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
28 March, 2024
What’s happening in Alice Springs?
A very uninformative article below. At least at the very end of the article they screwed up enough courage to utter the word "indigenous". The problem is in fact an Aboriginal one, with young Aborigines being particularly defiant, with their skin colour protecting them from most police action
Whites in a position to do so are already moving out. The town will eventually become a wasteland unless vigorous police action to arrest and imprison offenders is undertaken. Aborigines are in fact easy to control. They have a horror of being separated from their community so keeping them in solitary overnight will be strongly punitive and will give them a strong reluctance to repeating that experience
Violent brawls took place on Tuesday after a group of young people attacked a local pub, the Todd Tavern. Three people have been arrested so far.
According to police, the violence began when a large group of people from the Utopia district north of Alice Springs arrived in town to commemorate the death of an 18-year-old man who was killed on March 8 when the stolen car he was travelling in rolled over.
A dramatic 12-hour night curfew for everyone under the age of eighteen will be imposed across Alice Springs after violence erupted on the streets.
The group attacked other family members in the pub, which sustained $30,000 of damage after being pelted with rocks and bricks. Another brawl broke out nearby later that evening.
The Northern Territory government has declared an emergency.
Why was a curfew announced?
The two-week curfew is designed to stop people aged under 18 gathering in the town’s CBD between 6pm and 6am.
Apart from Tuesday’s brawls, a series of violent incidents have taken place in Alice Springs in recent weeks, including on Saturday when a group of about 10 young women bashed and stripped a 16-year-old girl.
Northern Territory police will send 58 additional officers to the town. There will be no criminal penalty for breaking the curfew, police said.
Why are there calls for the federal government to be involved?
“Horrendous doesn’t cut it, but I have run out of words,” the town’s mayor, Matt Paterson, said on social media. He has previously called for federal help to tackle crime in the area.
MPs at state and federal level have expressed horror this week at the levels of violent crime in Alice Springs and called for more resources and tougher laws.
The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, wants the federal government to deploy the defence force to maintain order, while federal Labor MP for the Alice Springs electorate of Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, also believes extra resources are needed and was seeking to work with the NT government.
The federal government could offer to deploy defence force or Australian Federal Police personnel to assist local authorities, though this would require the co-operation of the NT government.
Most policing and public safety measures, such as alcohol restrictions, are the responsibility of the territory government.
The federal government allocated $250 million in last year’s federal budget to improve social outcomes, safety and schooling in central Australia through a series of community-led programs.
Why are crime rates so high in Alice Springs?
The town has a long-standing crime problem, and has been subjected to a series of “crime waves” involving spikes in street violence and theft, and there have been periodic calls for federal intervention in recent years.
Widespread alcohol abuse is generally seen as a leading cause, coupled with chronic social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma in Indigenous communities.
Crime rates reached a four-year low in 2023, though they were still high by national standards, after limited bans on alcohol sales were re-introduced.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-happening-in-alice-springs-20240327-p5ffrt.html
*******************************************Government hostility to religious schools
So it appears that, after several more years of consultation, reviews and inquiries, Australia’s communities of faith will once again be disregarded, cast aside and left to fend for themselves in the land “beyond the wall”.
For those unfamiliar with the imagery, it comes from George R. R. Martin’s popular (and confronting) Game of Thrones literary series. In it, a giant ice wall is built to protect the land of Westeros from the horrors of the wintry north – primarily from the legendary dead army that is rumoured to be on the move. The only problem is that there are still humans who live beyond the wall, simple people, unaffectionately known as “Wildlings”. They are a free folk, a proud folk, with deep history, but fundamentally seen as lesser and cut off from the riches and protections of the mainland.
Such it seems is the view of religious people in Australia at this current point in history. Not only are we largely seen as backward and archaic by the elite ruling class, holding onto outdated superstitious beliefs, but also face repeated legislative raiding parties into our communities by state governments and activist media elements (who I like to refer to as the “Night’s Watch”).
This mentality is perhaps most evident when it comes to faith-based higher education, of which I run but a humble chiefdom. We are a significant minority in the Westerosian university landscape, and the inequality is increasingly blatant. Our Wildling students are forced to pay as much as four times the HECS fees of the city dwellers (despite our institutions often outperforming theirs); we have no access to the Maesters’ citadel (research funding and block grants), and our land rights are rapidly being eroded.
Take the example of the Queensland anti-discrimination bill introduced into the state’s parliament this month which strips faith-based educational institutions of the ability to employ staff who share their religious ethos and values – arguably the most oppressive laws in the land. We thought that those in the northern realms might at least have some empathy, but perhaps their long summers have made them complacent towards their devout Wildling brothers and sisters.
We have always felt, however, that we would be able to endure, particularly when those in King’s landing reassured us that we were indeed an important part of Westeros. We would be respected and left in peace, and when it came down to it, they would ensure our protection and survival. Indeed, the kings and queens on the revolving blood-splattered chair of political swords would even sometimes praise us from afar as we educated their children, looked after their poor and took care of their aged.
However, it now seems that, despite all the promises from the Iron Throne, that the protections will not be forthcoming. The Hand of the King (Australian Law Reform Commission) has advised that exemptions for religious educational institutions in the Sex Discrimination Act should be removed. Additionally, the High King of the eight kingdoms has now also indicated the Religious Discrimination Bill is to be dropped. Roughly translated, this means the Wildlings and their backwards ways are condemned. The long, dark night is upon us.
It is no shame to say that we hold a healthy fear of the army of the dead, or in our case the waves of frozen-eyed lawyers primed to overwhelm our educational institutions with litigation. We have already seen internationally that most cases of religious freedom involve educational institutions – where communities of individual Wildlings who hold the sacred values of marriage, or maleness and femaleness, or that life is sacred, are cast out to wander the wilderness.
One idea that has been discussed in our villages is that perhaps we should all just attempt to clamber back over the wall into Westeros, tell our communities to walk out and enrol in the already underfed public schools south of the wall. I anticipate, however, that there would not be enough food to feed us all.
The real question, therefore, is: does the Iron Throne and its multitude of cunning advisers genuinely want diversity in Westeros? By that I mean diversity of perspectives, cultures and opinion. Or are they seeking a monoculture which ensures every inhabitant bends the knee to whoever controls the ideology of the day?
If it is the latter, then the free folk will always be a thorn in the side of any ruler. Whatever the Wildling tribe – whether it be Christian, Islamic, Judaic or just individuals who covet the free life – the reality is that they won’t ever bend the knee to anyone who is not the True King of Westeros and beyond. Our allegiance and salvation does not rest with men and women – thank God.
All we Wildlings really pray for is the opportunity to live in peace, to educate our young people, freely associate, and serve where our help is accepted. Unfortunately, in this current wintry climate beyond the wall, that is by no means assured.
**********************************************
Rushed bill forcing hundreds of non-citizens to facilitate own deportation passes lower house
If people have been found to have no case to stay but refuse to leave what do you do?
Legislation that would force hundreds of non-citizens to facilitate their own deportation or face imprisonment has been rushed through the lower house, despite warnings it breaches human rights obligations.
The Labor government combined with Peter Dutton’s opposition shortly before question time on Tuesday to approve the new powers for the immigration minister despite howls of dissent from independents and minor parties about lack of due process.
After the bill was introduced at noon, Labor and the Coalition gagged debate after a little over two hours. The migration amendment (removals and other measures) bill passed to the Senate, where it will be considered by a two-hour inquiry hearing on Tuesday evening before possible passage on Wednesday.
The bill gives the minister the power to direct a non-citizen who is due to be deported “to do specified things necessary to facilitate their removal”, or risk a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison or up to five years.
The Greens, independents, Refugee Council of Australia and Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law have raised concerns that the bill applies to those who had “fast-track” assessment of their protection claims, which Labor criticised in opposition.
“We are concerned that those who do have strong claims, but have not had a fair hearing or review, will be sent back to real harm,” the Refugee Council chief executive officer, Paul Power, said.
At the Tuesday inquiry hearing, home affairs officials said the bill would apply to people whose claim for refugee protection had been finally resolved, but could not say how many were assessed by the fast track.
They said the bill would apply to at least 150 to 200 people in detention, people on bridging visa R including those released by the NZYQ high court decision, and an unspecified number on other bridging visas on a pathway to removal.
But the Greens senator David Shoebridge noted there was “no limit” to the minister using regulation to add visa classes to the list of those who can be given directions.
In parliament, the independent MP Kylea Tink argued the bill breached Australia’s obligation not to forcibly return asylum seekers to their country of persecution.
The independent MP Zoe Daniel warned that “if we make a mistake here” people may be taken back to their country of persecution and “murdered”.
The most contentious provision states that it is not a “reasonable excuse” to the new offence of refusing a direction that the person “has a genuine fear of suffering persecution or significant harm if the person were removed”.
The Human Rights Law Centre said the provisions “will apply to people who have serious and legitimate claims for protection”.
“They risk serious non-compliance with Australia’s obligations under the refugee convention as well as other international instruments.
“The bill deliberately separates families,” it said. “The minister can require a person to comply with a direction in relation to their removal, irrespective of the impact this would have on their spouse, children or other family members.”
The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, warned the bill meant “a mum who refuses to sign a passport application for her children to be returned to Iran where they have a fear of persecution could be put in jail”. He noted this carried a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison, in apparent breach of Labor’s platform.
In the hearing, the home affairs general counsel Clare Sharp said the “legislation doesn’t prevent [family separation] from happening, it’s possible”, but it may be a reason the minister may grant a person a visa.
In question time, Tink noted the bill can force guardians “to take actions in the aid of having their children removed from Australia”.
The immigration minister, Andrew Giles, noted the bill contains a “safeguard which deals with children”, that is, that children cannot be issued directions to facilitate their own deportation.
Giles claimed that the bill was “consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations”. In fact, the statement of compatibility said it was consistent in “most respects” but to the extent it limits human rights it does so “in order to maintain the integrity of the migration system”.
“What we’re doing with … this important piece of legislation is to fill a very significant loophole, that a small cohort of people who have no basis upon which to remain in Australia are refusing to cooperate with efforts to affect their removal.”
Giles said that those affected were “not refugees”. The bill’s explanatory memorandum says those who have “been found to engage Australia’s protection obligations … cannot be directed to interact with or be removed” to their country of persecution, but can be directed to do things to be removed to a “safe third country”.
The bill also creates a power for the government to designate another country as a “removal concern country”, which will impose a bar on new visa applications from non-citizens outside Australia who are nationals of a country that does not accept removals from Australia.
The power could affect applicants hoping to leave countries including Russia, Iran, Iraq and South Sudan.
Shoebridge said that “entire communities” in Australia face being permanently barred from visits from relatives from those countries.
The Refugee Legal executive director, David Manne, said this aspect of the bill was “discriminatory and extreme overreach”.
The shadow immigration minister, Dan Tehan, told Guardian Australia the Coalition was worried if the bill “doesn’t work as intended, it could force people to get more desperate and jump on boats” if their country is designated.
The independent senator David Pocock said it was “incredibly disappointing” that Labor was rushing the bill through, accusing the major parties of “disgraceful” treatment of independents who had raised concerns about the bill.
*********************************************
LGBTQI+ intolerance prevalent among Australian air force chaplains, inquiry told
Hardly surprising in view of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Are Christian chaplains allowed to believe their Bibles when their Bibles tell them that homosexuality is an abomination to God? (Leviticus 20:13) Asking them to defy God's word is pretty heavy
Some religious chaplains in the air force hold “unacceptable views about minority groups, women [and] LGBTQI+ persons”, posing a mental health risk to members, the royal commission into defence and veteran suicide has heard.
And part of a review commissioned by the defence department into the air force chaplaincy unit – quietly tabled as evidence to the royal commission – found tension between theology and values, “notably in relation to gender and LGBTI inclusion”.
“Some chaplains perceived other chaplains to be intolerant towards LGBTI people, women and those chaplains who express differing theological views,” the review found.
Collin Acton, a former director general of chaplaincy for the navy, said chaplains were members’ first port of call for mental health help, with other forms of help off base or harder to access.
The “vast majority [of ADF members] are ticking the ‘no religion’ box” and would be reluctant to seek support from chaplains, many of whom were ordained ministers, Acton said.
“A large portion of our workforce would prefer not to speak to a minister as their first port of call when they’re going through difficult times,” he said.
“They might be well-equipped to look after members of their own flock, but they’re under-equipped to look after the rest of the personnel.
“Religious ministers don’t sit down and have a conversation with someone about their worldview, they come with an agenda.”
Guardian Australia revealed last year that the Australian defence force as a whole has a disproportionately high number of pentecostal and evangelical chaplains. For example, there are 13 Australian Christian Churches (formerly known as Assemblies of God) chaplains for the 13 members that identify with that denomination.
Chaplains are also ADF members, so the ratio could be anywhere from one-to-one to 13-to-none, depending on how individuals identified themselves.
Meanwhile, there are five non-denominational Christian chaplains and 4,217 serving members who identify that way, a ratio of one-to-843.
In a commission hearing, the air force chief, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, said the review found there were “deep-rooted cultural challenges” within air force chaplaincy.
“And there was an unhealthy mix of theological beliefs … of a view that things that happen between chaplains should stay within chaplains,” he said.
“Both of those created conditions for an unhealthy culture to develop within chaplaincy branch and that had very significant impacts on the welfare of some of our chaplains.”
Commissioner Erin Longbottom put to Chipman that the review found “there was a conflict between faith-based values of chaplains within that branch and the requirements of a modern defence force”. Chipman agreed.
“We did find chaplains … from certain theological schools that had concerns with female chaplains or LGBTIQA chaplains and so those … beliefs that they bring as chaplains into our organisation did intersect unevenly with our Defence values,” he said.
Chipman also agreed that the review found “unacceptable views about minority groups, women, LGBTQI+ persons”.
“If there are chaplains practising in Defence that cannot abide by our values and behaviours, then they need to find somewhere else to be employed,” he said.
But Chipman said that in general the chaplains did a “phenomenal job” and “save lives every day”.
Guardian Australia has sought the air force chaplaincy review under freedom of information laws since September. The request was initially rejected because it would cause an unreasonable workload. Defence sought an extension to the deadline for a revised request to November. In February the request for “any reports or directives produced from the air force chaplaincy review” returned a directive about the implementation of the review but not the report itself.
But an executive summary of the report was provided to the royal commission.
It found there was “tension” reconciling “strong theological beliefs with Defence values”.
Chaplains dealt “‘in-house’ with unacceptable behaviour complaints within the branch” instead of through Defence processes, it found. Some complaints went without action or resolution.
“Others identified inappropriate behaviour which appeared to them to be condoned within the branch”, it found, while some chaplains said that “unacceptable or undesirable behaviour or comments falling short of unacceptable behaviour was excused within the branch where they were associated with views supported by a chaplain’s faith group but not otherwise consistent with Defence values and behaviour”.
In its submission to the royal commission, the Rationalist Society of Australia pointed to research that found almost 64% of ADF members – and 80% of new recruits – were not religious.
The society claimed chaplains viewed the position as missionary in nature and were “unable to provide non-judgmental care”, which the organisation said could stop personnel getting appropriate support.
“The religious-based nature of the capability opens the door to chaplains identifying problems as ‘sin’ and the solutions as requiring ‘repentance’.”
Acton was pivotal in a push to get a non-religious chaplains into the navy and has since pushed for secular reform despite a significant backlash from some opponents.
“I’m not saying get rid of religious chaplains, but they should be in proportion to the religious portion of our workforce,” he said.
************************************
27 March, 2024
Smiling but lying – if real estate agents won’t tell the truth, I will
Jenna Price (below) is a grumpy old thing. She fails to realize that real estate valuations are very uncertain, which is why auctions are so often resorted to. And note how often auction results are surprising. There'a an old saying in real estate that you only know the value of a property when the cheque clears. I have bought and sold many houses and have generally guessed well but I have had disappointments too
Have real estate agents changed, or have I? You be the judge.
We bought our first house in 1984. It was previously owned by the kind of real estate mogul who knew which suburbs were on the move. It came with a needy neighbour, an outside dunny and was right under the flight path, but we loved it. We made our first baby there and then our second.
It became clear we needed a laundry, an indoor toilet and, spare me your judgment, a kitchen which had room for both a fridge and a dishwasher. I seriously felt I was more likely to survive without a fridge than without a dishwasher. And that was before No.3.
But real estate agents could tell us, more or less, what we should pay for a bigger house in the neighbouring suburb. News in Victoria that an agency is being charged for massive underquoting must act as a warning that all agents should be fair and, more or less, square.
If only warnings worked.
Here’s what I discovered this week. My kids are on the lookout. In fact, I’m friends with an entire generation of parents whose kids are on the lookout, both for their inheritance and the prospect of leaving behind the government-sanctioned malfeasance of renting. Which brings me to this predicament.
A couple of weeks ago, a long-time friend discovered we were planning to downsize. She told me her kid and the kid’s partner were selling their house and could expect to get, according to their local agent, $1.7 million for it. Yes, it’s in one of those newly groovy suburbs, but it’s small and perfectly formed. She sent me the address. Looked great. I’m too old for groovy but whatever.
Imagine my utter lack of surprise when it turned up on your favourite real estate site, with a buyer’s guide of $1.45 million. That’s a quarter of a million dollars less than what the agent guided the sellers. I even wrote to the real estate agent just to check on that buyer’s guide because, you know, glitches happen online. He confirmed $1.45 million as the buyer’s guide. God, you’d love to be issued the seller’s guide as well, right?
In my highest dudgeon, I called the only non-real-estate-agent-real-estate-expert I know – Macquarie University’s Cathy Sherry – filled with grumpiness directed at the real estate agent.
She reminded me that the duty of the agent is to the vendor. They are engaged by the vendor. That means they have to act in the best interests of the vendor.
It’s nearly impossible to get anyone defending real estate agents in Australia, but Sherry said agents can’t ever – really – tell how many people are going to show up at an auction and how much they are prepared to spend. She says the best way to prepare yourself for what you should pay is to look at all the houses.
“Once you’ve looked at five properties, it’s not rocket science,” she says. Mind you, she did agree that my example revealed a big gap.
Now, imagine my utter frustration when one of my own children thought buying it was a possibility based on the unrealistic (and indeed phony) buyer’s guide. If you pop in the top price you want to pay (as you can on these exhausting websites), it comes up as under $1.5 million.
The problem is not the underquoting exactly. It’s the sheer manipulation of the hopes of young buyers drifting around homes which are nearly identical because they’ve been styled. (Please – I beg you – no more white walls, cream couches and AI artwork. And turn off the lights in the middle of the day. We see you.)
Buying property, unless you are a hardened investor with no emotions in the game, is a nightmare. Conveyancers. Maybe lawyers. Building reports. Banks. All under the pressure of time and fear, of not knowing what comes next. It’s a crushing combination of mundane tasks under extreme pressures of time and money. Then you have to do it all again when you fail.
Now this is not a thing where everyone got overexcited at the auction. It’s before the auction. I’ve watched a few of those and understood what happened. I’ve even been the participating underbidder (relieved when unsuccessful). But this agent knows it’s likely to go for much more, has told his vendors it will go for much more, yet is luring people in with the prospect of a bargain.
And it doesn’t just happen to buyers. Vendors often fall victim to conditioning, the practice of being told the place is worth more than it is. It’s how agents win business. Please do not imagine that because an agent tells you they can sell your palace for a huge sum, that will actually come to be.
Likewise, there are no bargains in the groovy suburbs; there is no honour in the real estate market.
**************************************************
New Vehicle Efficiency Standard welcomed by car industry after tweaks
The car industry has cautiously welcomed the Federal Government’s softer new vehicle efficiency targets.
The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, which will be introduced to parliament tomorrow, includes concessions for work utes and four-wheel-drive wagons.
CO2 targets have been tweaked for utes, while some 4WDs, which originally had to meet passenger car targets, will be reclassified as commercial vehicles.
They include vehicles such as the Ford Everest, which is essentially a Ranger ute with a roof, and the popular Toyota LandCruiser, which is used extensively by farmers.
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries chief executive Tony Weber, who was controversially frozen out of government briefings and the press conference because of his strident criticism of the standard, said the new target was “a step in the right direction”.
