action is needed, the state's nursing union says.
The Riverland General Hospital is one of the few remaining large regional hospitals in SA without 24/7 onsite security.
Hundreds of signatures have been added to a petition calling for round-the-clock, restraint-trained security staff to be stationed at the hospital.
Calls for more security measures to protect healthcare workers in regional areas have been ongoing since the death of outback nurse Gayle Woodford in 2016.
Ms Woodford, 56, was raped and beaten to death while working on-call alone in the remote APY Lands community of Fregon.
The inquest into her death found the lack of security made Ms Woodford vulnerable to and exposed to patient violence.
There has since been a continuous stream of reported violence toward on-call regional healthcare staff, including areas such as Port Lincoln and Mount Gambier.
Kicked, punched and spat at
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) SA branch chief officer Elizabeth Dabars visited the Riverland General Hospital and said staff shared firsthand reports of violent incidents in the workplace.
"We know the nursing staff and midwives here have been suffering for a long time now," she said.
"It's been devastating to hear their stories, [about] the violence and trauma they have been dealing with.
"People [being] kicked, punched, spat at and threatened — their lives have been threatened by patients … windows have been smashed and objects hurled."
Ms Dabars said it was completely unacceptable behaviour and needed urgent action from the local health network.
"The risk isn't only to physical health, but it takes an extreme toll on mental health as well," she said.
Ms Dabars said the nurses and midwives just wanted to be able to do their jobs.
"[They want to focus] on giving good care," she said.
"But at the moment, they're being forced to look over their shoulder, every minute of every day and it really it isn't fair to them, or the patients and visitors either."
The union is also calling for round-the-clock, restraint-trained security staff at hospitals at Wallaroo and Murray Bridge.
******************************************************
The real reason Anthony Albanese is refusing to answer questions about the Voice Australians WANT answered - and why his tactic could backfire
It's one of the big questions on everyone's lips about the Voice to Parliament - why are there so many questions Anthony Albanese is determined not to answer?
Since rolling out the wording of the question that will be asked of all Australians in the referendum later this year, the PM has appeared intent on not getting bogged down in the nitty-gritty of the Voice.
In fact, he has been downright snappy when pesky journalists or political opponents have asked for specifics of the proposed indigenous advisory body.
While more than happy to talk about the big picture imperative, the need for the Voice to 'address the injustices of the past' and 'move Australia forward', Mr Albanese has been far less willing to go into detail about its exact power and authority.
Critics have expressed concerns that there has been little clarity from the PM, who frequently appears fed up and bristly over the nature of the questions he's asked.
In the past week he's swatted away questions about whether the Voice could provide an input on climate, defence or foreign affairs matters and slammed anyone questioning his pet project as 'disingenuous'.
Political commentator and professor of politics and public policy, Peter van Onselen, told Daily Mail Australia the PM appears to be relying on community goodwill and his own popularity to gain support for the Voice.
'He's in a bind because not answering questions makes it look like he's concerned about providing details... but I think he knows that if he answers these questions, it only raises more questions and possibly more concerns,' he said.
'He's hoping to carry the Voice on his personal popularity and community goodwill toward Indigenous Australians rather than because people are relaxed and comfortable about the contents of the policy.'
The questions Mr Albanese was not impressed to be asked about The Voice
1. Will the Voice have a say on climate matters
2. Will the Voice have sway on interest rates and the economy
3. Will the government release legal advice from the solicitor general on the Voice
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described questions like the above as 'disingenuous
Here, Daily Mail Australia looks at some of the key questions about the Voice so far, and how the government has tackled them:
What kind of advice can the Voice provide the Parliament and Government?
The Voice will advise on matters that directly relate to Indigenous people.
It will respond to requests made by the government, while also having the power to engage proactively on matters that they believe impact them.
The group will have its own resources to research matters and engage with communities at a grassroots level to ensure it is best reflecting their needs.
How will members of the Voice be chosen?
Members of the Voice will be appointed by Indigenous communities and will serve on the committee for a fixed period of time, yet to be determined.