“The FCAI has made its position clear on this issue and it’s good to see that government has moved in part to our position to get a better outcome for consumers,” he said.
Car industry heavyweights Toyota and Hyundai, who both attended the announcement, were supportive of the new plan, which will take force from January next year. Penalties and credits won’t be introduced until the middle of next year.
The Motor Trades Association of Australia was upbeat about the new standard.
Chief executive Matt Hobbs said the association was pleased the government had made concessions based on industry feedback.
He said the changes would reduce the “very real risk” of price rises and reduced access to popular vehicles.
The amended standard would “better reflect the country’s love of utes and SUVs while preparing for an EV future,” he said.
“We all intend to do our part in decarbonising the country’s transport sector. But consumers must come first, and we believe the adjustments to the policy strikes this delicate balance,” he said.
He said the proposed standard was still “ambitious and challenging” for the industry but “workable.
Toyota, which was a vocal critic of the proposed standard in its original form, welcomed the changes.
Toyota Australia President and chief executive Matthew Callachor said the company supported an “ambitious fuel-efficiency standard that is calibrated to the unique requirements of the Australian market and leaves no-one behind”.
“We welcome the willingness of the Federal Government to consult on this important public policy and to make changes that represent a positive step forward,” Mr Callachor said.
“Even so, Toyota and the industry face huge challenges that must be addressed before these significant reductions can be realised,” he said.
Hyundai chief operating officer John Kett said the standard struck “the right balance between ambition and practicality”.
“With this standard in place, Hyundai dealers will have great vehicles to sell, customers
will have great vehicles to drive, and the automotive industry will be playing its part to
reduce emissions in line with Australia’s commitment to decarbonise,” said Mr Kett.
Tesla and the Electric Vehicle Council, who also attended the press conference, backed the plan.
Electric Vehicle Council chief executive Behyad Jafari said the announcement was “a great day for Australia”.
“Everyone wants these standards in place so we can get on with providing Australians with lower fuel bills and a greater choice of particularly the most efficient, the latest and greatest electric vehicles,” he said.
Tesla policy and business development boss Sam McLean, said nobody “had left with everything they wanted” in discussions with the government.
“This is a very moderate standard that takes Australia from being really last place in this transition to the middle of the pack,” he said.
He described the new plan as “a very solid compromise”.
*************************************************
Fatal flaws exposed in the Net Zero transition. What is to be done?
According to NSW’s Ausgrid, the most recent AEMO draft Integrated System Plan (ISP) for electricity supply will require $325 billion for transmission to meet Net Zero emissions by 2050.
Aside from blowing the lid on this element of Net Zero’s cost, the call for submissions on the draft ISP allowed a sliver of realism to be voiced.
Electricity suppliers, including the major generation businesses, (who are also beneficiaries of renewable energy subsidies), warned the government and its appointed advisers that their time-frame for closing down coal and most gas generators is impossible.
However, businesses have to work with the government and were understandably guarded in expressing their reservations:
AGL addressed a lack of adequate reserves
Alinta discussed ‘significant challenges’ and practical issues facing the transition
Delta stressed an absence of long-term storage is a risk to AEMO’s favoured path and ventured to say that coal generators must be retained
EnergyAustralia also discussed the need for more storage and for gas to counter the risks posed by intermittent renewables
According to Origin ‘the underlying generation pathway that incorporates key risks’ should be modelled to make it easier ‘to understand the implications for the transition should these risks not be addressed’
It was left to some independent submissions to fully specify the fatal flaws in the push to the energy ‘transition’ that is being orchestrated.
A comprehensive analysis by a group of 16 Independent engineers, scientists, and professionals minced no words in stating:
‘The transition of the NEM, which has been accelerating for several years, will lead to a collapse of system reliability should any more reliable baseload power generation be retired without prior implementation of the means to maintain proper positive dispatchable reserve margin under worst case conditions.’
23 years on from when renewable energy electricity generation was declared an infant in need of temporary nurturing, Australian governments (mainly the Commonwealth) are spending $16.5 billion a year in regulatory requirements and other subsidies favouring wind and solar generators. That is equivalent to one-third of spending on national Defence.
Unlike other government spending, there are no benefits accruing.
The subsidies to renewable energy (mainly wind and solar) are intentionally designed to force the replacement of low-cost, reliable coal and gas generators by high-cost alternatives. Accordingly, the costs they entail are far in excess of the measured regulatory costs.
The annual subsidies to renewable energy have more than doubled since the last year of the Morrison government, but it would be mistaken to exonerate the Coalition from participating in the damage. Morrison went to the 2019 Glasgow Climate Change conference with a ‘Net Zero’ pledge and the Coalition had previously done much to reverse course from the climate policy back-peddling that Tony Abbott had embarked upon – indeed, Abbott’s resistance to further harmful climate change policies was a major factor in the Liberal Party voting to replace him with Malcolm Turnbull.
In this respect, the Liberals were in a similar position to that of the UK Conservative Party, currently in power but expected to lose in a general election. Some UK Conservatives are having doubts about the wisdom of Net Zero, but the party’s policy is almost identical to that of the Labour Opposition. The Australian Liberals and Nationals are seeking to differentiate themselves by pursuing nuclear as an alternative low carbon emission policy, but this faces formidable opposition on spurious safety grounds as well as massive impediments from the regulatory framework which has been developed.
Commercial and regulatory reality will likely force some reversal of current policy stances. This is already evident with governments shifting to subsidise some coal plants that are adversely affected by the subsidies to their renewable energy competition and to create special exemptions for energy-intensive industries like nickel smelting.
However, an efficient energy policy requires a more radical change of course. Although Alexandra Marshall suggests the present lamentable course in energy and other policies stems from poor political leadership, the major parties’ policies are formulated by carefully researching what the voters want. As when they buy breakfast cereal, in the absence of a crisis, few voters put effort into reviewing all the options before them. At present, the dominant voter paradigm is: greenhouse gases bad; wind/solar clean and cheap.
Changing this is difficult in view of prevailing attitudes in the media and other institutional elites. Changing it also confronts a political establishment and a profession of bureaucrats that see no attraction in simply holding the ring for private enterprise to pursue Smithian economic prosperity, especially when there are obvious cracks to fill.
It is difficult to see a new political consensus focusing on competition policy and disengaging public business enterprises from political oversight which allowed an efficient energy industry structure to be created. For the Labor Party, this would mean a return to an ahistorical Hawke-Keating belief in market capitalism. For the Coalition, it would mean politicians seeking to implement notions that they presently regard as window dressing.
More likely is Australian policy being re-formed by overseas developments.
Already Europe is seeing a backlash against socialist interventions in national elections, which are likely to be reinforced in EU-wide elections in June. But it would take a Trump victory in November to bring about an early change. A Trump Administration would abruptly reverse the many energy subsidy programs in the Biden Administration’s misleadingly named Inflation Reduction Act as well as abrogating the Paris Agreement on climate change. Australia and the rest of the world will have to follow this.
Even so, this will not be easy for Australia where regulatory inertia rules. Restoring a sensible energy policy will entail longer-term measures that dislodge the many agencies – regulatory and propagandatory – that live off the public purse. Immediate-term measures will require:
Removal of all subsidies
Defunding of many government agencies (under Gillard/Rudd, the CSIRO used to claim that half its programs were global warming oriented)
Requirements on banks, finance houses, and superannuation funds to cease discriminatory energy policies
Reform of planning laws that embrace climate change in evaluating development proposals
Use of the State Grants Commission to prevent state governments from using climate (and other environment policies) to penalise productive activities
This is a formidable program for the handful of politicians, with – unlike the Hawke-Keating government – no bureaucratic support favouring the dismantling of the economy-throttling measures on which they have built their careers.
*********************************************
"COVID Revisited" Conference to Shed Light on Australia's Pandemic Response
Almost four years since the pandemic began, COVID-19 continues to leave its mark on Australia, affecting healthcare and society in general. While the vaccines offered some degree of protection, controversies remain around the pandemic response. These include a case brought against pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna and calls seeking transparency from the Australian government about its pandemic measures. TrialSite has reported before on Australian analysts challenging the pandemic narrative driven by the government.
To discuss the lessons learned and examine past challenges, the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) is organizing a conference named “COVID Revisited: Lessons Learned, Challenges Faced, and the Road Ahead.” The event aims to provide a platform from which to discuss the government’s decisions during the pandemic and policies to guide future responses.
As time passes, the controversies surrounding the lockdown measures and vaccine mandates in Australia seem to intensify. TrialSite previously reported on a legal case filed against Pfizer and Moderna in the Federal Court of Australia accusing them of lacking transparency regarding alleged DNA contaminants and GMOs in their vaccines. This case was filed by Dr. Julian Fidge and handled by lawyer Katie Ashby-Koppens and former barrister Julian Gillespie.
Providing an update in a February 2024 Substack article, Gillespie explained that the presiding judge, Hon Helen Mary Joan Rofe, had at the time delayed a final decision on the defendant's application for a case dismissal. However, on March 1, 2024, Rofe dismissed Fidge’s lawsuit against Pfizer and Moderna. For the time being, this ruling has put a halt to any likely legal challenges gaining traction against the mRNA vaccines.
We also reported in February 2024 that Australians were demanding a COVID-19 Royal Commission to investigate the vaccine mandates and pandemic measures implemented in the country. Ashby-Koppens was among those calling for this Royal Commission. According to Gillespie, the Senate Terms of Reference Committee is currently deliberating this.
Despite Rofe’s ruling, the critics are not backing down. With the AMPS’s conference looking to help people learn and discuss better ways to handle future pandemics through the “COVID Revisited” program and the ongoing process at the Senate Terms of Reference committee, the critics believe that the upcoming conference “reflects the Australian people's wish for a review of the government response to COVID-19.”
The “COVID Revisited” conference
The conference is scheduled for April 2, 2024, and will take place in the State Library NSW Auditorium. According to AMPS, top medical and academic professionals from around the world will be in attendance, with the event garnering support from notable organizations like the National Institute of Integrative Medicine (NIIM), Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (ACNEM), World of Wellness International (WOW) and Children’s Health Defense Australia Chapter (CHD).
Speaking about the conference’s mission, AMPS secretary Kara Thomas stated, "Our mission is clear. We aim to generate tangible policy recommendations that substantially influence the management of future pandemic crisis situations."
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, one of the speakers, provided insights into the event’s structure and its focus on examining the government's handling of the COVID-19 response. “This symposium is structured to reflect the collective views of those involved in this response,” Clancy said, “with a particular focus on lessons learned as to mistakes made and how best to go forward with the best plan to handle health challenges of similar ill when next encountered.”
He further stated, “Presentations from professionals covering these disciplines will be followed by an interactive workshop with an expert panel charged with identifying outcomes. The day will conclude with a reception allowing informal discussion amongst participants and attendees. A book including presentations and outcomes will be published.”
According to AMPS, the conference will produce a set of well-defined resolutions, to be shared widely with practitioners, public health authorities and government bodies. These resolutions will identify practical measures to ensure safe and effective responses. In doing so, they aim to reduce mishandling in crisis management that could potentially compromise Australians’ health.
Another speaker, Professor Philip Morris, highlights the offerings attendees can expect: “deep-dive sessions into key aspects of pandemic response, insights from top-notch experts in the medical and public health fields, interactive workshops fostering collaboration and idea exchange, networking opportunities with like-minded professionals and access to cutting-edge research and best practices”
Who are the speakers?
One of the keynote speakers at this event is a retired nurse, John Campbell. Campbell is based in the UK and has a YouTube channel with over three million subscribers where he shares about COVID-19-related topics. The conference will be divided into three sessions.
Progress achieved and challenges faced during the pandemic
The Australian government’s pandemic measures yielded a mixed set of outcomes. The Financial Times reported that while Australia’s initial zero-COVID strategy showed positive results in containing the virus, some critics argued that it was too strict with potential adverse economic implications.
The government’s actions included closing international borders to non-residents and, at times, restricting internal state border crossings. Widespread testing and contact tracing enabled authorities to suppress community transmission and by June 2021, Australia had recorded low COVID-19 case numbers compared to other countries.
However, these actions by the government had some negative impact on businesses and families, as business owners complained that the lockdown lingered for too long. According to a Lancet study, the Australian government was accused of discriminatory travel restrictions against specific countries, leaving many Australians stranded abroad for long periods. Moreover, as new variants emerged, maintaining zero-COVID became increasingly difficult. The Australian authorities then shifted their focus to pushing vaccination campaigns and moved from their zero-COVID policy in September 2021.
A call for investigations and open dialogue
The safety of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and the Australian government’s response to the pandemic are still being discussed in the Australian medical community. While critics like Gillespie are challenging pharmaceutical giants and calling for transparency, the AMPS has created a platform for open dialogue to discuss policies that will help guide future pandemic responses.
By bringing together experts and stakeholders, the upcoming conference aims to shed light on the lessons learned, address ongoing concerns, and chart a path forward for better preparedness.
************************************
26 March, 2024
‘Starving, extreme pain’: Young mum’s ‘inhumane’ treatment at Queensland hospital laid bare
The joys of government healthcare. I once had a similar painful problem: kidney stones. I took a taxi to my usual private hospital and was on the operating table within hours. The woman below could have got similar treatment if Queensland Health fired some of its many bureaucrats and redirected the funds into employing more doctors and nursesTorrens University pushes private sector path to higher education targets
Australia’s only for-profit university is besting its sandstone rivals in taking on more Aboriginal, female and poorer students, as its chancellor warns the nation will fail to meet the goals of a landmark review into higher education if doesn’t embrace a new model of private universities.
Torrens University chancellor Jim Varghese said the targets set out in the recent Universities Accord report – that 80 per cent of the population aged 25 to 34 should have at least a tertiary qualification and 55 per cent should have a university degree by 2050 – would not be possible with public institutions alone.
He has called for a shake-up of the tertiary sector, which has been dominated by government-funded institutions, arguing that without competitive private alternatives there will not be enough places. The Accord report estimates an additional 940,000 Commonwealth supported places will be required to reach the university attainment goal by 2050.
“It is not possible unless you get the private sector actively involved,” Mr Varghese said.
“Unless you have a private higher education sector working hand in glove in competition, it will become very bureaucratic, very difficult and we won’t reach that very ambitious and laudable target.”
As Australia’s only for-profit higher education institution with university status reaches its 10-year anniversary, a new Deloitte report has found Torrens University was already leading the way on the access and equity goals set out in the Accord’s final report released last month.
The report found 25 per cent of its students were from disadvantaged backgrounds, compared to 12 per cent of Group of Eight universities; 19 per cent were from regional areas, compared to 9 per cent at the Go8; and 3 per cent were Indigenous, compared to 1 per cent at sandstone universities.
It also found that Torrens University – which is owned by US company Strategic Education – had added $468.9m in value to the Australian economy and supported more than 3000 jobs, all without any investment from the government.
Torrens University president Linda Brown said it was the nation’s fastest-growing university, expanding from 165 to 24,000 students in a decade, and had built its brand by scrapping the requirement for an entry score, attracting non-traditional students and offering flexible study options.
She said the university also focused on offering degrees in high demand areas including health, nursing, hospitality, education and business, and was becoming a leader in artificial intelligence. “I believe that we should be allowing investors to invest in universities, all universities – people should be able to raise private money for public good,” she said.
“I also believe that individuals should put their hand in their pocket because they’re getting the return on investment and the benefit for that, so there should be more individual investment,” Ms Brown added. “And there should be government investment … one plus one plus one is much better than relying on funding from one source for 90 per cent of the market.”
Ms Brown said Torrens had attracted international students from 150 nationalities, warning Labor’s crackdown on student visa holders using the pathway to work rather than study could harm the nation’s reputation.
“We will manage whatever is coming, but this uncertainty or drip feeding of changes is not great for our reputation as a country for being open for business for international students,” she said.
*********************************************
Submissions for Draft Legislation on Homeschooling
From Left-wing unions
Submissions are closing on proposed legislation changes to Homeschooling.
On the 6th of March proposed homeschooling legislation was tabled in the Queensland state Parliament. You can read the bill here.
Qld statistics show the increase in the last 5 years
CLOSE TO 300% INCREASE IN HOME-SCHOOLING!
Parents see an issue with the current curriculum, which is why families are choosing to homeschool. Government needs to look at the reason why there has been an almost 300% increase in home-schooling, not try to stamp it out.
The main points of concern are:
Homeschooling families must use the National Curriculum and it will require homeschool educators to report on all subject areas in the curriculum.
There is concerning wording in the legislation
(da)for chapter 9, part 5, home education of a child or young person should be provided in a way that —
(i)is in the best interests of the child or young person taking into account their safety and wellbeing; and
(ii)ensures the child or young person receives a high-quality education;
Who decides what is in the best interest of our own children?
If this bill passes in its current form, it will no longer be the parents who look after the best interest of their children, but unelected bureaucrats under the thumb of the governments and their corporate controllers.
Any legislation which takes the rights and decision away from the parents, is a direct attack on our freedoms and aimed at creating an environment in which the government has control over our families.
Via email
******************************************
Net overseas migration likely to surpass 375,000 by June, experts and Coalition say
Immigration experts and the Coalition have warned Australia is not on track to cut the net overseas migration (NOM) number to 375,000 by June 30 under current policy conditions, with questions raised over whether the government will need to further tighten rules around international students or begin targeting other temporary visa holders like working holiday makers.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures last week showing the NOM had totalled 548,000 in the year to September 30, prompting backlash from the opposition, which accused the government of running a “big Australia” policy.
But Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said the figures did not capture the many policies Labor had introduced to curb the NOM to 375,000 by June.
Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan warned the NOM target was getting progressively out of reach.
“The Australians who are struggling to find a place to live or pay the rent want to hear a commitment from the Albanese government that they will meet expectations and cut NOM to 375,000 this financial year,” he said.
“They still have no answer to the question: where will all these people live?”
According to Coalition analysis, to reduce the NOM to 375,000 by June, the government would need to ensure NOM was no more than 76,600 over the remaining three-quarters in the 2023-24 financial year.
Figures also showed a total of 2,214,695 temporary visa holders in Australia as of January 31, not counting tourist and crew visa-holders, representing a reduction of 3.23 per cent since September.
The Coalition estimates that to meet the NOM estimate, there will need to be a reduction of 27 per cent by the end of the 2023-24 financial year.
A spokesman for Ms O’Neil said the migration data recorded so far was in line with all expectations, indicating confidence the government would reduce the NOM to 375,000 by June.
“This data does not capture the measures the government has introduced to get migration back down to sustainable levels and restore integrity to our international education sector,” the spokesman said.
Former deputy secretary of the Department of Immigration, Abul Rizvi, said he would be surprised if the government curbed NOM at the rate it hoped to, arguing the figure would be more like “400,000 to 500,000” by the middle of the year.
He noted student visa holders – which are significantly driving up NOM – totalled 571,000 by January 24 while net student arrivals in February 24 were over 147,000.
“Total students in Australia (is) likely over 700,000 for the first time in … history,” he said in a post on X.
*************************************************
Canberra to blame for gas shortfall: developer
A looming gas shortfall that threatens to curtail industries and derail Australia’s energy transition is the fault of 10 successive government interventions, the Gina Rinehart-backed Senex Energy has declared, and now the country has little time left to fix the mess.
Australia faces a looming gas shortage which could emerge as soon as next winter, and while there are marginal supply boosts that can be implemented, authorities said the chasm would be impossible to bridge by 2028 without urgent new supplies.
Should new supplies not be brought online, large industries that rely on gas are likely to face a battle for survival and Australia’s energy transition away from coal could be scuppered.
Senex Energy, half-owned by mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, said the difficulties were a direct consequence of governments intervening to pick winners – though there is now a gradual acceptance that gas is vital and will be required for decades to come.
Chief executive Ian Davies said Labor and its state counterparts would need to show “unambiguous and unequivocal support” for gas.
“Something needs to change – and quickly – before the warning bells turn to a death knell for industry and lights out for households,” Mr Davies will say in an industry speech in Sydney on Tuesday. “Unrelenting gas market intervention has created this mess and it’s time for effective energy policy to get us out.”
The comments will heighten pressure on Labor, which insists it understands and appreciates the value of the gas while taking steps to bolster domestic supplies.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen last week said the shortfall estimates for gas had been delayed by two years, though the gas industry insists the lack of progress in improving the regulatory landscape and exclusion of the sector from key energy security policies is indicative of the government’s support for gas.
Sharpening his attack, Mr Davies said there has been sustained talk but there continued to be little actual progress.
“Following the most recent Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council Meeting, ministers announced ‘a more robust assessment of gas market conditions and better integration of demand-side opportunities’.
“But no amount of further assessment and analysis is going to fix the problem. What we need are policies that will ensure investment in new supply and result in gas being produced.”
Mr Davies said urgent and real action was needed, the most obvious of which should be speeding up approvals of projects.
Senex submitted an application for environmental approval for its $1bn expansion 500 days ago, Mr Davies will say – which he will label “legislative bureaucracy.”
Senex has struck supply agreements with big gas users, but ongoing delays threaten the timetable.
Labor has committed to streamlining approvals for resource projects but Mr Davies will declare there is no time to waste.
“The longer approvals take, the more profound the shortfall risk becomes – not to mention the risk to manufacturing jobs and the energy transition. And the more expensive the development becomes. To date, approval delays have increased the cost of Senex’s project by more than $150m and counting,” Mr Davies will say. “We remain unwavering in our commitment to the domestic market, but it’s fair to say ongoing approval delays are making it increasingly difficult to deliver the critical gas supply Australian manufacturers and households so desperately need.”
Labor is expected to tweak legislation governing environmental approvals in a bid to accelerate the progress, but Mr Davies will tell the federal Labor government to change the way it consults all stakeholders.
“That means doing more than secret ‘lock-ups’ under punitive non-disclosure agreements with select industry groups and no formal consultation papers or regulatory impact statement,” Mr Davies will say.
“The original (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation) Act took the best part of a decade to create. It was formed co-operatively with state governments and through extensive public consultation. Fast forward nearly 25 years and the Albanese government wants to replace it with a new Act in less than 18 months with secret and selective micro-consultation.”
Recent government consultation has seen those included required to sign non-disclosure agreements, which blocks participants from discussion of potential legislation changes.
While the onshore gas industry, which services the needs of domestic customers, continues to wait for the legislative amendments the country’s offshore resource sector has secured a win.
Labor on Tuesday moved an amendment that would allow Resources Minister Madeleine King the power to define what hurdles new offshore gas projects must clear before securing approval.
The change is seen as limiting the capacity of environmentalists to mount legal challenges against new LNG projects.
The decision follows a spate of legal victories by environmentalists that have delayed mega projects, including Santos’s $5.3bn Barossa LNG development and Woodside’s $16.5bn Scarborough project.
************************************
25 March, 2024
Gay conversion banned in NSW after all-night debate
It seems that most talk is unaffected by this bill so that is good but some more active therapy offered by non-psychologists will clearly be banned. That clearly affects the offerings of certain church-based groups.
What is unclear is if qualified pychologists are allowed to offer more than talk. Are active therapies such as behaviour therapy allowed? Such therapies can be very effective. Restrictions on proven active therapy are unfair to the minority who WANT all available help towards normalizing their feelings. Not all homosexuals are happy about the way they are
Gay conversion practices will be banned in NSW after the state’s parliament passed new laws following a marathon debate that stretched into the early hours of Friday morning.
Bleary-eyed members of the upper house supported Labor’s Conversion Practices Ban bill just after 6.30am on Friday after debate kicked off at 11pm on Thursday with a number of attempted amendments from the Coalition, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and the Greens.
However, the government had stressed it would not be changing its bill and when it returned to the lower house just before 7am, NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley said, “history is made”.
“Our friends in the LBTQ+ community deserve that history,” Daley told parliament, thanking MPs for the “respectful way in which this debate has been conducted”.
The ban, which was the focus of months-long discussions between the government, LGBTQ advocacy groups and religious organisations, will outlaw practices that attempt to change or suppress a person’s sexual identity, following a 12-month introduction period. It will also be illegal to take someone outside of NSW to undergo conversion therapies.
NSW follows Victoria and the ACT, where conversion therapy has already been outlawed.
The bill has some exceptions for religious groups, meaning, for example, it is still legal to give a religious sermon that preaches against homosexuality or pray with someone experiencing same-sex attraction.
Exemptions are also given to registered psychologists and families, with conversations in those settings still legal under the bill.
NSW Premier Chris Minns said he was comfortable with the exemptions. “The exemptions relate to medical professionals and counsellors, those that are governed by a professional association … There [are] also exemptions for families because we recognise parents are primarily responsible for raising their kids and they need to be able to have honest conversations with their children,” he said on 2GB on Friday morning.
Independent MP Alex Greenwich, who withdrew his own version of a bill to ban the practice last year to work with the government on its own legislation, celebrated the news outside Parliament on Friday morning.
“NSW is waking up as a safer place for LGBTQ people today,” he said, adding that the bill sends “a really clear message that LGBTQ people are loved, are beautiful, and now, any futile attempts to change who we are is against the law”.
Equality Australia chief executive Anna Brown said the passing of this legislation shows that governments shouldn’t be afraid of pursuing LGBTQ reform.
“This is a historic day and this law will save lives,” she said, saying conversion practices are “alive and well in NSW”, with people aged in their 20s coming forward as victims of these practices in recent years.
Teddy Cook, the director of community health at ACON and a survivor of conversion practices, praised the legislation for being inclusive of transgender Australians.
“We truly wake up today with more pride and more euphoria than the state has perhaps ever experienced,” he said.
“As a proud trans man, I wake up here after a huge night knowing that this state is telling us loud and clear that we are perfect.”
Announcing the news outside Parliament on Friday morning, Penny Sharpe, the leader of the government in the upper house, said the passing of the bill was “a very long time coming”.
“It’s been many years of advocacy for many people,” she said.
*****************************************************
Government Targeting ‘Ghost Colleges’ in International Student Visa Crackdown
Despite an uptick in net migration, the Australian government forecasts a significant drop due to measures introduced to clamp down on illegal visas in the international education sector.
According to data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on March 21, net overseas migration totalled 548,800 until September 2023, resulting in the total population growing by 2.5 percent.
The new population figure is 26.8 million, an annual increase of 659,800 people.
This latest data does not account for measures implemented by the Labor Party to curb migration, which is expected to halve by next year, primarily due to major restrictions in student visa approvals.
“Net overseas migration grew by 60 percent compared with the previous year, driven by an increase in overseas migration arrivals (up 34 percent), predominantly on a temporary visa for work or study,” said Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil.
Last year, as part of a greater move to drive down migration, the Albanese government implemented a migration review.
This was aimed at ending pandemic-era concessions afforded to education providers to prevent rogue operators from running so-called “ghost colleges” that often recruit international students who are not genuinely coming to Australia to study.
“Instead of pretending that some students are here to study when they are actually here to work, we need to look to create proper, capped, safe, tripartite pathways for workers in key sectors, such as care,” said Ms. O’Neil on March 21 at a press club event.
“More than half of the people who receive permanent skills visas under our current system arrived in Australia on a student visa.”
Over the next week, high-risk providers, referred to as “visa factories” by the government, will be sent warning notices that give a six-month compliance period to eliminate dodgy practices. If standards are not met, the provider runs the risk of being suspended from bringing in overseas students.
“Increased powers for the regulator and tougher penalties will deter dodgy providers who currently see fines as a risk worth taking or merely a ‘cost of doing business,’” Skills and Training Minister Brendan O'Connor said.
A new “genuine student” test will ask students to answer questions about their intentions for study, provide evidence of their current and potential financial situation, and sign a declaration that they understand what constitutes a genuine student.
Additionally, English language requirements for student and graduate visas will increase, with the minimum requirement from IELTS rising from 5.5 to 6.0 and for graduate visas from IELTS 6.0 to 6.5.
Results of the increased enforcement are already starting to show says Clare O'Neil.
“Since September, the government’s actions have led to substantial declines in migration levels, with recent international student visa grants down by 35 percent on the previous year,” she said.
********************************************************
Qld. government urged to dump ‘CFMEU tax’ in $6bn saving, industry heavyweights claim
The Queensland Government could pay the bulk of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games if it dumped its controversial, union-backed BPIC policy, industry heavyweights say.
The Labor government’s Best Practice Industry Conditions policy – dubbed the “CFMEU tax” – has been partly blamed for eye-watering costs across the sector, with claims it was driving up labour bills as much as 30 per cent while slashing productivity.
Queensland Major Contractors Association chief executive Andrew Chapman told The Courier-Mail even with the most conservative of estimates, dumping BPICs would save at least 10-15 per cent on major government projects.
“We’ve got a $64bn Big Build program over the next four years. If BPIC was not applied you could – conservatively – save 10 to 15 per cent of that cost, and that’s well over $6bn,” he said.
“With that, you could easily cover delivering a brand-new Victoria Park stadium, and almost the entire Games.
“You would see a reduction in costs, because BPICs not only drive up labour costs but they drive down productivity – making the projects a lot more expensive
“They also remove the ability of a contractor to bring innovation to the table – things like precast and modular solutions are ruled out – which is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing more of.”
Premier Steven Miles this week rejected an independent review’s advice to build a new $3.4bn Victoria Park stadium despite a panel finding it would be the most cost-effective option, saying he could not justify the price tag.
But a major projects pipeline industry report release late last year found the government’s own
BPIC policy was lifting the already “high floor” of construction costs, and leading to a “substantial reduction in the value for money equation.”
Aerial images of how the proposed and rejected Victoria Park stadium for the Olympics would look. Picture: ARCHIPELAGO
Aerial images of how the proposed and rejected Victoria Park stadium for the Olympics would look. Picture: ARCHIPELAGO
One construction executive said it was “pretty rich for (Mr) Miles to be talking about value-for-money when Labor introduced BPIC”.
A CFMEU spokesman denied the policy was leading to blowouts, saying BPIC projects were ”good for the industry and good for the taxpayer”.
“Blue collar unions including the CFMEU are on a unity ticket about BPIC,” he said.
“BPICs are an important safeguard against contractors who for years have price gouged on government projects and treated Queensland taxpayers like an ATM.”
A government spokeswoman said “good wages and conditions means we can attract more skilled workers to Queensland”.
“At a time when people are experiencing rising household costs, it doesn’t make any sense to suggest cutting workers’ wages,” she said.
Mr Chapman said the government needed to focus more on the value for money of the options on the table as well as the whole-of-life costs for the venue options.
“Just because something is the cheapest option, does not equate to it delivering the best value for money,” he said.
“Contractors will build what they’re told to build, but greenfield construction is more cost-effective than brownfield construction.”
**********************************************
Revealed: How many landlords sold up in Queensland
Thousands of landlords listed rental properties for sale in Queensland in the first two months of this year in a further blow to already struggling tenants.
Exclusive research by SuburbTrends has also revealed the hotspots where the most investors are selling up, and where renters might soon be facing eviction — if they haven’t already been ordered out.
The data shows 6,248 ex-rental homes hit the market across the state from January to February, accounting for 21.65 per cent of total listings.
SuburbTrends founder Kent Lardner said any area with a two percentage point spike or more was concerning, as landlords buckled under the higher costs of holding their property with rising interest rates and inflation, coupled with a punitive legislative environment.
Brisbane’s northern and southern suburb belts recorded a significant uplift in landlord sales, while in regional Queensland the area covering Mackay, Isaac and Whitsunday notched up a three per cent increase.
“I think the alarm bell has started now,” Mr Lardner said. “There’s always a natural number of people selling rentals. But the thing that is not normal is that significant spike.”
The Gold Coast suburbs of Southport and Surfers Paradise had the highest number of landlord sales over the two months, with 65 and 61 transactions respectively, followed by Nundah (56) and Roma (54).
An annual survey of investors by peak industry body, the Property Investment Professionals of Australia (PIPA), found 40 per cent of landlords sold one or more properties in Queensland in 2023.
PIPA chair Nicola McDougall said investors had sold more properties in Queensland than in any other state for a number of years, and pre-dating the recent record run of interest rate hikes.
“So, if it wasn’t for financial reasons back then, why were investors selling? Generally speaking, it was because they had simply had enough of being treated appallingly by policy-makers with policies such as the emergency tenancy laws during the pandemic, as well as the failed Queensland interstate land tax, proving to be a bridge too far for many,” Ms McDougall said.
“Queensland investors want and deserve policy stability when they provide the lion’s share of rental housing over decades of ownership – not continual market intervention, generally for political purposes.”
Ms McDougall said a main reason cited by investors exiting the market this year were changes to tenancy legislation, impacting their control and increasing their compliance and holding costs.
The latest round of rule changes banned rental bidding, attached annual rent price caps to the property rather than the tenancy, and could potentially allow tenants to make modifications to the home without the owner’s consent.
“Private investors are the key to solving the current rental crisis, yet, there doesn’t seem to be any appetite from political leaders to not only encourage them into the market, but to incentivise them to stay over the long-term,” Ms McDougall said.
“If the exodus of investors from Brisbane and across the Sunshine State isn’t halted, then the rental crisis will become even more entrenched, which will push rents higher and result in even more people becoming homeless.”
*********************************************
Vaccine mandates for NSW health workers to be dropped
NSW health workers will no longer need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 under a plan to phase out vaccine mandates.
Health workers in NSW will no longer be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as the state government moves to ditch mandates for the sector.
Health Minister Ryan Park confirmed the change would be going ahead after consulting with the state's health workforce.
'We know that COVID is still around but we've got to get back on with life,' he told Sydney radio 2GB.
'That means having a look at the measures we put in place during this period and seeing whether they still apply.
'We think this is one that we can engage with the workforce on and have a look to see if it's still applicable now.'
Public health orders mandating vaccines for health professionals were brought in during the pandemic and workers who refused either quit or were sacked.
While the order expired in November 2022, some workplaces have still been able to require mandatory vaccination under their own work, health and safety obligations.
Mr Park said if a decision was made to drop the mandates, workers who lost their jobs would be able to reapply to available positions through the usual recruitment processes.
He said COVID was still a public health threat and encouraged people to keep up with their vaccinations.
'But we've also got to make sure that we get on with running a health system after COVID and we can't continue in the same way that we did in the middle of the pandemic,' he said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13233833/Vaccine-mandates-NSW-health-workers-dropped.html
************************************24 March, 2024
Senate votes against vaccine-injured Australians
I am a vaccine-injured Australian, writing under a false name to protect my identity. The reason I do this is because I don’t want my claim to be affected. No one in power wants to believe me, they just want me to curl up and disappear. I am an inconvenience that threatens the narrative. But there are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of Australians like me, and we are not going to go gently into the night.
Today, I watched as Gerard Rennick, an LNP Senator for Queensland, moved for an inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme. Senator Rennick is one of the only voices that stands up for us. He stands up for us loudly. But his calls for an inquiry were shot down by his colleagues.
According to the parliamentary Hansard, Senator Rennick specifically wanted an inquiry into the scheme’s eligibility criteria, the time in processing claimants’ applications, the differences between the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s assessments and specialists’ assessments reported in vaccine injury claims, the adequacy of the scheme’s compensation of claimant’s injuries, mental health and lost earnings, the risks that inadequate support and compensation for vaccine-related injuries might exacerbate vaccine hesitancy, and other related matters.
In speaking to his motion, Senator Rennick told his colleagues how, in Australia, the government has done a woeful job of acknowledging and compensating those people who it has injured through drugs that it has prescribed. He talked about the victims of thalidomide, and how Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s apology came 60 years too late. He talked about how Australians had suffered in the 1980s when the Red Cross and CSL Limited allegedly infected tens of thousands with AIDS and Hepatitis C. He talked about mesh injuries, and how his uncle had been left blind after taking a sulfa drug. He talked about how the pharmaceutical industry has a history of putting their wallets in front of people’s health. He said that Australians ‘were told the vaccine was safe and effective.’ He asked, ‘If we [politicians] aren’t here to protect the people, what exactly are we here for?’ He said that Australians ‘should not be made to suffer for following the advice of the government that said they would be protected’.
Later in the debate, another senator said that no one else had spent more time talking to vaccine-injured Australians than Senator Rennick. ‘He speaks with a good heart and from a place of deep conviction.’ And that’s right. Senator Rennick does. He talked about and said all the right things. He gave me and all those other vaccine-injured Australians a voice. He was fighting for us, and he was winning.
Then the Albanese government’s chief spokesperson in the chamber, Katy Gallagher, stood up.
Senator Gallagher used her speaking time to gaslight Senator Rennick, describing his views as ‘irresponsible’. She said that the government would consider the recommendations made to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which advocates for a national no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme. ‘There is no need for another inquiry,’ she finished.
Except that’s exactly what the recommendations made to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee demand: a review of the COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme. How can you conduct a review if you can’t have another inquiry? How, Senator Gallagher, how? She said that the government had only received the report earlier this week, and implied that decisions were being rushed. No, Senator Rennick was just getting on with the job, fighting the good fight. Fighting for us.
When Rennick’s motion went to a vote, a division was required. The bells were rung. Coalition senators rocked up to support their colleague, as did Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, but it wasn’t enough. The Labor government, the Greens, Jacquie Lambie’s mob, and Lidia Thorpe all voted against the motion. It was defeated 24 votes to 31.
This is what the government thinks of us. We are the problem that, in their collective mind, deserves no solution. Australians are dying because they were forced to take an experimental drug and were told that if they didn’t, they would lose their jobs, their livelihood. They were ridiculed and shamed into submission. At least the Coalition seems to have the courage to admit it got it wrong, and under Senator Rennick wants to try and repair the damage as best it can. Why, now, is the Labor Government so frightened of uncovering the truth?
And I cannot believe that Senator Rennick won’t be on the LNP’s ticket at the next federal election. One of the last blokes with any real guts in Canberra, prepared to stand up to the powerful, has been, like we have, shoved aside.
This is a dark day for Australia, but it’s just another day in the last four years for me, for all those Australians injured by the Covid vaccines.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/senate-votes-against-vaccine-injured-australians/
********************************************Woke mathematics teaching: Rather sickening
Cresta Richardson, the head of the Queensland Teachers’ Union, declared that the 1.3 million children in Australia preparing to sit this year’s Naplan test should be spared the ordeal because it is too stressful for them. It is not surprising Richardson is calling for a boycott of testing, because Naplan testing exposes the complete failure of our education sector to teach people how to read, write and add up.
To his credit, federal Education Minister Jason Clare disagrees, stating he believes Naplan should stay. Since being sworn in as minister in June 2022, Clare has often repeated the mantra that we need to get ‘back to basics’. This is an admirable sentiment, but as long as this country’s education sector is controlled by a cohort of progressives who believe education is a vehicle for politicisation, it will remain nothing more than wishful thinking.
The progressive view of education is of course completely at odds with the expectations of most mainstream parents who still cling to the antiquated notion that, at the very minimum, schooling should be about acquiring basic skills such as numeracy and literacy. Nowhere is this difference more vividly illustrated than in the mathematics learning area of Australia’s national curriculum.
Deeply embedded in the K-10 mathematics syllabus is the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures’ cross curriculum priority, which ensures ‘students can engage with and value the histories and cultures of Australian First Nations Peoples in relation to mathematics’. The consensus seems to be that children should be taught things like statistics and algebra, not because these will furnish them with necessary life skills such as planning budgets or finding the best prices for products bought and sold, but because it will give them a deeper appreciation of Aboriginal dance, corroborees and dreamtime. Not so long ago, this was called anthropology.
Indeed, Aboriginal dance features heavily in the primary syllabus, especially when it comes to addition and subtraction. In Year 1, teachers attempt to explain to the kiddies why 2 + 2 = 4 through First Nations Australians’ dances. In Year 2, the point is hammered home again, using ‘First Nations Australians’ stories and dances to understand the balance and connection between addition and subtraction’.
For those students who still have not caught on, their teachers will explain through ‘First Nations Australians’ cultural stories and dances about how they care for Country/Place such as turtle-egg gathering using number sentences’. In Year 4, teachers explore ‘First Nations Australians’ stories and dances that show the connection between addition and subtraction, representing this as a number sentence and discussing how this conveys important information about balance in processes on Country/Place’. Just in case you thought this might be the last time children are subjected to the silent snake or cassowary dance, think again. The Year 5s are investigating ‘how mathematical models involving combinations of operations can be used to represent songs, stories and/or dances of First Nations Australians’.