The way the communities choose their representatives will be agreed upon by the local communities in tandem with the government as part of a 'post referendum process' to ensure cultural legitimacy.
Who can become a member of the committee?
Members of the Voice must be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
They will be chosen from across each state and territory and have balanced gender representation nationally.
The government has also guaranteed that young people will be included in the committee to ensure representation across the broad scope of the community.
Will the Voice be transparent?
The government states the Voice will be subject to scrutiny and reporting requirements to ensure it is held accountable and remains transparent.
Voice members will be held to standards of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and will be sanctioned or removed from the committee if there are any findings of misconduct.
Will the Voice have veto power?
No.
Will the Voice work independently of other government bodies?
The committee must respect the work and role of existing organisations, the government says.
Will the Voice handle any funds?
The Voice will not directly manage any money or deliver any services to the community.
Its sole role will be in making representations about improving existing government programs and services, and advising on new ideas coming through the parties.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11909817/Why-PM-going-way-not-answer-questions-Voice.html
******************************************************Human rights advocates and bills of rights did nothing to stop goverment abuses during the pandemic
Former UK Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption argued from near the start of the Covid pandemic that what democratic governments were doing to their citizens in the way of lockdowns, mandates, closing businesses, restricting travel and visiting sick relatives, weaponising the police – the list goes on and on – constituted the greatest infringements on civil liberties in the West in the last 300 years. I mention that because from March 2020 I was on the record in this newspaper, in The Spectator Australia and in outlets around the world, arguing precisely the same thing. Now readers can agree or disagree. Likewise, readers might think the costs were worth it for the benefits (though I think not, not with the data out now, including Sweden having the OECD’s lowest cumulative excess deaths from the start of the pandemic to now while we in Australia are currently running at 15-17 per cent excess deaths).
But one thing that is beyond debate is that the self-styled human rights lobby said not a peep about this government heavy-handedness. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Not the usual lawyerly caste that finds rights-infringements everywhere, many of microscopic proportions. Nor any of the eight members of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) who made not a single condemnatory comment about Dan Andrews’ authoritarianism, about former Prime Minister Morrison’s preventing citizens from leaving their own country, about any of the myriad intrusions into our civil liberties over two years. And for what it’s worth all eight, the President and the seven Commissioners, were appointed by the Coalition – even the so-called Freedom Commissioner. All of them.
I start this article with that background because the AHRC has recently decided to wade yet again into the bill of rights debate in this country. (Did I mention that all eight were appointed by a political party that claims to be overtly against a bill of rights?) Actually, ask around and you learn that the seven Commissioners and President are not unanimous on this initiative. It is mostly being pushed by President Rosalind Coucher. It recycles all the tired and wrong-headed old arguments in favour of handing power via a bill of rights to unelected judges over our elected Parliamentarians; all of them churned out back when Labor was last in power under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Buy a bill of rights, statutory as well as constitutionalised, and all you are buying is the druthers and policy-preferences of the lawyerly caste from which the judges are chosen. This model even moots social and economic rights. The proposal is as bad as you’d expect under Rudd and Gillard, though possibly your expectations of what AHRC Commissioners appointed by a Liberal/Coalition government might desire would be different from this. (Remember Douglas Murray’s criticism of all anglosphere conservative political parties, that they are congenitally unable to appoint anyone who shares the views of their core voters to anything.)
But here is where it gets galling to the point of rank hypocrisy. In the position paper announcing this initiative and its launch at the law firm Gilbert and Tobin (where else I muse?) the Commission (or perhaps just the President of the AHRC) had the gall to suggest a bill of rights might have helped protect civil liberties during the pandemic. Are you kidding me? First off, look at all anglosphere countries with potent and even constitutionalised bills of rights – so Canada, America, and Britain (with a strong statutory model). There is not one single example anywhere of a bill of rights being used by the judges to lessen or eliminate any of the myriad governmental pandemic inroads on civil liberties. Not one example anywhere! To suggest that a bill of rights would have helped flies directly in the face of what is known in the philosophy of science as ‘the facts’. (There are a few examples in the US of state courts using old-fashioned administrative law principles to say that some executive actions taken during the pandemic were ultra vires or beyond the power of the conferring statute.) That line of attack has a chance because it leaves the elected Parliament with the option of passing a new, more delegatory statute. But in times of panic (especially when the judges are panicking at least as much as anyone else) it is folly to think a bill of rights will help. I repeatedly doled out that advice throughout the pandemic to those against lockdowns who thought a trip to court would be a magic bullet and help. It didn’t in any jurisdiction with a bill of rights.