As it turns out, these all-singing, all-dancing classes are a bit of a distraction. Not from learning the times tables or how to do a long division, but from something much more pressing, which is Reconciliation. This highly charged political concept is introduced in a Year 3 ‘Number’ class by ‘comparing, reading and writing numbers involved in the more than 60,000 years of First Peoples of Australia’s presence on the Australian continent through time scales relating to pre-colonisation and post-colonisation’. Two years later, they are busy ‘investigating data relating to Australia’s reconciliation process with First Nations Australians, posing questions, discussing and reporting on findings’.
It is in secondary school, however, that the architects of the mathematics syllabus really get down to business. From Year 7 onwards, students studying statistics are introduced to the notion of reconciliation between ‘First Nations Australians and non-Indigenous Australians’. They are told to look at ‘secondary data from the Reconciliation Barometer to conduct and report on statistical investigations relating to First Nations Australians’. The Reconciliation Barometer was invented back in 2008 by Reconciliation Australia to measure, every two years, just how racist non-Aboriginal Australians really are. This racism is confirmed for students in Year 9 as they go about ‘exploring potential cultural bias relating to First Nations Australians by critically analysing sampling techniques in statistical reports’ as well as observing ‘comparative data presented in reports by National Indigenous Australians Agency in regard to Closing the Gap’.
Every Australian parent should know that their children are being subjected to overt politicisation in maths classes courtesy of the national curriculum. They should also know that the technique being used was developed by Brazilian Marxist, Paolo Freire, who proposed that the only true education is political education and that all teaching is a political act. When Freire talked about literacy, he meant political literacy, rather than actually being able to read and write.
His view was that the teacher’s role is not to educate in the traditional liberal education sense of the word, but to bring about what he termed the ‘conscientisation of the student’ by awakening their consciousness to the real political condition of their lives. Freire claimed that conscientisation could be achieved in the classroom by ensuring children are taught to see structural oppression in all aspects of life.
Thus, a potentially dull statistics lesson on standard deviations, random variation and central tendency is transformed into an entirely different, and much more exciting class in which children develop a critical consciousness of Australian society.
They might discuss the devastating consequences of the invasion of this land and colonisation, past and current systemic racism in Australia, the need for truth-telling, the reconciliation processes, or the need for reconciliation action plans. By the end of the session on statistics, all they will see is structural oppression. And by the end of twelve years of schooling, they will be ready and willing to overthrow the oppressive capitalist power structures and replace them with a utopian socialist society of diversity, equity and inclusion.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/dreamtime-maths/
********************************************The grim cost of firming up solar and wind
Alan Moran
The ‘transition’ of the electricity supply industry has been forced by government subsidies to renewable energy generators with increased impositions on coal and gas with higher royalty charges and bans playing a secondary role. The first subsidies were introduced by John Howard in 2001 as the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. He later described this as his worst political decision. It required electricity retailers gradually to include wind or solar to comprise 2 per cent of their additional energy. This was quantified as 9,500 megawatt hours.
These measures pandered to concerns about the global warming. They also responded to lobbyists, who wheeled out experts claiming that renewable energy technology would follow a variation of Moore’s Law, where computer chip performance doubles every two years. The application of this to electricity supply, it was argued, just needed a short-term leg-up.
Time has demonstrated this to have been spurious. The need wind and solar facilities have for subsidies, far from withering away, have escalated.
The initial measure provided a subsidy to renewables (and cost to consumers) growing to about $380 million per year. To his credit, John Howard resisted pressures to increase this but the Rudd/Gillard governments and state governments vastly expanded the support with new schemes for rooftop facilities and budgetary expenditures. The Turnbull and Morrison governments further expanded the subsidies, which at the outset of the present government’s tenure amounted to $9 billion per annum.
The Albanese government has introduced a number of additional measures. These include the Safeguard Mechanism, which requires the major carbon-emitting firms to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 or buy the equivalents in carbon credits. The cost is conservatively estimated at $906 million per annum.
The government is also set to introduce the Capacity Investment Scheme involving power purchasing agreements designed to attract $68 billion of spending on additional wind, solar, and batteries. The best estimate of the cost to the taxpayer is $5,775 million per annum. In addition, the government is expediting the transmission roll-out.
Present subsidy levels are estimated at $15.6 billion per annum. The effects of subsidies have come in three phases.
The first was in the decade after 2003 when renewables progressively increased their market share as required by regulations. By 2014/15, wind and solar had grown to about 7 per cent of the electricity market. The subsidised supplies placed downward pressure on the market price as well as taking market share from coal. That outcome was intensified by new Queensland gas supplies coming on stream. Without access to export ports, that gas was redirected to domestic electricity generation and the share of gas supplies in the National Electricity Market increased from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. Gas now has more lucrative markets overseas and governments are exerting pressure on the producers to allocate more than is commercially sensible to the domestic market.
This first phase came to an abrupt end when low prices and higher supplies forced major coal generators, Northern Power in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria, out of the market.
Those market exits led to a second phase, whereby reduced coal capacity brought a trebling of wholesale market prices from their 2015 level of $40 per megawatt hour (MWh). Covid caused a temporary downward blip but the wholesale price is averaging $119 per megawatt hour in the March quarter, 2024.
These higher prices reflect the higher cost of wind and solar and will continue to prevail and, in fact, increase. Price increases may be concealed by governments entering into power purchasing agreements but this means subsidies financed by taxpayers rather than electricity users.
The subsidies to wind and solar have now resulted in their market share growing from zero 20 years ago to over 30 per cent. This is ushering in the third phase of the ‘transition’, which involves desperately seeking ways to firm up the intermittent and largely unpredictable electricity supply from wind and solar.
Gas, coal, and nuclear can operate pretty much continuously and without special storage facilities, but weather and nightfall limit solar to generating only 20 per cent of the time and wind to about 30 per cent. And electricity supply from wind and solar generators is highly variable.
With wind and solar at their current market share, coal and gas can fill their troughs in supply, albeit unprofitably. But the policy in all Australian government jurisdictions is to force coal and most gas out of the market. Moreover, coal (and, for that matter, nuclear) is technically ill-suited and costly to be used as a back-stop to variable wind and solar supplies. ‘Social licences’ aside, new coal or nuclear plants could not be commercially built except as near continuous baseload.
Other means of ‘firming’ wind and solar supplies are therefore increasingly required. One such is the conversion of Snowy Hydro into a pumped storage facility. Pumped hydro generates by releasing water when alternative supplies are short and uses electricity when it is in excess supply (and therefore cheap), to pump the water back uphill. Batteries supply and replenish on a similar basis.
Snowy 2 is planned to provide 376 megawatt hours of storage. The Capacity Investment Scheme is an attempt to augment this, though, notwithstanding its name, it earmarks 70 per cent of its intended power purchasing agreements simply for more wind and solar. These add nothing to replacing the dispatchable (controllable) power being lost from the forced retirement of coal plants. The Capacity Investment Scheme will add just 36 gigawatt hours of storage from the 9 GW of facilities planned to be contracted.
The Australian Market Operator’s (AEMO) Integrated Systems Plan for 2050 envisages a total storage capacity of 642 gigawatt hours for a system double the size of the present one and overwhelmingly powered by wind and solar. This is utterly inadequate for backing up intermittent power.
Francis Menton has assembled a wealth of evidence of how much storage a renewables system would require. He authored a major report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation as well as many other papers like this. Basically, his work shows that a wind and solar system, if it is to provide a secure and reliable electricity supply, requires some 26 days of storage. For Australia, this means 13,000 gigawatt hours of storage, which is 25 times what the AEMO Integrated Systems Plan envisages.
The highly regarded GlobalRoam consultancy estimated that the National Electricity Market (which excludes Western Australia), with perfect planning and no losses in storage or transmission, would require at least 9,000 gigawatt hours of storage. The costs of this, at $US 350 per kWh, would be three times Australia’s GDP for batteries that would need to be replaced every 12 years.
It might be argued that Germany, with little storage back-up, already has wind and solar providing 45 per cent of its electricity and, although it has some of the world’s highest prices, its supply is reliable. But Germany also has access to supplies from Polish coal and French nuclear power to firm up its wind and solar. Australia has a stand-alone system.
Our politicians are plunging us into a perilous future. Policies have already given us an electricity supply system with costs that cannot support energy-intensive industries. Those policies are now poised to bring about lower reliability than is compatible with a first-world economy.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comm
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-grim-cost-of-firming-up-solar-and-wind/
********************************************Gasp! The Christians are voting in Tasmania
Dave Pellowe
It’s election week in Tasmania, and former leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne, appears to be clutching her pearls at the prospect of authentic Christians having a vote and a democratic voice in her home state of Tasmania.
When I tweeted last week that the Church And State conference is coming to both Hobart and Launceston in early April with teachings from God’s Word about the important public issues being debated in Tasmania, she was triggered.
‘This is where Tas Liberals want to drive Tasmania: extreme right wing religious views embedded in politics. Eric Abetz keynote speaker. By then he’ll be in Parlt (sic). Expect prayer breakfasts, push for conversion therapy, oppose women’s reproductive rights.’
Teaching from God’s Word is ‘extreme right wing’? Well, that says a lot about the Greens, doesn’t it?!
Yes, Christians have religious views [gasp], and do you know who else’s worldviews are embedded in their politics where they seek democratic representation?
Everyone’s. It’s what we call civilisation in the pluralistic, inclusive, liberal democracies of the Christian West.
A long time ago in England, it was mandated by the government that people couldn’t choose their religion. They were fined, arrested, tortured, or even executed if they refused to go to the government-run church on Sunday.
This led to the Pilgrims fleeing to the New World to create freedom of conscience. It is a story celebrated each year on Thanksgiving in America and enshrined in their First Amendment.
It was that history and Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson called ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’, that was used as a reference to the principle that never again should people have the free exercise of their conscience in private or public curtailed by an overreaching government (the kind extreme left wing demagogues fantasise about).
Along with a free press, free speech, rights to petition, and peaceable assembly, religious freedom is a check and balance on craven politicians who seek to bring the power of the State to bear against common people who dissent with their vision of society.
So yes, I am coming to preach the Gospel in Tasmania to those who are humble enough to listen to what Jesus says about debated issues. As it is said, ‘Captives will be released, the blind will see, the oppressed will be set free, and the time of the Lord’s favour has come.’
Not once was Jesus tolerant or inclusive of proud and unrepentant moral lawbreakers, because ‘Woke Jesus’ is only a false god of self-righteous hypocrites, an idol made of human imagination and ignorance.
But He shows patience, mercy, and grace to those who are poor in spirit and grieving their terminal unrighteousness and those who humble themselves willingly before Almighty God.
The Greens can expect a debate on debatable issues. Expect Christian behaviours like praying [gasp]. And expect more Bible-believing Christians to take an active interest in the injustice, oppression, and the chains which extreme left wing worldviews are imposing upon the vulnerable.
Because as much as it might trigger the Greens, we still have democracy in Australia.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/gasp-the-christians-are-voting-in-tasmania/
************************************4 Billion Reasons Why Building Homes in Aboriginal Regions Will Achieve Little
The Australian prime minister has promised that $4 billion (US$2.6 billion) of taxpayer’s money will be a “historic investment” in housing in remote communities across the Northern Territory. Investment implies a return. I doubt there will be a return.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared, “The Northern Territory has the highest level of overcrowding in the country, which we are working to halve by building 270 houses each year.”
There was no guide as to which of the scores of discrete Aboriginal communities would be the lucky recipient. At the rate houses deteriorate in the north, and in these communities, the “investment” will be lucky to keep up. But is it even an investment?
Aboriginal Housing NT CEO Skye Thompson said it was. “This investment will help ensure Aboriginal Australians across the Northern Territory are able to live with dignity and pride, where their kids can grow safe, healthy and strong and truly look to their futures with real hope and optimism,” she said.
Ken McNamara of Wollongong had a different view.
In a recent Letter to the Editor of The Australian newspaper, he wrote, “These communities are economically unsustainable. After all, that’s why those areas were left alone for so long. Supporting people to stay ‘on country,’ irrespective of economics, just maintains the gap.”
I’m Indigenous and my family was subject to a natural experiment about whether it was better to stay “on country” or not.
My grandmother was sent off mission as an orphan to be a servant. Her immediate relatives were “allowed” to stay. Two generations later, not only are there a couple of doctors in our family but economically, healthwise, and spiritually, we’re doing just fine.
Those who stayed back on the mission—not so great. Unemployment, shorter average lifespans, and all the concomitant ills.
It’s clear that giving young people in remote communities every chance to get an education and career, is the only way to close the gap. Yearning for the old ways (usually selectively) and a past that will never return won’t close any gap.
The Commonwealth and the Northern Territory have done this before, paying for people to live in houses they do not know how to care for.
People’s capacity to maintain their houses is probably declining. Many evidently cannot and probably do not want to maintain them.
This investment is meant to help close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It cannot. These places do not have an economy capable of generating capital. They are capital sinks, and they will remain so.
The prime minister announced the housing giveaway while visiting the Binjari community near Katherine in the Northern Territory. By coincidence, I received correspondence from a colleague at Katherine the day after the announcement:
“We have around 30 funded NGOs and agencies here in Katherine, accessing millions of dollars annually, and for a small town like Katherine, that’s a bit of overkill in the number of agencies, especially when we aren’t seeing much in the way of returns for the money being spent.”
“It’s interesting to note that, when the business community was so fed up with the constant level of ram raids, smashing of windows and doors, theft of goods, threatening of staff, and trashing of premises that they had a meeting to put together a petition to Parliament about what was going on, the NGOs wouldn’t sign the petition, even though their premises were similarly affected.”
There is the golden insight.
NGOs rely on Aboriginal funding for their jobs, such as the newly announced Justice Reinvestment, which is $70 million; Safer Futures for Central Australia, which is $200 million; and Jobs for Northern Australia, which is $700 million.
As my correspondent wrote, “Aboriginal money is largely what makes the world go round here, so trying to get anything done is difficult because there are those who don’t want anything to change.”
The “historic” investment would best be made in out-migration and supporting services.
Building houses in the middle of nowhere to replace those ruined by bad behaviour is a fool’s errand.
Keep throwing our good money away, prime minister, but do not expect a better outcome until people’s capacity, place, and culture—not their leaders’ job prospects—are at the centre of policy.
**********************************************
21 March, 2024
African male nurse banned from ICU, critical care, emergency and night shifts
Strange that he is allowed to work as a nurse at all after such severe restrictions. He has clearly behaved very badly in a number of ways so it seems his race is protecting him.
His surname is Rwandan and that place has had a truly savage recent history so it may be that he just does not have the instinctive restraints we normally expect in a nurse
A Queensland nurse has been banned from working in the fields of mental health and acute care or late at night, the health watchdog has announced.
Amon Emmanuel Nteziryayo, from the Cairns suburb of Bentley Park, was slapped with the restrictions by the state’s Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) on March 12, according to an announcement posted on their website this week.
The notice, published on an online register of medical workers subject to immediate registration action, does not reveal why the regulator has restricted his ability to work.
He must only practise at locations approved by the ombudsman and must not practise outside the hours of 6am to 10pm.
He must not provide care to any patient where the care being provided is specifically related to their mental health and must not work in intensive care, critical care unit, emergency departments, or psychiatric intensive care units or in a facility where patients require frequent observations.
He must be supervised by another registered health practitioner and he does not currently have the ombudsman’s approval to practise in any employment or practice location.
It states that the decision will continue to have effect until the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal sets the decision aside or the health ombudsman revokes the suspension.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) website states that he was first registered in the profession in this country in October 2016.
He completed a nursing degree at the University of Southern Queensland in 2015.
******************************************************
A wise man
Homosexuals versus the Bible was no-win. A lot of Christians do vote for the Labor party. He could have lost the lot. Even for people with only a nominal Christian background, prosecuting people for quoting the Bible would have been too much, to say nothing of being starkly intolerant
Anthony Albanese has managed a remarkable feat with his decision this week to shelve a religious freedom law unless he can secure approval from Peter Dutton to give it a smooth passage through the parliament. Everyone feels they have lost, whether they wanted more rights for religious schools or more protection for gay teachers and transgender students.
In one remark, relayed second-hand to journalists from the Labor caucus meeting on Tuesday, the prime minister offended the Greens, equality campaigners, Christian schools and church leaders, who all had different views on how the law should work.
And Dutton was incensed. The opposition leader worked himself into a tirade at a press conference on Tuesday, as if it was an outrage for one side of politics to seek a bipartisan agreement with another. He seemed truly angry that Albanese only wanted to pass a law the Coalition could accept.
The anger seems overdone. Perhaps the real frustration in the opposition is that Albanese will not give it the fight it wants. That’s because there will be no chance for the Liberals to start a culture war about Labor and the Greens joining forces to limit the liberty of religious schools.
In fact, the entire government objective is to avoid a battle. Albanese promised at the last election that he would act on the concerns about religious freedom, but he argues now that Australia does not need a divisive debate on religion when there is so much tension over antisemitism and Islamophobia.
******************************************************
Sydney King's School headmaster Tony George erupts over 'woke' attacks on top boys' schools - and says his students are being unfairly targeted and ridiculed over high fees
The headmaster of an elite private boys school has hit out at what he calls the 'militant victimhood' of 'wokeness' that targets the 'straw man' of 'white privileged males'.
Tony George, headmaster of The King's School located in north-west Sydney, has lamented that 'sections of government and the press seem intent on deriding independent boys’ schools with any story they can concoct'.
HIs remarks follow the recent expose by ABC program Four Corners of another Sydney private boys school, Cranbrook, which resulted in the resignation of its principal.
Writing in The King's School magazine Leader, Mr George stated 'children attending non-government schools [are] being increasingly targeted and ridiculed' in what he called 'identity abuse' and this was especially true of elite boys' institutions.
'Government single-sex schools have seemed to avoid criticism, as have single-sex girls’ schools,' he wrote.
'However, the underlying agenda against the straw man of white privileged males has fuelled the creation of the term toxic masculinity and the religious fervour it subsequently generates.'
Mr George argued 'the practice of linking toxic behaviour to masculinity is to malign all males, just as linking oppression to the West maligns all western countries as oppressive'.
He argued this 'lambasted' men and boys with the same 'tarred brush of paranoia'.
*************************************************
EV cost savings not what they seem, says economist
A Commonwealth Bank economist has cast doubts over claims by the Federal Government that electric vehicles will be cheaper to own than conventional petrol vehicles.
In a paper called “New Vehicle Efficiency Standard: Race to the bottom?” economist John Oh compared the MG ZS electric vehicle with the petrol version of the same model and found that, at today’s prices, the EV would cost between 5 and 58 per cent more to own over five years than the petrol version.
He said that while EV buyers would save money on fuel bills and lower maintenance bills, they would eventually be slugged with higher ownership costs due to the weaker resale value of EVs.
But the equation would change if MG were to discount their EVs, using the carbon credits they would earn under the government’s new efficiency standard.
Under the government’s controversial new plan, EV makers will earn credits that can be sold to other manufacturers wanting to offset emissions from their popular thirstier vehicles, such as utes.
Oh estimated that MG could make up to $6500 per car in credits from the proposed scheme, and if the company passed those on in the form of cheaper prices, the ownership costs could be 2 per cent lower than a petrol car, based on a “best-case depreciation scenario” where the EV retained the same value as a petrol car. If EVs depreciated at “historical rates” the EV would still cost 44 per cent more.
“The clear winners of the NVES are car manufacturers that only sell battery electric vehicles. EV buyers can benefit if these manufacturers discount their EVs with the revenue gained by selling credits,” he wrote.
“The lower upfront cost, if credits are passed to customers, would help tilt the dial towards EVs being more economical to own and drive than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles,” he said.
But it was “unclear” whether EV brands would pass on their credit earnings in discounts. MG, which also sold petrol vehicles, might use their earnings to offset their thirstier vehicles.
Cheaper new EVs also created problems for used EV prices.
“Second-hand EVs have to potentially compete with the price of new cars, which are getting cheaper and there’s expectation that it will get lower,” he said.
Oh also had bad news for buyers of petrol and diesel vehicles, in particular thirsty utes and SUVs.
He warned that car makers who didn’t meet the government’s tough new standards would “likely pass on any penalties to consumers”.
He estimated that roughly three quarters of the top 20 car brands would not meet the 2025 NVES standard.
Isuzu, which only sold utes and 4WD wagons, could face penalties or have to buy credits worth between 6 and 17 per cent of the asking price of its vehicles by 2029.
That figure assumed Isuzu would not improve its vehicle emissions over the next five years.
“There are levers that vehicle manufacturers can pull. They can change the volume, they can change the price and they could also exit the market,” he said.
He said the ute market would pose the biggest short-term challenge to the success of the government plan because “EV uptake is low, low emission vehicles have a large price premium and consumer demand for EVs is untested”.
In the United States, where Ford sold an electric version of the F150, the EV made up just 3 per cent of total sales.
The paper found that EVs offered cheaper operating costs because they required less maintenance and charging was cheaper than filling a car with petrol.
But those benefits were outweighed by the fact they depreciated more quickly and cost more to insure.
************************************
20 March, 2024
‘Exorbitant’ fees paid to academic publishers better spent on Australian research and education, report finds
This is certainly a problem. The top journals can basically charge what they like. Any inability to access them would greatly hinder research
Australia’s public research institutions are paying $1bn a year to giant academic publishers, new research shows, amid growing calls for taxpayer money to be redirected away from private enterprises.
The Australia Institute report, released on Wednesday, questioned if more public money should be used for research and education instead of being directed to international academic publishers.
Academic publishes are among the most profitable businesses in the world – raking in massive profit margins approaching 40% – in line with Google and Apple.
The market is dominated by five major houses – Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature and SAGE Publications – and rakes in billions of dollars a year.
The report found Australia’s research institutions and universities spent $300m on journal subscriptions annually, totalling $1bn when additional fees and publication charges were added.
The “exorbitant” fees are charged to institutions and research groups in order to access research that the public largely funds, the report said. One-off access for a single article costs about $50.
Dr Kristen Scicluna, a postdoctoral research fellow and author of the report, said research was being “hamstrung” without appropriate funding and money could be better directed elsewhere.
“This amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars every year – much of it public money – spent on publication and subscription, not research and discovery,” she said.
Australia’s chief scientist, Dr Cathy Foley, has proposed a world-first open access model, recently finalised for the federal government, that would provide a centralised digital library for all Australians to access research papers free of charge, as long as they had a MyGov account or were in education.
Scicluna said Foley’s plan was a “great start” but did not go far enough, instead pressing for reform as to how research grants were awarded.
“It doesn’t do much to disrupt entrenchment publishers have on academic workflow,” she said.
Scicluna’s proposal includes revising grant criteria to reward publication in open access journals that have lower publishing fees and trialling a lottery-based grant system to reduce the power of major journals.
Australia’s two major public grant bodies – the Australian Research Council (Arc) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) – require publications to be open access, with stipulations in place. But receiving a grant depends on an academic’s track record, typically based on whether they have published in prestigious journals.
Scicluna said until grant conditions offered academics alternative avenues for promotion, private publishers would continue to benefit.
The lottery system has been trialled in New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Australia and Switzerland to some success. Grant applications are first screened for eligibility, then awarded randomly to applicants considered equal, to reduce the emphasis on a researcher’s publication record.
“Publishers can just keep increasing prices, so [the] funding universities get through the government to cover the costs of research, salaries and equipment end[s] up going to library subscription fees.”
In Australia, the Council of Australian University Librarians has taken the lead on negotiating open-access agreements on behalf of institutions. The council’s executive director, Jane Angel, said the need for reform came down to equity.
Angel said not advancing open access particularly hindered innovation among people without access to paywalled information – primarily, those outside educational institutions.
“That either predicates that innovation comes or is perpetuated among those who are tertiary educated, or suggests that this is where we expect to find innovation,” she said.
“That is not democratic or progressive, or indicative of the Australia [the education minister] Jason Clare wants where ‘no one is held back, and no one is left behind’.”
*************************************************
Getting to net zero without nuclear power condemns us to poverty
Our energy debate, here and globally, is one of the most consequential discussions in human history. That it is distorted by politicking, virtue signalling and delusion can be explained only by widespread ignorance about what is at stake.
It is pointless to contest the proposition that we need to transition away from a heavy reliance on fossil fuels. They are a finite resource and if our civilisation is to continue in anything approximating its current form this transition is unavoidable sometime.
The point of contestability is the urgency – probably overstated by many players. Still, let us put that argument aside and look at the overwhelming scale of the task. If we understand how energy has underpinned the development of our economies and societies, and how we rely on it, we could never be blase about transitioning from fossil fuels. We are talking about the reversal of the whole trajectory and achievement of our development across just a few decades.
We are being urged to up-end the relentless intensification of energy in favour of energy devolution or diffusion. This flips all we know about the core driver of our civilisation and, if it must be done, it needs to be done carefully with all possible technologies on the table.
Our journey from forager to influencer is all about the availability of increasingly intense sources of energy. The hunter-gather relied only on the energy of the human form, fuelled by the vegetable and animal matter of other organisms.
By controlling fire, domesticating animals and harnessing wind and water, we greatly leveraged our energy options. But none of this was enough to sustain cities or deliver widespread wealth.
Fossil fuels changed everything, driving transport and generating electricity. For thousands of years the global population grew very slowly and lived mostly in poverty. Across the past 250 years the population has increased tenfold, we have developed unfathomable wealth and technology, all the while more than doubling life expectancy and reducing poverty.
Energy was the driving force, and the consequences extend way beyond the economic.
In a new short film for Net Zero Watch, John Constable explains the impact: “That exponential increase in wealth from high-quality fuels led to a society that could withstand external shocks that would have been catastrophic for earlier populations. It was the beginnings of modernity.”
Constable is seen as a controversial figure in the climate debate, the sort derided as a denier by alarmists and renewables zealots. But his historical perspective is uncontrovertible.
Apart from transport, heating and cooling, industrialisation, appliances, entertainment and communications devices, consider what energy has done for humanity. In How the World Really Works, Vaclav Smil details how even in the early part of the 20th century most of the world faced poverty and food shortages. Rising food production – fuelled largely by fossil fuels and techniques dependent on them – led to a decline in global malnutrition from two in three people in 1950 to less than one in 10 now. And because this occurred while the global population more than tripled from 2.5 billion in 1950 to eight billion in the 2020s, it means we are feeding eight times as many people as we did 70 years ago.
We mess with this formula at our own peril. What has been fuelled by dense forms of energy can continue only if replacement energy is available, otherwise much more will have to change, and likely for the worse.
Constable talks about other knock-on effects, describing how Britain’s population became larger and richer and therefore more secure and innovative: “Wealth creates freedom, which creates more wealth, which creates yet more freedom and more wealth.”
He fails to offer a long-term solution, preferring to warn of potentially dire and chaotic consequences if we shun reliable and affordable energy: “Everything that humans value is in jeopardy.”
Labor, the Greens and their barrackers in public debate have their hands over their eyes, ears and mouths. For them, the world’s only reliable, baseload, zero-emissions fuel source is an evil whose role they refuse to see, hear or consider.
This is confounding when green-left politicians in Europe have long embraced nuclear and 22 leading economies at the COP28 conference in Dubai last December pledged to triple their nuclear energy output.
The green left in Australia shuns modernity for sham reasons; it cites only cost but this cannot be genuine given its lack of interest in the costs of renewables and clear evidence that many nations are reaping price benefits from nuclear. The costs of not developing a domestic nuclear industry need to be confronted. We would consign ourselves to a more sparse and vulnerable electricity grid that damages environments and landscapes. It also would face permanently high transmission and energy storage costs.
We would turn our backs on a hi-tech industry that plays a role in all modern economies and we would do this while attempting to run (and build) nuclear-propelled submarines. Madness. We also would surrender energy security, undermining economic fundamentals. Australia’s strategic rivals would encourage us to eschew nuclear and persist with our renewables plus storage experiment (especially if they buy our coal, gas and iron ore while selling us wind turbines and solar panels).
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull posted on X about the nuclear debate, asserting that nuclear could not “firm” renewable energy such as wind and solar. “To firm them we need flexible, dispatchable sources of zero emission energy such as pumped hydro, batteries or green hydrogen,” Turnbull said. “Nuclear reactors cannot turn on and off, ramp up and down like hydro or batteries can. Nuclear reactors generate continuously.”
And he said that like it is a bad thing. Nuclear would stabilise our grid with constant power and at times of low demand there might be little need for renewables. Perhaps that is why renewable investors, including in green hydrogen, are so antagonistic to nuclear. Excess power from a nuclear plant at times of low demand might be used to generate hydrogen or desalinate seawater. Next Turnbull will criticise drip irrigation because it invariably leads to moist soil.
Another film from Britain caught my attention this week. It was an old newsreel-style update on the 1956 commissioning of Britain’s (and the world’s) first commercial nuclear reactor at Calder Hall in Cumbria. Over wonderful black-and-white footage of workers toiling away on gargantuan cement and steel installations, there is a voice-over in well-modulated King’s English that has a hint of derring-do in the delivery.
“Far below, work started on the intricate task of creating the heart of the reactor furnace, to draw heat from the new fuel of the atomic age,” we are told. Yep, they were proud. Here was a damaged and straitened post-war nation justifiably taking pride in its industry and innovation – it built the reactor in less than three years. Compare that to our negativity and self-doubt.
The green left here argues all this technology is beyond us and that we should build wind farms and power lines across the country while we leave the rest of the world to modernise, and just hope for the best. It is a scientific cringe.
In an extraordinary interview on Tuesday Sarah Ferguson on the ABC’s 730 harangued opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien for daring to suggest this nation could deliver a nuclear plant inside 12 years and do it in a costly manner. Apparently, this can happen only overseas.
Yet the same host spoke with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen last November and when he claimed to be turning Australia into a “renewable energy superpower” they both managed to keep straight faces.
Facts and science have lost relevance in favour of ideology and sanctimony.
Science tells us, as the International Energy Agency concludes, that current technologies cannot deliver net zero by 2050. Neither can net zero be delivered without nuclear energy. Yet the government’s pretence continues, and the Greens and the media cheer. Just this week Anthony Albanese hailed a company investing $44m in electric trucks – but taxpayers tipped in almost half ($20m) and no one mentioned none of this would be possible without coal-generated power.
Turnbull and Bowen complain about timelines and costs for nuclear while somewhere underneath the Snowy Mountains lies a bedevilled tunnelling machine called Florence that Turnbull set to work on what was supposed to be a $2bn, five-year project but that will cost $20bn across at least 10 years and will provide only some energy storage if we are lucky.
Around the country communities are objecting to renewable projects and the transmission lines to connect them – legal and political battles are enjoined. Little wonder renewable energy investment, despite being favoured by laws, subsidies and market rules, is starting to drop off.
Bowen is set to trump a long list of failed energy ministers. One of the key considerations on election timing will be energy – can Labor risk an election early next year if there is a threat of blackouts from December through to March?
We know what a zero-emissions environment looks like – South Australia lived it for a day during the 2016 statewide blackout that occurred only because of how vulnerable the renewables push had made them. We saw what a low-emissions world looks like too, during the pandemic – people staying home, empty shopping centres, empty CBDs, empty airports, empty streets and empty skies.
The challenge for the world is keeping businesses open and skies busy while getting emissions to zero. It is unclear whether this is even possible. But it is certainly not possible without nuclear energy.
********************************************
Influencer Abbey O’Hagan reveals housing issue impacting single Aussies
I am a bit unsympathetic about this. Why does she not get a bloke? She is attractive so would have a wide choice
Ms O’Hagan, 24, lives on her own in Brisbane and pays $500 for the pleasure. To afford her hefty rent she works full-time as a social media and PR manager and is a successful influencer with over 70,000 followers on Instagram.
A few years ago, she would have easily been able to afford her own place, but now, living alone is becoming increasingly impossible for her – a fact she shared on social media.
In a video that has been viewed over 100,000 times, Ms O’Hagan said her rent has increased by $100 per week.
As she lives alone, she has no one to share that financial burden with, and this reality has left her horrified.
“I basically have two weeks to figure out what I’m doing and I just don’t even know what to do,” she said.
The response to her video was mixed.
While plenty of people in the comment section commiserated with O’Hagan’s situation, others were quick to remind her that living alone in 2024 just isn’t an option for many young people.
Someone said that she can’t afford to be “picky.” Another said that “no one lives on their own anymore,” and one person advised her to get a housemate.
Rents in Australia have continued to soar in 2024 and according to Rent.com.au the national median rent for just a room has increased by 16.03 per cent.
O’Hagan told news.com.au that she found some of the feedback frustrating, especially comments that told her to get a housemate or move into a sharehouse.
“People can say, ‘Just get a roommate,’ but no one has an idea of that person’s situation, what they suffer from, or how living alone is truly the best option for them,” she said.
After looking online at other housing options, she still couldn’t find one that was within her price range.
“Why is there not one single apartment for someone that wants to live on their own and have a carpark? Why is that so impossible?” She asked.
The PR manager said that after checking she realised she earns a salary higher than average in Brisbane, but still couldn’t find somewhere within budget that was “liveable”. She also shared that paying $600 a week in rent as a single person is tough.
“I love living here and the thought of leaving is really depressing,” she said.
***************************************************
Fury erupts as defence chiefs strip brave veterans of their medals just before Anzac Day - and give a 'reprehensible' reason for it
Unbelievable. Just nasty bureaucracy
Military veterans have slammed defence chiefs after they were bizarrely stripped of medals over a 'technicality' just weeks before Anzac Day.
Some members of the HMAS Manoora were awarded an Australian Active Service Medal (AASM) in 2014 for their work in providing humanitarian aid and arms transpiration in East Timor throughout 2000.
Despite a decade of proudly wearing and displaying the AASM, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal has suddenly stripped crew members of the award.
The move came after other members of HMAS Manoora later applied for the same medal after they were on the same missions but were turned down by the tribunal.
The decision has been branded 'reprehensible' by fellow veterans who have called on Defence Minister, Richard Marles, for an immediate response.
The crew were stripped of their medals because they were technically 'not force assigned to the original task group or operation' because they had been brought in on 'short notice', 2GB reports.
A letter to the crew members who have had their AASMs stripped recommended they 'don't wear the medal, the associated ribbon and the return from service badge' until Mr Marles ruled on the matter.
'I'm told by one of the crew, there is no dispute that the ship was in the war zone for the prescribed time and was participating in warlike operations at the time,' Ben Fordham told listeners.
'This could be fixed retrospectively by giving the remaining crew an AASM but instead they want to take back the medals they've already approved.'
A fourth-generation digger, whose family's service dates back to the Gallipoli campaign in WW1, said it was 'hard to believe' he was asked to hand in his medal.
'How do I explain this to members of my RSL sub-branch when a medal suddenly disappears? Veterans notice these things,' he said.
'How do I explain this to my children who are also very proud of their military history?'
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence and ex-serviceman injured in Afghanistan, Phillip Thompson, said the decision was 'disgraceful'. 'There will be veterans listening to this around the world,' he told 2GB.
'This is a government saying "thank you for your service, now give us back your medal". 'What the Honours and Awards should have done is awarded every person on that ship the same award.'
Mr Thompson said the Defence Minister 'has been briefed' on the matter and should 'act today' to curtail anxiety for those affected.
'We are moving into Anzac Day and this is a very stressful and challenging time for many of our veterans including myself,' he said.
'You reflect on your service, you reflect on the friends you've lost. 'And we're going to have veterans (asking) "Should I be wearing this? Do I deserve the medals that I worked for and earned?".'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13216425/HMAS-Manoora-medals-anzac-day.html
************************************19 March, 2024
Faith-Based Schools Can’t Maintain Ethos Under New Religious Discrimination Bill: Opposition
It is actually the Bible which is the problem. It describes homosexuals as an abomination and says that God will judge them (Romans 1 & 2). And Christians are commanded to preach Christian teachings actively (Matthew 28: 19 & 20). Legislating against the Bible is surely a vast cultural leap that can only end badly. Christian beliefs must be allowed or there will be big consequences. Albanese is already headed for the boot. If he enacts this he will go out in a landslide
Faith-based schools could find themselves getting bogged down in litigation as a result of the Labor government’s religious discrimination bill, according to the federal opposition.
Shadow attorney-general Michaelia Cash has taken aim at the Albanese government’s upcoming religious discrimination protections, which she said could obstruct religious schools from maintaining their religious ethos.
What Is The Proposal About?
The bill, which was initially introduced by the former centre-right Coalition government in 2021, set out to protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
However, the Coalition failed to pass the law prior to the 2022 federal election after five Liberal MPs crossed the floor to support amendments by the then-opposition Labor Party, which were designed to prevent discrimination against gay and transgender students by religious schools.
On the other hand, faith-based groups have expressed concern that the bill would do little to legislate protections for religious Australians, arguing the protections were too narrow to be effective.
The topic would soon resurface in public debate as the Australian Law Reform Commission prepared to release a long-awaited report in March 2023 that would recommend “making discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation … unlawful.”
This would be done by repealing section 38(3) under the Sex Discrimination Act, a move that could potentially bar faith-based schools from preferencing candidates who share the schools’ spiritual outlook during recruitment. It could also prevent schools from asking students to abide by the school’s belief system.
The shadow attorney-general warned that under Labor’s religious protection bill, faith-based schools wouldn’t be able to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with their values.
“What they’re saying to me is ‘Michaelia, we just want to educate; under Mark Dreyfus and Anthony Albanese, we’re going to wind up litigating,’” Ms. Cash told Sky News on March 17.
She also said she had heard “very concerning things” about the new amendments, adding that this would likely include an anti-vilification provision, which criminalises speech that is considered hateful.
‘A Cure That Is Worse Than The Disease’: Think Tank
Similar concerns have been voiced by Morgan Begg, the director of the Legal Rights Program at the Institute of Public Affairs. He said the religious freedoms of Australians would be under siege due to the “weaponisation of anti-vilification and anti-discrimination laws.”
“This notoriously ambiguous concept creates an opening for bureaucrats and courts to tie up supposedly legitimate speech in legal limbo,” he wrote in an opinion article for The Epoch Times.
“For example, saying ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ is something that many religious Australians believe, but saying so could be considered ‘hateful’ by some in the community.”
Mr. Begg warned the religious discrimination bill would “add more laws on top of bad laws” and described it as “a cure that is worse than the disease.”
Pressure To Conform
In recent years, faith-based schools have been facing mounting pressure to compromise on their spiritual values with LGBT groups.
The conflict was highlighted during the controversy surrounding Citipointe Christian College in 2022, which saw the school’s principal stand down over an enrolment contract that described homosexuality as a sin.
The contract, which stated that the college would only enrol students on the basis of the “gender that corresponds to their biological sex,” had attracted public protests and criticism, with some parents accusing the school of stigmatising a “vulnerable community.”
Former Principal and Pastor Brian Mulheran said at the time that his intention was “only to offer families a choice about how their children educated, and to be open and transparent about our religious ethos.”
“I am sorry, sorry that some students felt that they may be being discriminated against at Citipointe. We would never discriminate against any student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity,” he wrote in a letter.
Ahead of the 2022 election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised he would resume addressing the religious discrimination bill during their term of parliament.
“We’ll do it in a way which is much more consultative and brings people together in a way that I hope characterises the way my government functions,” Mr. Albanese said, adding that he “respected people of faith.”
******************************************************
Police bodycam footage shows why young woman rightfully won $320,000 pay out from NSW cops after being bailed up on the side of a street
Extraordinary: A woman was imprisoned for something someone else did with no involvement from her. It offends aginst natural justice, among other things. Some truly poisonous policing. Nobody is safe under such circumstances. And the cops concerned are apparently still employed
A young woman thrown in prison for six months following a routine 'stop and search' by police was awarded a $320,000 pay out, with bodycam footage revealing the officer's actions were unlawful.
The video shows Ebonie Madden in 2019 being bailed up with her companion, Dylan Turner, on a South Penrith street, in Sydney's west.
Mr Dylan is seen holding a black bag which is confiscated and searched by Senior Constable Michael Darnton and another officer.