So this suggestion by the AHRC is as audacious as it is wrong on the facts – ‘during the Covid pandemic, there was a lack of clarity about rights of Australians and how to balance them with public safety measures. A Human Rights Act would have helped navigate those challenges’. No, it would not have helped. What would have helped was an AHRC President who could summon up the courage to speak up about the many inroads on our civil liberties in the way Lord Sumption did in Britain. But instead of the slightest criticism of the police thuggery in Victoria, of the idiocy and heartlessness of many of the pandemic rules, of anything or anyone, we get this after-the-fact attempt at redemption. The problem is that a bill of rights would not have helped (again, see every democratic country on Earth) and meantime it brings it with a massive empowerment of the judiciary and of the lawyerly caste.
This is hypocrisy on steroids I’m afraid. And it’s combined with the tired old prescription of a bill of rights so beloved by the lawyerly left of the Labor Party.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/hypocrisy-on-steroids/ ?
************************************************
Climate wars rekindled
So, apparently the climate wars aren’t over quite yet. Thank goodness for that! That’s not us rekindling the battle, by the way, it’s the Greens’ ‘Treasury spokesman’ federal Senator Nick McKim who has discovered a new term of abuse: ‘ecocidal’ to describe opponents of net zero. Definitely a word for Kel Richards to strip bare, but obviously a contrived new term designed to imply somebody is guilty of genocide if they don’t subscribe to the climate cult’s nihilistic net-zero agenda.
This is good news. As far as we are concerned, the climate wars are desperately needed: an ongoing battle for common sense, reason, proportionality and above all science – real science, as opposed to ‘The Science’ aka left-wing political propaganda of the sort which caused so much unnecessary suffering (and death) during Covid.
Put simply, it has never been shown that human beings have any ability whatsoever to influence let alone to ameliorate or reverse global climate trends and patterns. The precautionary principle suggests that if the theory of anthropogenic global warming is valid, then heavily industrialised nations should do what they can to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, but – and this is critical – to do so in a way that does not cause equal or more harm in other areas. This is where ongoing proper cost-benefit analyses are required to influence genuine political debate and corporate decision-making, but they are entirely absent. For example, what is the cost to the working poor if energy prices rise versus what is the actual benefit to the planet for that sacrifice? What is the cost to Third World countries when they don’t have access to cheap electricity versus what is the benefit to them of a potential and purely academic ‘modelled’ reduction in global temperatures? Or on an even more immediate topic: what is the genuine cost in terms of carbon emissions output involved in the manufacturing of an entire global fleet of electric vehicles, batteries and the infrastructure needed to power them versus the cost of simply carrying on with business as usual? What is the cost to entire societies of reducing the nitrogen in their soil versus the measurable benefit to the planet? What is the military and security cost of achieving net zero versus the hypothetical environmental benefit?
That’s if the AGW theory is valid. This week, in Kiwi Life, Amy Brooke analyses the claims of the climate catastrophists and concludes: just follow the money. David van Gend, meanwhile applies not only his clinical but his satirical skills to offer a diagnosis of Mother Earth herself.
Despite the relentless propagandising across virtually all media and from the major political parties here in Australia the simple fact remains: none of the doomsday predictions going back some three or four decades has come true. Not one. Indeed, weather patterns have often done the complete opposite of what was so stubbornly predicted. Much like the now-exposed fraudulent modelling on Covid, climate modelling is self-evidently deeply flawed as a ‘science’. A gypsy queen with a crystal ball in a Louisiana fairground probably has a better track record at peering into the future than Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Greta Thunberg, King Charles, Klaus Schwab and all the rest of them put together.