But when Senior Constable Darnton uncovers a knife inside, he places Ms Madden in cuffs - and she was later charged with resisting arrest, possessing a knife and theft.
'You are under arrest for custody of a knife in a public place,' Senior Constable Darnton told Ms Madden before Mr Turner interjected and said: 'It's mine, chief.'
Senior Constable Darnton, who ignored the comment, later told a court that he and the other officer 'did not hear' Mr Turner.
The clip also shows a third officer, Danielle Munt, telling the pair, 'that's what happens when you're mouthy, you get searched'.
The officer later admitted in court the comments were 'unprofessional'.
Ms Madden spent six months behind bars in 2020, but in December 2022, she won a $320,000 compensation payout from NSW Police after a judge found that Senior Constable Darnton did not have reasonable grounds to justify conducting a search.
The court also ruled that she had been subject to malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, saying 'the clear inference is that Darnton's motivation was other than a legitimate exercise of police powers'.
That ruling was upheld on appeal in February.
A spokesman for NSW Police told the ABC the force will review the Court of Appeal judgement and consider ways to improve the way they handle such matters.
However, new data has revealed that there may be thousands of unlawful searches being conducted around the state.
Civil litigator and criminal lawyer Peter O'Brien and UNSW Professor Vicki Sentas fear police officers may be abusing their powers, saying it's likely that the vast majority of searches in this state are conducted unlawfully.
'[Australia] has one of the largest per capita police populations in the world … so when there's a quiet night, police often feel the need to be proactive,' Mr O'Brien said.
'And what that actually means, in many instances, is that they are overstepping their mark.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13209525/Police-bodycam-footage-search-unlawful.html
*****************************************************Feminist lawyers a danger to justice
It was a riveting moment. Here was Tasha Smithies, a lawyer for Channel 10, appearing as a witness in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation action.
This is the lawyer who advised television celebrity Lisa Wilkinson to go ahead with the disastrous Logie Speech praising Brittany Higgins for her “unwavering courage,” which ended up delaying the criminal trial for four months.
It was advice that clearly left Justice Michael Lee unimpressed.
“It is inconceivable to me that any legally qualified person could have given [such] advice,” he told the court, describing the advice as “inadvisable and inappropriate” and suggesting this was something that “someone who did a first-year criminal law course” should have known.
So, what was it that inspired this bizarre action from Ms. Smithies, the senior litigation counsel for one of Australia’s largest media organisations?
She told the court that she greenlit the speech because she felt it was important for Ms. Wilkinson to show she was not “wavering” in her support for Ms. Higgins.
“It was my view that from the time after the broadcast of the story, Ms. Wilkinson was inextricably intertwined with Ms. Higgins,” she said.
Even when she was grilled about the damage caused by that advice, she was unapologetic.
“I am not professionally or personally embarrassed by the advice I gave Ms. Wilkinson,” she said.
It was astonishing watching this woman, eyes shining as she proudly proclaimed that it was more important to support the celebrity journalist in her believe-the-victim crusade than to give appropriate, lawyerly advice that would not prejudice the fair trial of an accused person.
Bruce Lehrmann has made a complaint to New South Wales (NSW) Legal Services Commissioner, stating that Ms. Smithies has “displayed legal conduct that is wholly inadequate, deceptive, unacceptable and that breaches her obligations as an officer of the court to uphold the fundamental principles of the rule of law.”
Activism Over Professionalism
This appears to be the latest in a new breed of female lawyers.
Women who make no effort to disguise their feminist goals, from blatantly discriminating against men in the workplace, to flagrantly ignoring important principles in our criminal justice.
Thank goodness they are a small minority. But with women comprising the bulk of law graduates for the last 30 years, there’s been a huge wave of female lawyers flooding into every sector of the legal system.
Many are excellent, extremely competent, and appropriately focussed simply on doing their job in the best possible way. But examples keep popping up of feminist lawyers exploiting the legal system with all sorts of antics which show where their real commitment lies.
These are just the ones we hear about—heaven only knows what chaos such women are creating behind the scenes.
Remember Annette Kimmitt, CEO of Australia’s largest law firm Minter Ellison, who was fired after sending out an email to staff saying she felt “triggered” by the company’s decision to act for then Attorney-General Christian Porter after he was subject to a historic rape allegation?
Ms. Kimmitt emailed 2,500 staff expressing her displeasure that a senior partner was acting for Mr. Porter.
In her email, Ms. Kimmitt said the matter “has certainly triggered hurt for me. I know that for many of you it may be a tough day and I want to apologise for the pain you may be experiencing.”
She claimed the decision to act for Mr. Porter should have been considered “through the lens of our Purposes and Values.”
Ms. Kimmitt apparently had substantial support from young members of the firm, who obviously also support these “Values”; values which happily ditch the principles that everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence and legal representation.
Then there was Emma Covacevich, Clayton Utz’s first female chief executive partner, who announced when first appointed that she had firm views about how to achieve gender parity.
“It’s about more women coming in and more men going out,” she explained.
What about the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling SC, who had a melt-down when District Court judge Robert Newlinds claimed her office was taking a “lazy and perhaps politically expedient” approach to rape cases by failing to interrogate complainants’ allegations and sometimes putting hopeless cases before the court.
(His comments occurred in relation to a case where a man had spent eight months on remand in jail—and the jury took one hour to throw the case out. Then it turned out the woman had made similar allegations against about eight other men.)
Three other judges had made similar comments last year about unmeritorious cases being pushed through into court.
Then, a few weeks ago, another District Court judge, Peter Whitford really went to town, pointing out that pushing through such cases risks “drawing the criminal justice system into disrepute.”
Ms. Dowling’s response was once again an emotional attack on Mr. Whitford, before she finally backed down and announced an audit of all NSW sexual assault cases committed for trial.
Women Over Men
Female lawyers have been out in force publicly celebrating the demolition job Labor inflicted on our Family Law Act.
Canberra family lawyer Debra Parker was quoted in a local online paper praising the “overdue” and “transformative” overhaul of family law. She proudly proclaims that the move takes the law back to 1976—when the “best interests of the child principle” was central.
Oh yes, those were the glory days of uniform maternal custody, before parliament was convinced into thinking dads actually matter.
The only time fathers rate a mention in Ms. Parker’s comments is through posing a risk of exposing children to family violence, as she justifies the new laws that toss out the assumption of shared parental responsibility, let alone equal shared time.
Perhaps ironically, given the historical underpinnings of feminism, what most of these women have in common is a disdain for the principle of equality before the law.
Their goals appear to be primarily about promoting and protecting women’s rights at the expense of men’s rights. Their priorities are to do everything they can to protect and cosset women, believing their every story.
Too often, the effect of their actions is to undermine long-standing and legitimate legal safeguards. Safeguards that are designed to ensure that innocent men are not convicted.
There are very good reasons for men to be nervous about the increasing power of feminist lawyers.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/beware-the-latest-wave-of-feminism-5607078
*****************************************************Every school in NSW to offer gifted education programs
I am all in favour of this. It will be a great help to many students in crummy State schools. It is probably not important to really high IQ students, however. They will do well in any system. I did not go to school at all for my Senior exam. I just taught myself all in one year. Others in my IQ bracket should probably do the same
High potential and gifted education will be rolled out in every public school in the state under a new plan to challenge the students who are not reaching their full potential.
Such programs were available in only half of the state’s public schools, Education Minister Prue Car told the Sydney Morning Herald’s Schools Summit on Thursday, but fixing that would depend on tackling the state’s teacher shortage.
She said teachers had been “gaslit” by the previous government into thinking there was not a crisis in the sector.
“Parents deserve to see high potential and gifted education inside the doors of every local school,” Car said.
“Parents want confidence that regardless of their choice of school, that the learning environment will bring out the best in their child.
“Our vision is that in NSW, high potential and gifted education will be delivered in every public school, in a high-quality offering, in a way that is valued by students, parents and teachers alike.”
Under the plan, public schools will identify high potential students across four domains: intellectual, creative, social-emotional and physical.
A 2021 policy was supposed to make gifted education training available at all schools to ensure gifted students were extended even if they did not attend a selective school or opportunity class. However, only half of the state’s schools have the programs in place.
University of NSW researcher Professor Jae Jung said the extent to which the current gifted program was being taken up was highly variable.
The Sydney schools that have surged past 3000 students
“There needs to be a follow-up process and assessment to understand to what extent it is being implemented,” he said.
“One way to ensure gifted education practices are implemented is to guarantee all teachers have gifted education training at the pre-service teacher training level. There also needs to be a mandatory requirement that gifted education programs are available in all schools.”
Gifted education can take different forms including grade skipping, gifted classes and curriculum differentiation within the regular classroom, Jung said.
Car told the summit the challenges the public school system had faced, such as a lack of staff or resources, had left some communities wanting their schools to deliver more gifted education programs.
She said teachers felt “gaslit” by those supposed to support them, and that their challenging experiences in the classroom were being dismissed.
“They were told there was no shortage. That it was a beat-up,” Car said.
A research review by the NSW Department of Education previously found gifted children comprised the top 10 per cent of students, but up to 40 per cent of them were under-achieving.
If at least 10 per cent of students are gifted, 80,000 students in NSW public schools have high potential.
It found that without help to turn their promise into achievement, the students might never achieve their potential.
Car also announced at the summit that she had asked the NSW Education Standards Authority to conduct a review into professional development requirements for teachers and whether they were preventing them for undertaking learning that met their individual needs.
“I asked that NESA consider the administrative burden for teachers … as well as the professionalism of teachers in being able to identify their own professional learning priorities,” she said.
************************************
18 March, 2024
Great Barrier Reef undergoing mass bleaching event
Hoagy is back! Professor Hoegh-Guldberg is once again being an alarmist. He went silent for a few years when his own research showed the reef to be very resilient against damage. But he seems to like attention
Less excitable people below, however, give a more positive and much less alarming picture
The Great Barrier Reef has been hit by its fifth mass coral bleaching event in the past eight years. That event has led experts to ask whether Australia's environmental icon has reached a tipping point.
One of the world's leading coral authorities, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, is worried it has.
"I know that's shocking … but that's the type of system we're working with at the moment," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told 730.
The chief scientist for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Roger Beeden, believes such a call is premature.
"Right now, what we've got is a system is that is actually bouncing back from particular events," he said
But he does concede the repeated mass bleachings are taking a toll. "There is no doubt that these events are a clear alarm signal that we all need to be acting on climate change," he said.
The GBRMPA declared a mass bleaching event was underway in Australia last week but how it effects the reef remains to be seen.
"We won't know how significant that is until it plays out, and that's going to play out probably over the next six to eight weeks," Dr Beeden said.
The worst affected areas appear to be in the southern region of the reef.
And when 7.30 showed Professor Hoegh-Guldberg video and images taken recently by the media company, the Undertow, he was alarmed. "I think it's devastating," he said.
"This is an advanced bleaching event and I think a lot of coral is going to die.
"Not only are the branching corals bleaching, which are the sensitive ones, but the bommies, really large long-lived corals are also bleaching severely.
"And these bommies have been around for 200 years, so the fact that they're dying under these conditions should set off the alarm."
Not all bleached coral dies – some of the severely bleached coral from a 2016 event in the north of the reef has survived.
"For those areas that were affected by coral bleaching you can see some recovery in some places. Other places there's no recovery and you can see that full spectrum of things," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
He says that while it's vital to ensure reefs remain resilient through programs such as improving water quality, repeated bleaching events make recovery harder each time.
"What we do know is that if you increase the events that damage coral and you don't give them enough time to recover, you end up losing coral," he said.
"We've seen bleaching come and go, and what we're seeing here in this 12 to 18 months is that we will see the tipping point exceeded and the system crash."
"As to what that means exactly in terms of species and how that will play out, the ebbs and flows, we don't fully know," Dr Beeden said.
"It's certainly clear from the global science that we're putting pressure on reefs."
But the GBRMPA chief scientist also says the Great Barrier Reef has shown remarkable resilience.
"Given enough time, and a lack of other pressures, coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are still able to bounce back from these kind of events."
A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute for Maritime Science showed coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef was at its highest level since it began records 37 years earlier.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/great-barrier-reef-mass-bleaching-coral-devastated/103588726
************************************************Sydney University will recruit hundreds of new teaching-focused academics in what it says is a bid to improve student experience and place a higher value on teaching in higher education.
This is just more dumbing down of education. Getting research published is the guarantee that the teacher's knowledge is at cutting-edge level. Take that away and a teacher might have no expertise to share. The students might just as well read the latest book on the subject. I did a lot of research in my academic career and I always had a LOT to say in the classroom that was not in the books
Vice chancellor Mark Scott said the roles would carve out a new career path for teaching specialists in academia, allowing them to fill some of the most senior roles at the university.
However, some are unhappy about the plan, suggesting it creates two tiers of academics by removing a focus on research.
The university will on Monday launch an international campaign to recruit more than 150 tenured academics after an initial appointment of internal applicants across 55 new roles.
The teaching-focused positions will be for every career stage, from lecturers to full professors and senior leadership roles across a broad range of disciplines.
Scott said for students the key engagement with the university is around what happens in the classroom, not in the research lab.
“Our most brilliant teachers should be as famous and revered in the institution as our most brilliant researchers are today,” he said.
“I have a view that we owe every student a transformational experience here at the university.
“They’re paying higher fees than students have ever paid in this country.
“So to prioritise appropriately teaching and learning as important as we do research - that’s what we need to do. I think that’s what the great global universities do.”
Teaching-focused academic roles are controversial among many academics who see the roles as career-limiting and involving intense workloads.
The jobs came about as part of protracted EBA negotiations with staff which concluded last year. The university agreed to introduce 330 new permanent academic roles to reduce casualisation of the workforce but 220 of those were to be teaching-only positions.
It contrasts with the existing deal for academics which guarantees they spend 40 per cent of their time on research, 40 per cent on teaching and 20 per cent community engagement.
English and linguistics academic Nick Riemer, the university’s National Tertiary Education Union branch president, said there was a clear effort from senior management to break the teaching and research nexus.
“There should be more academic jobs at the university because at the moment it has an overreliance on casualisation and that just involves outright exploitation,” he said.
“But we are very seriously concerned that university management seems intent on separating teaching and research, which are academic functions which intrinsically belong together.
“If you’re not researching in your fields you’re passing on doctrine.”
Riemer said the education-focused roles that exist at the university were subject to high levels of overwork.
“And there’s every reason to think uni management see teaching focus roles as just a cheap way of getting staff to do a lot of teaching without giving them the time for the research they need to do to stay up to date,” he said.
But Scott said teaching at higher education level had been undervalued, and the roles would create viable career options for teaching specialists.
“We’re creating a career pathway that says to the very top end of the professoriate, people who are teaching experts can have a career pathway to the very top,” he said.
One of the first internal recruits for the roles, Louis Taborda, senior lecturer in project management, said he chose teaching because he saw it as a noble cause.
He began his career as a high-school maths and computer science teacher, then worked as an IT consultant before moving to academia.
“I felt right at the beginning that getting into teaching was something that was noble, pure and unadulterated,” he said.
“It’s absolutely a pleasure to watch students grow.”
****************************************************
South Australia introduces sweeping reforms to REDUCE the availability of rental accomodation
The more you restrict what owners can do, the more reluctant they will be to let their properties out
From March 1, rent price increases are now capped at one increase for every 12 month period.
There is a dramatic lift in penalties for landlords who discriminate against a potential tenant who has children, with the maximum fine rising from $2500 to $25,000.
And a landlord who falsely states he or she requires possession of a rental premises in order to terminate a tenancy can be hit with a maximum fine of $50,000 from an earlier maximum penalty of $2500.
The changes follow the illegalisation of rent bidding – the practice of landlords or real estate agents soliciting higher bids for a rental above the listed price – in September last year.
The change means landlords can no longer able to advertise properties with a rent range, put properties up for rent auction or solicit offers over the advertised rental price, with a penalty of up to $20,000 in place for breaches.
Later this year, a third tranche of reforms will stabilise the rental experience ever further.
South Australia will extend the notice period to end a tenancy from 28 days to 60 days, permit tenants to have pets in rentals with “reasonable conditions” and ensure rental properties comply with minimum housing standards.
Consumer and Business Affairs Minister Andrea Michaels said the government’s reforms struck the “right balance” between protecting both the rights of tenants and landlords.
“At a time when South Australian tenants are facing unprecedented levels of housing insecurity, we want to ensure tenants have the best possible protections in place including stronger rights, more financial stability and better long-term security,” she said.
“Landlords also deserve protection to ensure their property is being properly taken care of, which is why we have also increased penalties available for those tenants who fail to live up to their responsibilities.”
Tenants who intentionally cause serious damage to a rental property now face fine of $25,000 from $2500 before the changes.
What the numbers show
Data from SQM Research shows average weekly rents for both houses and units continue to rise across much of Australia.
Some cities have recorded double digit growth in rent prices in the past 12 months, including Adelaide, which recorded a 13 per cent rise in combined house and unit rent prices.
Adelaide has a vacancy rate of 0.5 per cent while Perth’s market is the tightest, with a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent.
Sydney’s rate is 1.1 per cent.
****************************************
Complaint filed to Human Rights Commission against WA child protection department
Great! Absolute silence on WHY Aboriginal children are still being removed wholesale from their families by social workers. If you have seen how brutal Aboriginal men often are towards women and children you will know that the removals often save lives. How incorrect that is!
A law firm has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Western Australia's Department of Communities over the allegedly discriminatory removal of First Nations children from their families.
It is the second of four complaints filed against state government child protection departments and Shine Lawyers is claiming that widespread racial discrimination has led to the unlawful and unjust removal of Indigenous children into state care.
Shine Lawyers also says government departments have failed to reunify these children with their families.
First Nations woman Lisa* was removed from her family when she was six and lived in at least 10 different foster homes.
"I felt like [the Department of Child Protection] destroyed everything that I could have had with my family," she said.
Lisa said she lost connection with her mum and cried for her every day when she was sent to live 600 kilometres away.
"I still cry for them," she said.
"I still miss them and I still don't get it back — I never get the love back."
Now 20, Lisa said she relived her childhood trauma when her six-week-old daughter was taken from her and placed into care.
"Since I lost my connection with my mother, I don't want to lose it with my daughter," she said.
Lisa does not want her baby growing up thinking that she is not loved.
"I never got a chance to love her before they decided to take her away from me," she said.
Shine Lawyers special counsel Caitlin Wilson said despite legislative intervention, inquiries, policies and reports, and the fact that these statistics have been reported for years, the over-representation of Indigenous children in the child protection system had not decreased.
"Sadly, Western Australia has the highest over-representation rate in the country," Ms Wilson said.
"We're seeing a real failure when someone is identified early on during their pregnancy, a failure of the department to wrap support around that person and help them with housing issues or domestic violence, substance disorders, whatever it might be.
"Instead they're removing the child at birth and it's too late for anyone to do anything at that stage."
The complaint in WA follows one in New South Wales in January and class actions are set to be launched against government departments in four states, including South Australia and Victoria.
WA Minister for Child Protection Sabine Winton said she could not comment specifically on the case in the AHRC, but she was proud of her department's work.
"Aboriginal children are over-represented in the out-of-home care system, there's absolutely no doubt of that," she said.
"We are working hand-in-glove with the federal government to meet our national commitments to closing the gap."
Ms Winton said recent changes in the out-of-home care system showed the direction the department was moving in.
"We now have 16 organisations who support young children in care … of those, six are now Aboriginal-controlled organisations," she said.
"This time last year there was only one Aboriginal-controlled organisation.
********************************************
Battery Storage Plans Fan Community Bushfire Fears
A northeast Victorian community is fighting plans to build battery storage in an area of extreme bushfire risk, as the state government closes one avenue of appeal.
Mint Renewables and Trina Solar plan to build two battery energy storage systems (BESS) near the Dederang terminal station in the Kiewa Valley.
“It’s just ridiculous,” Dederang’s Sharon McEvoy, who owns farmland next to the proposed sites, told AAP.
“It’s north-facing, and backs right up next to the bush ... surrounded by bushfire management overlays.”
Ms. McEvoy led a community meeting, as more than 200 frustrated residents of Dederang and nearby communities filled the recreation reserve hall and spilled out onto the deck and foyer.