With wall-to-wall Labor governments across mainland Australia, we are now entering an extremely dangerous period in our history. The ideologues and the dreamers are now in charge. Sadly, due to the cowardice of the Liberal party under former prime minister Scott Morrison, the opposition has twice the task in front of it than it had during the Rudd-Gillard years when Tony Abbott was able to use climate madness as a cudgel against the Left.
Peter Dutton now faces a formidable task. He has to wage war first against the bedwetters within the Liberal party, the likes of Simon Birmingham, Andrew Bragg and Matt Kean – he who wreaked such destruction on the Liberal brand at the weekend. Then he has to convince his colleagues to either abandon net zero or abandon the nuclear moratorium. And then he will need to launch a comprehensive political campaign to explain to the average Aussie just what this prosperity-destroying concept really entails and what a world of energy poverty means for our children and grandchildren. And he has to do it all within the next eighteen months
Can he? Make sure you read James Allan and Judith Sloan this week..
The Labor victory in NSW at the weekend probably helps. Now, Labor has no excuses. They can implement all their lunatic policies and reap the whirlwind. Sadly, we will all be collateral damage but public sentiment will shift very rapidly once the net-zero agenda starts to bite and the Liberals need to be fully prepared to take advantage of that shift. As Mark Higgie points out, many Europeans are already turning against the craziness of electric vehicles. As winter approaches, how many Aussies will struggle to pay their energy bills? One study in Britain revealed a staggering number of households forced to sit in the dark without heating during the long winter months. This is what awaits Australians as our zealous Labor governments hurtle down the same path.
It is now up to the Liberals and Peter Dutton to re-engage in the climate wars. It’s a fight that can and must be won. We’re certainly up for it!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/climate-wars-rekindled/
********************************************Not such a terrible result in NSW after all
Labor did NOT get a majority and the swing against a long-incumbent government was normal. So no big lessons to learn from it.
The newly-elected NSW Labor government will not secure a majority in parliament, with counting in three close seats pushing two into Liberal territory.
A week after the state election, the close contests of Terrigal and Holsworthy were called for the Liberal Party on Saturday, ending all hopes the government could secure the 47 seats in needed.
The Central Coast electorate went the way of incumbent Adam Crouch shortly after lunchtime, by ABC Election Analyst Antony Green’s reckoning.
“The Liberal Party’s Adam Crouch will retain Terrigal,” he said. “Widens lead today after a very strong result on postal votes.”
Soon after, Mr Green called the southwestern Sydney seat of Holsworthy for new Liberal Tina Ayyad.
“Having gone backwards and forwards over the figures, I can’t see how Labor closes the gap,” he said. “Tina Ayyad is the new Liberal member for Holsworthy.”
The results come after a number of other close seats including Goulburn, Pittwater, Miranda and Oatley were retained by the Liberal Party throughout the week, despite swings to Labor.
It leaves Ryde the only outstanding electorate, where Liberal candidate Jordan Lane took the lead over Labor’s Lyndal Howison by 232 votes.
Ms Howison had been holding a slim majority of just over 200 throughout the week.
If she can win, the government will have 46 seats or one short of a majority.
************************************
2 April, 2023
A symphony of disgust
Mark Latham was called "disgusting" by a homosexual man. In reply to the insult Latham described a homosexual act and called such acts "disgusting". But the disgust did not end there. Latham has been called disgusting by all and sundry for describing what male homosexuals do.
A rather overlooked point however is what the condemnation of Latham implies. What he described was called disgusting. That surely implies that homosexual acts are disgusting. Many would agree with that. But their condemnation of Latham surely implies that his critics too regard homosexual acts as disgusting. Did they really mean to let that cat out of the bag?
One Nation's Mark Latham under fire for homophobic tweet.
Mark Latham's second controversy over LGBT issues in as many weeks has caused a split in One Nation, with federal senator Pauline Hanson admonishing his remarks as "disgusting".
Mr Latham, the One Nation leader in NSW, posted and deleted a graphic and homophobic tweet, directed at comments by Independent MP Alex Greenwich, on Thursday.
It has sparked widespread condemnation, including from within his party, and comes just 10 days after queer activists were allegedly bashed outside one of his pre-election speeches.
Ms Hanson, the federal senator and One Nation leader, said Mr Latham was not returning her calls last night.
"I want you to know that I don't condone them [the comments], and neither do my members of parliament or party associates," Ms Hanson said in a video statement.
"I think they are disgusting.
"I have actually tried to ring Mark a couple of times, to no avail … and also I've asked him to give the people an apology."
Mr Greenwich said he was not expecting an apology and that he planned not to engage with the matter further.
"We know that some people seek to target the LGBTQ community to get attention, I don't intend to help them with that," he said.
"When you're in public office, and public life, as an openly, proud gay man, you're going to get targeted.
"But I focus more on the majority of people across the state who love, support and celebrate the LGBTQ community."
He later posted a tweet of his own, showing a picture of him with husband Victor Hoeld.
"For those wondering how I'm doing after Latham's homophobic attacks today, I'm fine and I'm more motivated than ever to deliver long overdue LGBTIQA+ reforms … and I have the most handsome husband."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-31/mark-latham-tweet-lgbt-reaction/102166816
*********************************************The unsafe Safeguard Mechanism
And so, the Greens have joined the ALP in imposing additional carbon taxes on the top 215 greenhouse gas emitting firms. In passing the so-called Safeguard Mechanism, the voluntary program that the Coalition originally introduced is converted into a requirement on the nation’s top mining and industrial firms to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. Those emissions are said to be 137 million tonnes a year. Their curtailment builds up to constitute 40 million tonnes a year. This is in addition to abatement measures already in place, which confer a subsidy on wind and solar, that has enabled those energy sources to displace a quarter of the supply formerly provided by coal.
One way to meet the new reductions is by internal measures (for some firms, like AGL, this simply means closing down generation facilities). Alternatively, the targeted firms can supply or buy emission reduction certificates under one of the schemes managed by the Clean Energy Regulator and state governments.
The Commonwealth schemes create large-scale generation certificates (LGCs) and small-scale generation certificates (STCs) by requiring electricity retailers to include increasing shares of wind/solar energy in their supply mix. The certificates only have a value because governments have placed (hidden) regulatory obligations on consumers to buy them. Unlike goods offered in normal markets, the certificates have no intrinsic worth but confer a value of $40-90 per MWh on the renewable supplies. That is more than the total average market price of electricity that prevailed before the subsidies themselves undermined the economics of supply from coal generation.
Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, drawing off faulty CSIRO analysis and the pressures of the renewables lobby, maintain that renewables are already the cheapest form of energy. That belief is largely behind their concoction of a $275 per annum reduction in household energy prices that they claimed their ambitious renewable replacement policy would bring.
The irony of all this – and one the ALP and their media supporters missed – is that if renewables really were cheaper the subsidy these schemes confer on them and the penalties they impose on coal and gas would be an unnecessary cost.
The previous government introduced a further scheme, which was funded from the budget, that created Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) that confer a value on selected activities. The ACCUs, like generation certificates, subsidise high-cost measures thereby increasing the cost of living. Eligible activities include carbon capture and storage, converting farmland to bush, and capture of waste gas. The ACCUs have provided a cheaper means of meeting obligations but Greens in Australia and elsewhere have (correctly) come to view them as con jobs that are easily manipulated and provide no real emission reduction. Hence, as part of the deal to pass the Safeguard Mechanism, their use is to be sharply curtailed. Naturally, farmers and carbon capture subsidy seekers are spitting chips at their loss of taxpayer largesse.