“We know the fire risk,” she told the crowd on March 14.
Battery fires can burn for several days and release toxic and flammable gasses, as seen in 2021’s four-day fire at the Tesla Big Battery site near Geelong, west of Melbourne.
“We care about the environment, the waterways, and the land where we live and work,” said Ms. McEvoy, while fighting back tears.
“The government is sacrificing the wellbeing of rural communities.”
The meeting came hours after the Victorian government announced plans to fast track new renewables projects, including stripping the ability of third parties to appeal planning decisions in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
“Once the reforms come into effect, new permit applications for batteries can be considered under this new accelerated pathway,” a spokeswoman for the department transport and planning told AAP.
“Our accelerated pathway for renewables projects will help deliver cheaper and cleaner energy to Victorian households sooner.”
The department has not yet received permit applications for either of the Dederang battery storage projects, and applications made from April 1 can be considered for fast tracking.
The state government maintained community voices would continue to be protected, despite the curtailing of VCAT access.
“Third party objections will still have a place in the approvals process, but this change prevents time-consuming and repeated delays that hold these projects back for years,” the Victorian government said on March 14.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said the issue went far beyond a state planning issue.
“What is happening to your community is happening right across the country,” Senator McKenzie told the crowd.
“We’re all on the journey to net zero, but we need to share the burden.”
Both Chinese-owned Trina Solar and Mint, owned by Infratil and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, opted not to attend the meeting.
“We are updating our design and developing mitigation measures to ensure the project is well-informed by local knowledge,” Mint said in a statement.
“We will continue to be open and responsive to questions and constructive feedback.”
Ovens Valley state MP Tim McCurdy said residents should direct their concerns to Victoria’s minister for planning, Sonya Kilkenny.
“We’re not anti-renewables, we just want communication,” Mr. McCurdy told the crowd.
“We want to know what’s going on.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/battery-storage-plans-fan-community-bushfire-fears-5607927
************************************17 March, 2024
Authoritarianism lives in the mind of a Leftist teacher
Brendan McDougall (below) teaches in a government school in country Victoria. He realizes that some parents are prepared to make considerable efforts to ensure that their children get a good education while others are prepared simply to accept what the government offers. He deduces rightly that, no matter the system there will always be at least some people who seek privately-funded education in order to give their children more than the government offers. He wants to stop them doing that. He wants to forbid private education altogether. He would approve of the old Soviet system.
That is a distinctly radical proposal from a distinctly radical website and one with no chance of adoption so why does Brendan argue that? His argument is actually realistic in some ways. He thinks that having private schools diverts resources that might otherwise go to government schools and he wants more resources for government schools. Private schools get all the best teachers, for instance.
What he overlooks is that the existing system greatly expands the share of national resources that goes into education. Private schools attract private money, which adds to what the government spends on education. He is actually advocating for LESS money to be spent on education
He cannot be unaware of that. It is just Leftist envy that is heaving in his breast. He is aware that many private school users "are paying for their children to have access to a more powerful peer group" and he hates it. He just cannot bear the thought of other people doing well for themelves and feeling happy about it. Their happiness makes him unhappy. He must be miserable a lot of the time.
We can be thankful that there are not enough like him to be influential. When Mark Latham was leading the Labour party, he suffered a crashing electoral defeat after just a mild threat to Federal funding to private schools. Around 40% of Australian teenagers go to non-government schools so that is a huge voting bloc to threaten.
In case it is of any interest, I went to a small country State school in Queensland and sent my son to a regional Catholic school. Both schools were rather good, I think
Australia’s public schools are in crisis.
Teachers nationwide have been shouting about this for more than a decade. There are no teachers. Our students are falling behind internationally. Many kids are depressed and school refusal is through the roof. It’s become so dire that even Education Minister Jason Clare agrees.
Over the past decade, right-wing responses have been to blame the teachers or claim there are too many soft skills being taught. Those advocating in the media for school reform have tended to argue about the funding disparity between public and private schools, and the fact our schools are many percentage points away from meeting the school resourcing standard.
These arguments ignore the reality that our current system values the education of some young Australians more than others — and the numbers obfuscate and distract from the true rot in the sector: class segregation.
We have one of the most robust private education sectors in the world, and it’s hard to argue, especially following a recent Four Corners investigation into allegations of harassment and discrimination at Sydney’s Cranbrook School, that this is doing our society any good.
Private schools don’t need tweaks or reforming; they need to be abolished.
No teachers, no resources
Our teachers are overworked, overwhelmed, burnt out and undervalued — and the numbers often cited are egregious. In New South Wales and Western Australia, shortages of more than 2,000 teachers were reported at the end of 2023. In Victoria, 800 jobs remained unfilled across the state when students returned from the summer (now reduced to 795 at the time of writing, including 14 principals).
This shortage is being felt across the board, but the pain is sharpest at schools in our most vulnerable communities, such as mine, where six teachers have returned from retirement this year and we still have seven unfilled full-time jobs, with no applicants in sight.
In the decade following the 2012 Gonksi review — which assessed school funding and depicted a system characterised by alarmingly declining test scores and increasing educational inequality — funding of private schools has increased at twice the rate of public. Not only did the review’s warnings go unheeded, but successive governments have worked in tandem to accelerate the trend. In Victoria and NSW in 2021, five elite private schools spent more on new facilities than governments spent on 3,372 public schools combined.
These numbers are shameful, but while they liven up discussions in staff rooms, they’re not effective at creating change. There are deeper issues at play. For every cartoonishly posh school in Kew or Bellevue Hill charging well over $30,000 tuition a year, there are five or more smaller, lower-fee private schools that cost $5,000 a year that compete for teachers and students across Australia’s less affluent areas.
These schools are often as materially scruffy as the fee-free public school down the road, with similar performances in metrics like NAPLAN and ATAR. Despite this, parents flock to these independent private schools in droves, with enrolments ticking up 14.1% over the past five years, while enrolments at Catholic private schools increased by 4.8% in the same period. Yet despite recent cost of living pressures, enrolments in public schools only grew by a measly 0.7% over the past five years, well below the average growth for all schools of 3.5%.
Paying for a peer group
We are certainly not getting richer, particularly those of us young enough to have kids starting school for the first time, so why might cash-strapped parents be willing to spend an ever-increasing portion of their disposable income on a product that isn’t measurably “better”?
One reason is that private schools have marketing departments, but a more potent force is that middle-class parents in Australia consider privately educating their children a cultural norm.
Australia is one of the richest countries in the world, and we have one of the highest percentages of private-school-educated young people in the world — 36%, with an increase of 4 percentage points over the past 20 years. In a country like the United States, where there are roiling debates about school choice and rampant social inequality, only 10% of students attended private schools as of 2022-23.
In Australia, enough parents send their kids to private schools that to do otherwise can feel inadequate or negligent. Parents care about their kids and they don’t want them to miss out, so they work two jobs and send their kids to private school so they can relax knowing they did everything they could.
In doing this, however, they inoculate themselves against needing to care about what happens to those who can’t afford what they can. They tap out, and if a third of our families tap out of public education, there becomes little political will left to make our public schools work. This is compounded by the fact that it’s the wealthier, powerful third — the parents who are also doctors and bankers and lawyers and politicians — who leave the public system first.
This means that in Australia we have two education systems — one for everyone, and one for the students whose parents believe that the one for everyone isn’t good enough. These latter children spend their formative years only associating with people like them, with limited mixing across class lines. Parents who send their kids to private schools aren’t necessarily paying for a better education — they are paying for their children to have access to a more powerful peer group.
This has been true for decades. Parents today who attended public schools grew up knowing the state didn’t care about their education, and so it is with today’s young people. They know this in their bones as they walk through the gates. As teachers, we see it in their eyes, but we also see it in our declining PISA scores, our school refusal rates, completion rates, our problems managing behaviour, and the upticks in youth crime statistics. These kids know that their country cares about other children more than them.
Education for all
In a debate about the value of VCE in my Year 12 English class last week, one student asked me if “a 40 here is really worth the same as a 40 at a private school in Melbourne”. The truth is that it’s worth so much more when it’s been fought for so much harder, but there aren’t the structures in place for us to see that.
The rampant, chronic underfunding of our public schools is a blight on our national identity, especially for a country that lionises the idea of a “fair go”. But simply reallocating funding to be more equitable will not address the class segregation corroding Australia’s school system.
So what can we do? Well, we can start by phasing out the federal taxpayer dollars pouring into the coffers of private schools — a minimum of $17.8 billion in 2024. If someone wants to pay for their child to attend a school where they won’t fall in with “the wrong crowd” or the other classist monikers we reserve for poor kids, they can pay for it themselves. We could then invest that money back into our public schools, targeting funding to the communities like mine who need it most.
We could ban the new construction of private schools that are de facto designed to siphon away from the public sector the families who have the resources to invest in their children’s education, robbing their local school of their assistance. A better-resourced public sector could be designed to provide different educational options for different kids, and we could repurpose some of those three-storey performing arts centres into facilities accessible to everyone.
These solutions aren’t easy — they require long-term thinking, values-based politics and bravery. The issue has been ignored for so long that it is entrenched. Decades of underfunding and neglect have made our public schools less competitive and less attractive to middle-class parents. Decades of conversations during school pick-ups and dinner parties have made parents increasingly anxious that their child might get left behind.
Even if we did manage to abolish the grossly inequitable privatised model we currently have, our schools would still be segregated by postcode; by the capacities of parents to pay “top-up fees” to give their local public school an edge. But unless our leaders dare to acknowledge the injustices baked into the system, more kids will leave the public system, more burnt-out public school teachers will leave the profession, and more of our next generation will leave the education system feeling as though it wasn’t designed for kids like them.
If governments, state and federal, are serious about fixing public education, they must consider the radical choice of abolishing the private education sector. Until they do so, they will never truly ensure that our schools are about every child learning, growing and flourishing.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/15/australia-public-school-private-school-funding-class-disparity/
*********************************************Urban planners decry NIMBYs as residents oppose St Lucia housing development
Nimbys are often very active and vocal so goverments are reluctant to defy them. But they are claiming a right that usually does not legally exist under statute law. But Common Law is more flexible and can beget wins. They certainly obstruct housing provision for others
Urban planner Dorina Pojani says "selfish" NIMBYs are preventing much-needed homes from being built.
What's next? Brisbane City Council will decide on whether to approve the development following the weekend's election.
Robert Davidson fears his apartment's value will plummet when a luxury high-rise apartment is built right next door.
The University of Queensland music lecturer lives on a leafy street in St Lucia, just down the road from his campus.
The developer, Place Design Group, plans to build a four-storey building with ten units at the neighbouring property, 7 Ryans Road.
Dr Davidson's real estate agent, Plum Property, estimates his apartment is currently worth $830,000, but would only sell in the $600,000 range if the development goes ahead.
"When I bought the unit I didn't know that was the case. It's kind of been sprung on me and it feels like I'm paying for someone else's profit," Dr Davidson said.
"I'm a huge supporter of medium-density housing. I just think you need to think strategically about where it should go, and there's so many reasons this is not strategic."
Planning educator says attitude 'selfish'
University of Queensland urban planning Associate Professor Dorina Pojani said, in her view, a four-storey housing development in that area of St Lucia was perfectly reasonable.
Dr Pojani said Brisbane's housing shortages were being exacerbated by "selfish NIMBYs" — home owners who oppose new houses being built in their neighbourhoods.
She said in her view this was a clear example of "typical NIMBYism", driven by fear of falling property values.
"That kind of attitude is extremely selfish as the city is undergoing a major housing crisis and we've got people living in tents and parks," Dr Pojani said.
"Even if their property values decline, I say 'who cares?'
"A house should be a place for living. It should not be a place to store wealth, showcase wealth, or pass wealth from generation to generation."
Dr Pojani said any new units, even luxury ones, would help boost Brisbane's housing supply and alleviate the shortages.
Place Design Group did not respond to the ABC's request for comment.
However in their written response to objections raised by residents, they rejected claims their building would lower neighbouring house prices.
"The development will have negligible impacts to surrounding property values," it said.
"The development will enhance the street appeal of Ryans Road, not only for the property subject of the development, but those within the immediate and surrounding area, having a positive influence on nearby property prices."
The 'Nimby Paradox'
As suburban sprawl radiates from cities across the country, experts and politicians are increasingly saying we need more infill development. But building higher-density homes isn't always easy.
Brisbane artist Jackie Marshall, who currently lives with Dr Davidson, said she felt the developers were effectively "stealing" value from the neighbouring properties.
Ms Marshall said the development would worsen traffic, endanger cyclists, clear greenery, and spoil the views for neighbours.
"There are so many sites in St Lucia that are ripe for high and medium density building that do not contribute to cyclists' problems, that aren't on the floodplain, that aren't taking value away from residents' properties," she said.
"If the LNP are serious about solving the congestion problem they need to make sure we don't approve developments that will put cars on the Brisbane river loop and create a danger for commuters."
Natali Rayment is the executive director of Wolter Consulting Group and the co-founder of YIMBY QLD, an anti-NIMBY group.
Ms Rayment said Brisbane had a severe "missing middle" — a shortage of medium-density apartment blocks.
She said higher density accommodation was particularly crucial near facilities such as universities, train stations, and other areas of high activity.
She said many Brisbane residents still clung to the idea of low density suburbia, despite its drawbacks.
"We're a big city with great opportunities, yet we still seem to have these old country town values," Ms Rayment said.
"We've got a housing shortage and if someone wants to build four storeys in St Lucia right now, I think we need to say yes and get it happening."
The development is currently pending approval from Brisbane City Council, which is in caretaker mode for the local government elections.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/urban-planner-decries-brisbane-nimbyism/103582718
**********************************************Australian Alps snow cover to fare worst in the world under climate change, German study finds
And pigs might fly. Prophecies are worthless. The best snow in our general area is in New Zealand, anyway
A grim picture has been painted of the future of the Australian Alps, with research predicting snow cover days may fall by 78 per cent by the end of the century.
Worldwide, 13 per cent of ski areas are predicted to lose all natural snow cover by 2100.
Researchers from the University of Bayreuth in Germany have today published a study in the journal PLOS One, prompting calls from academics to reinforce an urgent need to address climate change.
The study puts Australia's rate of decline as the highest when compared to six other major skiing regions in the world, including New Zealand, Europe and Japan.
"I'm not surprised by the findings of this report, to be honest," Climatologist and Australian National University Professor Janette Lindesay said.
"There's no doubt that we're heading for an even warmer future."
The study found one in eight ski areas across the globe, or 13 per cent of winter ski slopes, were predicted to lose all natural snow cover this century under a high emissions scenario.
High emissions referred to one of three climate change scenarios based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways model laid out in the study, alongside "low" and "very high".
Study co-author Dr Veronika Mitterwallner said her team focused on the "high emission" projection to summarise their findings because they considered it the most current and realistic scenario of the three.
Despite this, the study found annual snow cover days across all seven "major mountain areas with downhill skiing will significantly decrease worldwide" across all three scenarios.
Professor Lindesay said it reinforced a need to ramp up efforts to tackle climate change and lessen potential damage to alpine environments.
"The scenarios are effectively storylines … taking into account possible future carbon dioxide emissions, socio-economic circumstances, population growth and possible policy responses to global heating," she said.
"The best thing we can do is get emissions down to net zero as fast as we possibly can."
The study predicts snow resorts may need to move or expand into less populated mountain areas at higher elevations to combat the effects of climate change.
But University of Canberra based geomorphologist Phil Campbell said that would not necessarily work in Australia where ski resorts were at a lower altitude compared to other countries.
"One of the problems in Australia is that we're fairly low in our ski resorts, which are already at the very top of our mountains," he said.
"We're not going to have the same ability as many other countries do to be able to relocate our ski resorts.
"The same goes for endangered plant species as well, because there's nowhere for them to retreat to."
*****************************************
Dick Smith's urgent warning to Australia as a record influx of new immigrants move Down Under
Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith says a record influx of new immigrants is a 'disaster for families' and young people wanting to own their own home.
The electronics chain founder, who turns 80 next week, wants Australia's net immigration slashed to 75,000 a year to ease Australia's rental and housing affordability crisis.
This would take immigration levels back to where they were in 1997, before the overseas intake doubled within a decade, only to double again after the pandemic.
'Every Australian family has a population plan to have the number of children they can give a good life to, but at the rate we are going, it means the average Australian family will have less,' Mr Smith told the Daily Telegraph.
Australia's population is estimated to double in the next 50 years, with big business interests advocating high immigration to boost the supply of labour.
Mr Smith said 'billionaire political donors' only promoted high population growth to expand their wealth.
New Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on Thursday showed Australia welcomed 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals in January, marking the highest January on record.
Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals for January reached 55,330, surpassing the previous highest intake in January 2009 by 40 percent.
Treasury economists are expecting Australia's overseas intake, covering skilled migrants and international students, to slow to 375,000 in 2023-24.
This would be lower than the record 518,000 intake for 2022-23 and below January's annual increase of 481,620.
But this would still be almost double the pre-pandemic level of 194,400 in 2019-20, before Australia was closed from March 2020 to December 2021.
Official data showed the majority of new arrivals are settling in NSW and then Victoria, leading to more congestion in Australia's two biggest cities.
Most migrants begin as renters, leading to more competition for accommodation in Sydney and Melbourne.
High population growth is also creating problems in other states, with Brisbane the recipient of high interstate migration, as south-east Queensland attracts residents from NSW and Victoria in search of more affordable housing and warmer weather.
Daniel Wild, the deputy executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs think tank, said high immigration was behind Australia's housing crisis.
'It is clear that the federal government's migration program is unplanned, out of control, and out of step with community expectations,' he said.
'On top of this it has failed to address Australia's worker shortage crisis, the very thing the federal government uses to justify such rapid increases in intake.
'It is clear this lazy approach to solving worker shortages is not working and there should be a greater focus of getting Australian pensioners, veterans and students into work.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13199425/Dick-Smiths-urgent-warning-Australia.html
*******************************************Australia’s ATM extinction!
Hands up if you’ve struggled to find an ATM lately… I don’t mean an overpriced service station ATM; I mean a free, big four banks ATM. If you’ve struggled, you’re not alone.
The big four banks in Australia, namely ANZ, Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, and the NAB, have not only been shutting down bank branches (around 460 branches in the past three years), they are also rapidly removing ATMs.
As of June 2017, there were 13,814 bank-owned ATMs across Australia. Six years later, in June 2023, there were just 5,693 – a decline of almost 60 per cent or 8,121!
Banks, the government, and corporate media will claim customers overwhelmingly prefer digital transactions, and they’re shutting down ATMs in response to the lack of demand for cash. I push back on this by asking: What came first, the inability to find an ATM, or a natural shift to online services?
Further, considering we were locked down in our homes for almost three years, I would’ve thought measuring outdoor-based consumer activity during this period would be fraught with difficulty.
Over the past few years, one of the main drivers toward digital transactions has been reframing cash as dirty and capable of spreading diseases such as Covid.
As someone who works in the service industry, I witnessed first-hand how successful this narrative proved in scaring people away from using cash. Retailers and businesses took this artificial marketplace signal as a cue to get rid of money permanently – a move many companies would applaud given the considerable costs involved in maintaining cash on the premises.
Offering cash as tender is expensive – from Armaguard collection to paying an accounts employee – not to mention the security costs involved in preventing internal and external theft. Businesses also prefer cards as they can add various surcharges. The ACCC currently has its hands full trying to rein in Australian businesses charging excessive credit card surcharges. Australian companies are legally obliged to charge customers the amount they pay to credit card companies, which is 0.5-3 per cent. Thus, businesses charging a flat surcharge for every transaction are not just ripping us off but also breaking the law.
Further, running and maintaining an ATM costs the bank money. Aside from the initial cost of purchasing the ATM, a suitably qualified person must physically stock the machine with cash and receipt paper. Then there are insurances, including public liability, rent charges, and the ongoing costs involved in anti-fraud software and hardware updates. It’s ridiculous to suggest that banks don’t minimise these costs as much as possible; nevertheless, there’s no doubt ATMs are expensive to maintain. All this highlights that ATMs and cash are no longer strong profit drivers for banks compared to digital products and services.