The creation of new LGCs is the most likely alternative to shutting down facilities and moving production offshore (which, of course, brings no consequent reduction in emissions!). These will come at a likely price of around $80 per tonne (roughly $80 per MWh). The cost of the 40 million additional tonnes the 215 targeted facilities are to abate annually by 2030 would therefore be some $320 million a year. As this would largely be imposed on the internationally tradable sector it will, of itself, severely dent the nation’s competitiveness and income levels.
But the Greens boast that, through the concessions they have won in acceding to the government’s measures, they will create additional damage. Some of this is due to the restriction on the use of the cheaper ACCU means of firms buying out their new liabilities under the Safeguard Mechanism. In addition, they claim that the government will be obliged to restrain all new or expanded coal and gas proposals.
The measures certainly introduce new machinery that intensifies the government’s oversight and approval of new proposals. That is a real bonus for a government seeking to ensure support from major producers and to constrain their criticism. It also promises considerable new outlets for lobbyists in their roles of not-so-hidden persuaders and in confecting plans that get promising new proposals over the regulatory hurdles.
These outcomes constitute an Antipodean form of fascism. As a vehicle for greater economic control, the present government finds this irresistible but it will bog down the economy in the tentacles of political corruption and new layers of costs.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/the-unsafe-safeguard-mechanism
************************************************Conservative Australians should be very angry
John Howard was a conservative. He won, again and again and again. Tony Abbott was a conservative. He won a landslide. Scott Morrison dressed himself up as a conservative and won his first election before shedding his conservative clothes and lost his second one. Turnbull, the luvvies’ preferred Prime Minister, only survived by the skin of his teeth and lost Abbott’s huge majority.
Virtually every state election across the nation in the last decade has seen Woke Liberal parties getting thrashed. Dominic Perrottet is just another in the long list of non-conservative conservatives. Can we please stop this errant nonsense that the Liberal party needs to become more like its opponents in order to win?
What Liberals actually need to do is to start fighting for the freedoms and values at all levels of our daily lives that are being daily tossed onto a Labor and the Greens bonfire of virtues and vanities.
Leftist parties will always win on emotional issues and utopian fantasies. The job is much harder for conservatives. Conservatives must argue from sound principles grounded in hard-earned experience and sell concepts that are anathema to the laptop class – concepts such as thrift, hard work, sacrifice, the Protestant work ethic, dedication, individual freedoms, resilience, and above all equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
Conservative values, by recognising the weaknesses of human behaviour as well as the strengths, are grounded in reality. Leftist values, grounded in fantasies, lies, and fabrications, are easy to sell but impossible to deliver. Only a strong, single-minded conservative convictions-based leader can ever point this out.
(A classic example: in the Sky News Australia debate, despite performing well, Dominic Perrottet allowed his opponent to repeatedly trash ‘privatisation’, without once pointing out that the only alternative to a market based on the notion of profit is socialism, which always leads to more inequality, not less. How can Liberals ever hope to succeed if they refuse to defend and more importantly explain even the most basic economic free market principles?)
Traditional Australians should be very angry with the Liberals. The factional warlords have squandered the genuine faith mainstream Australians put in the Liberals to be the party to protect them from the ravages of the Left. Instead, they have time after time simply pandered to them. Name a cultural issue, and you’ll find the Liberals have simply vacated the field.
(Another example: after correctly resisting Labor’s calls to stick the Aboriginal flag on top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge – a hugely important symbolic victory to the Indigenous activist class of ceding sovereignty – Mr Perrottet, as Premier, turned around and did exactly that before compounding the error by supporting the Voice. Or another: Kean and Morrison capitulated to the climate cult and were lauded by the activist classes, but not only went on to lose the next election but in one fell swoop destroyed their most powerful weapon the Liberals once had against the Left.)
Only Peter Dutton can save the day. Only Peter Dutton can return the Liberals to power within the next three years. But to do so he must fight with every sinew in his being. He must expose the vile agenda behind the extremist trans movement. He must oppose the Voice without further ado. He must insist on the removal of the nuclear moratorium. He must abandon Net Zero. He must rescue our children from the permissiveness of the more extreme parts of the LGBTQ+ activist agenda within our schools. He must fight for small business in the face of Labor’s hard-left industrial relations regime and the unions. He must denounce Labor’s fantasies about EVs and green hydrogen for the snake oil that they are.
No more excuses. No more flirting with the Teal agenda to try and pacify the doctors’ wives. No more selling out conservatives in the name of the supposed ‘broad church’. No more putting ‘moderates’ into key economic or political positions.
Fighters win fights and only fighters win the future. Cowards and appeasers are destined for the dustbin of history. Take a look around you, Liberal Australia. Wall-to-wall Labor. Wokeness means weakness. You have betrayed the people who put so much faith in you. Conservatives want a party they can believe in.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/conservative-australians-should-be-very-angry/
************************************************Blame politicians, not teachers
Our political elite are to blame for our educational malaise, not our educators…
At the start of another academic year, a quick survey of the educational scene is in order. Unsurprisingly, as anyone who’s taken even a cursory glance at our schools will note, the results are grim. Along with our slide down the PISA scales, there are plans to reform NAPLAN, install tutors in classrooms, and abolish the ATAR. All of this occurs alongside the sobering realisation that for all our increases in technology and funding, little has been achieved in tangible results.
In fact, we’ve gone backwards. As the latest PISA results show, over the last two decades Australia has slipped from being a top-ten performer to a country that fails to ‘exceed the OECD average in one of the assessment domains’. We’ve dropped ‘from fourth to 16th in reading, eighth to 17th in science and 11th to 29th in maths’. Even the commercial media are talking about a ‘crisis in education’.
Who’s to blame then? That’s easy: teachers. Across the political divide, there has been a unanimous answer to our educational malaise: we lack quality teachers. As piece after piece after piece has pointed out, improving teacher quality is the easiest way to lift educational outcomes and productivity.
It’s no surprise then that figures like Victoria’s Shadow Minister for Education, Matthew Bach, have waded into these murky old waters. Writing in The Australian and Spectator Australia, he cites a Productivity Commission report summarising the prevailing wisdom by stating, ‘…the largest single factor in student success, and their ability to go on and make a meaningful economic contribution, is teacher quality.’
Cue then the usual easy answers to what has been an intractable problem. Per Bach et al, what’s needed are relevant reforms: something inclusive of a higher ATAR entrance and a training regime with ‘meaningful and rigorous systems of teacher appraisal’. Simply put, hire brighter teachers and give them the right tools and training, and decades of decline will vanish overnight.
This is clearly not the response we require. In part, it’s impractical and tautological. In any field of endeavour, having higher-quality practitioners will lead to better results. Better chefs will improve our restaurants; better builders our houses. And dare I say it, better politicians will improve our politics. If Canberra expects a Montessori in every classroom, are we not entitled to a Metternich in return? Speaking as a qualified teacher, I can confirm that – like all jobs – our teachers reflect the usual range of abilities and intelligence. And that the majority carry out their roles with aplomb.
Yet this is not the primary problem. While there is some truth to the remarks that teachers have a part to play, it is my opinion that their main function is to obfuscate. The goal is to shift our social failures onto teachers and away from politicians. It’s a cynical ploy designed to exculpate the political class for their vast errors and offer up teachers in return. It appears to have become little more than a vanity project in which the innumerable problems now afflicting education and the economy can be alleviated with a sole teacher-led silver bullet.
As those really responsible for our decline are our elite and not our educators. A notion that is evident with even the most basic logic. For one, we already have a generation that has spent much more time in education than their predecessors – with more of us earning a degree than ever – for far inferior results. How do we square the circle that prior teachers – with their one year ‘dip-eds’ – spent far less time in training for far superior results?
Primarily, what recommendations such as Bach’s ignore is the decline in the social context in which teaching takes place. As like many such articles, little mention is made of the vast socio-cultural changes that have taken place and within which schools now operate.
The most obvious is our diversity. As is often noted, Australia is one of the most diverse societies in the world. Something that is not unrelated to our educational decline. As unfortunately for the cosmopolitans, per Pisa, the most successful education systems tend to be found in places of profound homogeneity. Aside from Singapore, the best-performing systems are in traditionalist locales like East Asia and Eastern Europe – and not the liberal West.
The negative effects of diversity are also witnessed within countries. As American author and educator Freddie de Boer has noted, there are a large and persistent gaps in educational attainment between different groups – and of which teachers can do little.
Related to this is the issue of classroom management. A notion that is the sine qua non of teaching and without with no learning can take place. This is something that continually successful systems such as Japan take for granted, yet it’s an area in which Australia performs particularly badly.
As a recent article in The Australian observed, our educators are now on the front lines of ‘classroom war zones’. A trend that has led to staff shortages as teachers leave the profession in droves as they are ‘stabbed…kicked…[and] bitten’. As the OECD confirms ‘Australian classrooms are among the least disciplined in the world’ with a third of surveyed students reporting that ‘the teacher has to wait a long time for students to quieten down’ and that ‘students don’t listen’.
This is not to mention even more extreme cases. Aside from ill-discipline and poor behaviour, pupils are now permitted religiously-sanctioned weapons, students are stabbed in schools, and schoolboys are killed in gang riots. On top of this are the increasing number of students with some form of learning disability such as ADHD or autism.
The state of the family is another concern. Even in schools of relative success and stability, many children are now attending without the support of a stay-at-home mum or traditional two-parent family. A trend that’s predictive of an assortment of negative outcomes and that starts from the earliest years of education. As American author Mary Eberstadt has observed, more time in child care and away from parents correlates with maladies such as sickness, disobedience, and aggression.
These are trends that are evident in Australia too. Despite the desires of our politicians, the farming out of infants to the State is not in their best interests or ours. Most importantly, even the much-touted economic calculus doesn’t add up. As Virginia Tapscott recently noted in The Australian:
Even the economic rationale of childcare has been called into question. While group care is the cheaper option in the short term due to a high carer to child ratio, the likes of Peter Cook, an Australian family psychiatrist, and Jay Belsky, a researcher with the University of California, have long argued that the consequences of childcare make it more expensive than parent care in the long run.
As like much economic thinking, it fails to consider non-economic criteria. In essence, many of the benefits of childcare are illusory. As Tapscott, citing the Australian psychiatrist Peter Cook, states: ‘Generous parental leave and caregiver support … would actually cost less than the consequences of parental absence.’
That’s right: it’s cheaper (and better) in the long run for parents to actually parent their children than to hand them off to strangers and the State. Childcare is thus a false economy. Like cheap wine or junk food, it’s something that appears to be a ‘financial saving at the outset but ends up leading to greater expenditure’.
All of which is related to our broader subordination of education to economics. Witness the state of our universities, for example. Now dominated by (full fee-paying) foreign students, tertiary education in Australia has become a farce: with worries by academics about the decline in literacy, numeracy, and academic standards ignored by administrators only concerned about the bottom line.
An explicit focus on teachers (and teaching) also ignores the main social trends taking place and against which teachers are essentially impotent. Book reading is down. Screen time is up. As is the continued dominance of America-led liberalism and its vulgar tendencies: like Hollywood, fast-food, and the coarseness and crudity it promotes. An ‘Empire of Lies’, as some have called it.
So by all means, train our teachers as well as we can. But don’t use them as a scapegoats for an elite-led social failure. It’s the political class who are to blame for our malaise, not our educators. It’s they who’ve changed the character of our schools and suburbs. It’s they who’ve reduced education to a business. It’s they who’ve helped eviscerate the family. It’s they who’ve overseen the deterioration in reading and culture. They are to blame for our decline, not our teachers.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/blame-politicians-not-teachers/
************************************Sidebars
The notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the blog that is reproduced above are not reproduced here. The sidebar for this blog can however be found in my archive of sidebars
Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used my blogs in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and clicking will bring the picture up. See here (2020). here (2021) and here (2022)
My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); Index to blog backups; My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; Subject index to my short notes. My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;
Email me (John Ray) here.