Indeed, any profits derived from ATMs disappeared in September 2017, when all four big banks stopped charging $2 transaction fees to non-customers using their ATMs. At the time, the banks collectively and accidentally ‘came out’ by stating in the media that they would accept the loss of $500 million in profit produced annually by charging ATM fees. This is interesting, as you will recall that up until that point in time, the banks had claimed that they did not make a cent of profit from ATM fees. For those more astute readers, you may have also noted the significance of the timing of this announcement. 2017 was the first year that ATMs started to disappear en masse…
In response to the rapid closure of bank branches and ATMs, many have suggested that we withdraw our cash at Woolworths, Coles, Aldi, or Australia Post. Okay, sure, that seems valid. However, the other day at my local Woolworths, I counted only two cash checkouts with withdrawal facilities and 12 card-only checkouts. We’re seeing the same scenario play out at Coles. Many Woolworths stores in metro locations across Australia conducted cashless trials as early as 2020. As for Australia Post, well, to achieve sustainability goals, it is currently shutting down local branches and creating regional hubs.
The situation at Aldi is worse. There are some newly opened Aldi stores across the United Kingdom and Europe that require you to scan a digital QR code with embedded digital ID tracking to enter the store. These stores are entirely autonomous, with no shop assistants, and cash is not accepted.
Imagine there’s nowhere to withdraw our money from, and a hiccup in the banking system were to occur, for example, a global banking crisis. Without ATMs or bank branches, it would be hard, if not impossible, to withdraw our savings. This, in turn, could lead to a situation known as a bank bail-in. Bank bail-ins are when a bank’s creditors and investors, i.e., you and I, are forced to take a loss on our holdings to recapitalise the bank during a financial crisis. This is a fancy way of saying the bank uses its customers’ savings to bail itself out of monetary issues, and yes, it’s 100 per cent legal.
Bank bail-ins were introduced in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis to improve the stability of the international monetary system by screwing over the working and middle classes. And please don’t make the mistake of thinking that bank bail-ins only occur in corrupt third-world countries. They have occurred in Cyprus twice, once in 2013 and again in 2021, and in Italy and Spain in 2017. It’s yet another legal mechanism that allows the elites to steal our money to pay for their uncontrolled and unregulated greed.
The banks and government must be positively licking their lips at the unprecedented amount of consumer data falling into their laps at zero cost, with little to no oversight or pushback from the population. The ability of governments to track where their citizens are spending every dollar in the broader economy gives them extraordinary powers. When people use cash instead, that data cannot be captured or subsequently profited by selling it to third parties.
The collection of data on our spending habits is in addition to the ability of certain devices and applications to track our location, know who we’re dating, where we work, how much we earn, and our complete medical and tax histories. These apps, websites, and devices also read our emails, texts, and social media posts and listen to our phone conversations. So, now they will know how, when, and where we spend our money. This occurs even when our financial interactions are technically between us, our bank, and a third party. Imagine what it will be like when we’re all forced onto a government-controlled Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
The government plans to fully integrate us into their new dystopian system of digital IDs and CBDCs by 2030. This will usher in a cashless era of control over everything we own and how, when, and where we spend every dollar. When you combine these mechanisms of control with existing Australian government digital infrastructure, such as the MyGov website, which centrally collates every citizen’s Medicare, Centrelink, and taxation information, the government’s digital surveillance box set will be complete.
This digital boxset represents what Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff has labelled the Dictatorship of no Alternatives. Whereby it is not only challenging to escape submitting to this regime, but it also becomes impossible to offer an alternative system. It’s a monopoly on power and information beyond anything previously imagined. Soon, CBDCs and a government-issued and controlled digital ID will become compulsory for living a normal life. This digital pass will be required to travel, sign a lease, open a bank account, apply for a mortgage, enrol your kids in school or university, visit the doctor or hospital, attend a concert, and get a new job. We will have no choice but to submit. Thus, the dictatorship of no alternatives is simply technofascism by another name.
This is all happening right now. The globalists are busy behind the scenes, rapidly dismantling the old financial system based on physical dollars and implementing a new digital ID and CBDC system, gamed to their advantage. One small way to push back against all this is to keep using cash. Sometimes, the simple things in life really do remain the best!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/australias-atm-extinction/
************************************14 March, 2024
Opposition Confirms It Will Develop 6 Nuclear Power Sites
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has confirmed the Coalition’s energy policy—expected to be released ahead of the federal budget in May—will probably include six nuclear plant sites.
While he has yet to name the exact locations, Tasmania has been ruled out as a potential host state. It’s considered likely that the reactors would be built on the sites of old coal stations to take advantage of existing transmission infrastructure.
This means the Labor-held seat of Hunter, the independent seat of Calare, and Coalition-held Flynn, Maranoa, O’Connor, and Gippsland may be all on the shortlist for nuclear power stations.
At the Australian Financial Review Business Summit in Sydney on March 12, Mr. Dutton said the Coalition would encourage nearby communities to accept the plants by offering them subsidised energy—a model he said was used in the United States. He told the audience that it would also provide an incentive for the industry to establish jobs.
“Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emission and firms up renewables,” he said.
The opposition’s position comes as modelling on Australia’s net zero transition estimates the country will need to invest hundreds of billions, and even trillions, to fully reduce emissions.
The tremendous cost stems from the widescale investment in wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and pumped hydro (where available), but also into transmission infrastructure, as well as electrification of public transport networks and private vehicles (buying EVs instead of regular cars).
Nuclear Detractors Also Point to Cost
Energy experts say it’s difficult to estimate the cost of transitioning to nuclear, given the technology is not currently commercially available.
But during the speech, Mr. Dutton dismissed what he described as “straw man arguments” against nuclear, including cost.
“Australia’s energy mix is about 21 percent gas, 47 per cent coal, and 32 percent renewables. Ontario province in Canada is about 5 percent gas, 35 percent renewables, and 60 percent nuclear. South Korea is about 30 percent gas, 30 percent coal, and 30 percent nuclear, with the balance mainly hydro … Australians pay almost double what Ontario and South Korean residents pay,” he said.
He said reactors produce a “small amount of waste” and said the government had already signed up to deal with nuclear waste via the AUKUS agreement.
The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) found there were 2,061 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in 2021, compared to 1,771 cubic metres in 2018. It projects 4,377 cubic metres in the next 50 years, compared to 3,734 cubic metres projected in 2018.
Intermediate-level waste is produced in nuclear medicine—for example, imaging, scanning and radiotherapy.
Currently, the waste is stored in more than 100 places, but most of it is held at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facilities in Lucas Heights, Sydney.
**********************************************
Court Strikes Down $3,000 Fine for Person Trying to Leave City During Pandemic
The NSW Supreme Court has found that a $3,000 fine for leaving Greater Sydney without a permit in 2021 was unlawful, casting doubt on the validity of around 30,000 similar fines issued during the pandemic.
This is the second such ruling.
The state’s Revenue NSW, however, says it will not withdraw the fines and, will instead, treat each one on a “case-by-case basis,” likely meaning those fined will need to argue their case with the government and potentially take the matter to court.
The case centred on a $3,000 fine imposed on Angelika Kosciolek for leaving Greater Sydney in 2021. She was homeless and made plans to travel to South Australia after being offered accommodation there.
But Justice Desmond Fagan said fines issued during COVID-19 must pass the “bare minimum test,” established in a 2022 Supreme Court ruling. That ruling said that for a fine to be valid, the penalty notice must clearly state the relevant Act, and the provision related to the offence.
Ms. Kosciolek’s fine was found to have not passed that test, and the Redfern Legal Centre (RLC) said most COVID-19 fines also failed to precisely state which laws had been broken.
‘Withdraw and Repay’: Redfern Legal Centre
“If a COVID fine fails to state the specific offence, the fine is invalid,” Samantha Lee, senior solicitor at the Centre, said. “RLC considers that the judgment supports the conclusion that the remaining COVID fines are invalid and urges Revenue NSW to withdraw and repay the 29,000 remaining fines.”
Yet Commissioner of Fines Administration Scott Johnston, from Revenue NSW, told a Budget Estimates hearing that it would not be withdrawing any of the remaining fines, but will continue to “review and treat every matter on a case-by-case basis.”
However, Ms. Lee urged Mr. Johnston to “come to his senses.”
“The commissioner is refusing to honour a supreme court judgement and do the right thing and give people back their money and withdraw these fines that don’t meet the legal requirements,” she said. “We’re giving the commissioner time to come to his senses and make the right decision to withdraw these fines. If not, then watch this space.”
More than 33,000 COVID fines, worth millions of dollars, were cancelled after a NSW Supreme Court ruling in 2022 found that details of the offences were insufficient.
In that instance, Revenue NSW withdrew 33,121 fines, meaning roughly half of the 62,138 COVID-related infringement notices issued in the state during the pandemic were invalid. However, it emphasised that the decision to withdraw the fines did not mean the offences had not been committed.
******************************************
Greens Leader’s $1 Million Expense Bill Causes Debate
Greens leader Adam Bandt claimed $963,166 (US$637,000) in expenses in a single year, including $23,000 for two private jet flights during the 2022 election campaign. He also spent $204,000 on printing costs and $12,000 on a government-provided vehicle and petrol allowance.
That’s in addition to his $314,000 salary and the wages of his personal staff, according to the Department of Finance.
Mr. Bandt booked a chartered flight from Townsville to Rockhampton, costing $8,300, to announce details of his party’s plan for the country to rapidly transition from coal to renewables. The second charter between Canberra and Brisbane, at a cost of $15,000, was to attend the Greens’ election campaign launch.
A private jet emits as much carbon dioxide in one hour (two tonnes) as the average person emits in an entire year. Staff Travel Adds Another $372,000
His other travel costs included almost $29,000 on government COMCAR trips and taxis, and $57,000 for domestic flights. Another $372,000 was spent on staff travel expenses.
Mr. Bandt’s spending was criticised by independent MP Dai Le, who is among the most frugal MPs in claiming expenses.
“I’m shocked by the news of parliamentarians overspending and surprised by the Greens use of chartered flights when they are the party that opposed the use of fossil fuels,” she said.
“At the end of the day, how we spend and what we spend on, will be judged by the people when it’s time to cast their vote.”
The Greens spokesperson said: “As the leader of the third-largest political party in Australia you would expect Mr. Bandt would engage in extensive travel and—unlike the prime minister and many ministers—he doesn’t have access to government VIP flights. All Mr. Bandt’s expenditures are within entitlements.”
Despite the size of his claim, Mr. Bandt ranked below several Labor ministers, including Employment Minister Tony Burke, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for 2022 expenses.
‘Legitimate work expenses’: Stephen Conroy
Mr. Bandt also found a defender in former Labor senator Stephen Conroy. “To my shock, I’ll actually defend Adam Bandt,” Mr. Conroy told Sky News Australia. “The amount of travel and the work expenses, providing they’re within [the guidelines]—and there’s no suggestion from any of these stories, not one single suggestion that anyone has gone outside the guidelines.
“These are legitimate work expenses. A politician’s job is to communicate with their constituents. Adam Bandt is the leader of a political party, so you’d expect him to be out there up front.”
Last year, it was revealed that Mr. Albanese spent almost $700,000 on domestic and international travel, and other expenses, in the first three months of his prime ministership.
In addition, Mr. Albanese and his deputy Richard Marles incurred more than $5 million in costs using defence jets to move around Australia and overseas.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/greens-leaders-1-million-expense-bill-causes-debate-5605422
************************************************Home Schooling Must Be Consistent With Australian Curriculum: New Laws
The syllabus is so wishy-washy that no problems should arise
The Queensland government has introduced legislation in parliament mandating that home education is consistent with the Australian government’s curriculum.
This comes amid an almost tripling of students who are been homeschooled in the state since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Education Minister Di Farmer introduced the Education (General Provisions) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 on March 6, which includes amendments related to homeschooling.
Under the proposed changes, students who are schooled at home are required to follow the government’s syllabus for senior subjects.
The minister noted that more than 10,000 students are currently registered for homeschooling in Queensland.
Ms. Farmer said that given these higher numbers, it is “more important than ever” that students are undertaking a high-quality program.
In addition, she highlighted that the legislation provides “safeguards for student wellbeing.”
“The bill requires a summary of the educational program to be provided at the time of application for home education registration to ensure the child or young person has immediate access to a high-quality program and removes the separate time-limited provisional registration application,” Ms. Farmer told parliament.
“This will provide a single and simplified home education registration process with appropriate oversight by the department.
“Further, the bill removes the need for a certificate of registration and associated obligations, to reduce an unnecessary regulatory burden for parents. Instead, parents will continue to receive a written notice, as they do now, setting out evidence of registration and any conditions on registration.”
Ms. Farmer said the bill establishes a “new guiding principle” emphasising that home education “should be in the best interests of the child or young person.”
“This must take into account the child’s safety, well-being, and access to a high-quality education. This amendment was included in the bill after public consultation on home education amendments was completed,” Ms. Farmer said.
“Using a guiding principle which makes explicit that a child or young person’s best interests must be central to the significant choice of home education is something I am confident Queensland families and home educators will support.”
Home Education Australia spokesperson Samantha Bryan raised concerns with AAP that the mandate may lead to more parents taking home education underground.
Ms. Bryan also told the publication most families registered with the Home Education Unit are succeeding with homeschooling, even if they are not following the national curriculum.
“If children are already receiving a high-quality education, if the system’s not broken, why are we trying to allegedly fix it,” she said.
Ms. Bryan suggested a dual enrolment option allowing families to combine part-time homeschooling with part-time school attendance.
“Families are making great sacrifices because they desperately love and care about the wellbeing of their child,” she said.
“Some of these families would love to put their kids back in school so I think a dual enrolment option—part-time home education, part-time school— would be great.”
************************************
13 March, 2024
Michael Blythe and the argument in support of negative gearing
I used negative gearing in my younger days, when I was a well-paid academic. I doubt that I would have bothered with landlording without the facility it offered.
And if you want lower rents you need more landlords, not fewer. I specialized in offering high quality rental accomodation, using properties that were mostly in poor condition when I bought them but which I had improved. So eliminating negative gearing would chase people like me out of the rental market and hit it hard just when it is dowm.
It's moronic policy if you have the best interests of tenants at heart. But the Greens are led by the unreconstructed Trotsykite, Adam Bandt, so that cannot be assumed
“Negative gearing must be scrapped” is the clarion call from just about everyone hit by a tight property market.
The tax break is cast as the source of all problems, from spiralling prices to rental supply issues. But is this true?
As the pressure builds against this decades-old tax break, the Greens are pushing hard against the policy. There is a clear and present danger the government may up-end current arrangements — despite denials from the Albanese administration.
If you invest in property, or ever wish to do so, then negative gearing is likely to be crucial to your plan. The ability to set losses against your taxable income is the most important tax break (outside of super) for the everyday investor.
Millions of investors have used negative gearing and millions more no doubt have it in their plans, and as Michael Blythe of PinPoint Macro Analytics puts it: “in our market tax arrangements are as important as interest rates.”
As a former chief economist at Commonwealth Bank, the nation’s biggest home lender, few people know more than Blythe about negative gearing and what it means for the wider economy.
The latest wave of speculation surrounding negative gearing has prompted him to issue a case for the defence. Blythe has produced a report which in his own words will “provide ammunition in support of the status quo”.
His paper, ‘In praise of negative gearing,’ will no doubt be greeted with catcalls of derision, but it is worth reading and offers a compelling argument for keeping negative gearing in place.
In his paper, Blythe goes after some of the most common tropes set out against negative gearing — and he knocks most of them flat.
One very important takeaway is despite the understandable assumption negative gearing is only for the wealthy (and parliamentarians), the data does not suggest this is the case.
More than one in ten taxpayers claim rent interest deductions. Among this group are surgeons and dentists.
But, it also includes emergency service workers, nurses, teachers and bus drivers — it’s a tax policy for everyone.
The other key argument it loses revenue for the government is also undermined by simple economics showing investors are only negatively geared at the start of their investment — as years pass they begin paying tax as property owners.
In fact, there have been recent periods where negative gearing was contributing to budget revenue.
As Blythe patiently explains, the Australian residential property market is based on capital gain, not rental income — rental yields are low and owners accept those low yields on the basis that some day in the future they will get a capital gain.
Importantly, investors work on the assumption capital gains will be somewhere near 25 per cent — based on it being at the top income tax rate and discounted by 50 per cent (a process which has now been in place for more than two decades).
The report shows if the negative gearing system was not in place, then rents would be pushed higher. Keep in mind we already have a rental vacancy ratio of nearly 1 per cent in the major cities.
If you remain unconvinced, then Blythe goes back to the one and only example we have in history of what Australia might be like if negative gearing was removed.
The test case was in 1985 — when negative gearing was initially scrapped and then restored two years later,
If we look at what happened during the two-year interregnum: “the national experience suggested that removing negative gearing would reduce rental supply, lift rents and slow house price growth.”
As for the most recent removal attempt — the ALP move in 2019 to limit negative gearing — it “would have been a replay of 1985” says the report.
Of course, the argument for the defence of negative gearing is far from perfect, and it fails one group — first-home buyers.
The truth is if negative gearing was removed, then house prices would fall — and when this occurred more first home buyers could get a start in the market.
For now, we have the current situation where first home buyers are acting as ‘rentvestors’ — they are getting into the market by owning an investment property first and then buying a home later.
The latest ABS data clearly shows the 2 -34 year old age group has raised their share of the investment property market. The argument goes: at least they have got a foothold in the market.
This is true, but it’s a secondary experience to owning your own home.
As an economist, Blythe warns you can’t do tax reform in parts: “the playing field needs to be level,” so if the government removes negative gearing for houses, then it will also need to be removed for shares.
Certainly, investors are getting worried. Blythe’s report shows a telltale surge in google searches around negative gearing ever since the government changed course on the planned stage 3 tax cuts earlier in the year.
As Blythe suggests: “We have a Budget coming up in May, and we have this one-sided debate about negative gearing, because the people that push for changing housing taxation arrangements make the most noise and get the most attention.”
*********************************************
The Albanese government is hiding many dark environmental secrets
The Albanese government is embracing some of the worst practices of dictator-driven governments to conceal controversial environmental measures. The secrecy may be necessary because the measures curb mining in Australia, hit many property developments, restrict solar farms and hurt farmers.
I emphasise this commentary is not about the detail of what is planned — I don’t know the detail. My contribution is to reveal the extraordinary third world practices being embraced by Anthony Albanese to conceal what is planned so it can be rushed through the parliament.
I fear the designers have no regard to the revenue implications of what they plan. Their title “The Nature Positive Plan” looks to be in the tradition of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
The secrecy measures are nothing short of extraordinary and are equally dangerous as those used by former PM Scott Morrison to conceal the fact he was taking on extra ministries.
I set out below how the truth behind “The Nature Positive Plan” is being concealed.
Representatives from leading companies and other interested parties are invited to go into a room to look at parts — not all — of the draft legislation.
But before they are allowed to enter the room, they must sign a voluminous confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing both their entry into the room and the contents of the draft legislation they are about to be shown. I do not know the exact penalties for breaching that agreement, but the fines will be heavy and jail a possibility.
Once the agreement is signed, those allowed to enter the room are told they must not photograph any of the draft legislation on the table and cannot take it away. They are given a fixed time to take notes using blank paper and a pen.
There is some discussion allowed about the draft, but I don’t know the details. The participants are allowed to take their notes away with them. Nothing else.
I don’t know the people who were invited but almost certainly some will be international companies who later (illegally) will report back to international boards, including those in the US (our defence partner), this is a country where very strange practices are taking place.
To overseas eyes used to third world countries, it must reek of corruption, but I don’t think money-based corruption is taking place. It's all about extreme left wing agendas.
As I understand it, there have been several of these bizarre events. Only a government with something very dangerous to conceal would embrace this sort of tactic.
It is publicly known the Albanese government is planning a new tranche of legislation to replace the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The EPBC Act was a carefully prepared document. The states and federal governments set the framework and then industry groups, individual companies, environmental groups, scientists, conservationists, subject-matter experts, and the general community were consulted extensively.
The EPBC Act was developed over years before the federal government published a discussion paper, then an exposure draft, to get detailed feedback on the entire suite of changes.
The Albanese government thinks it can replace this substantial, 1,100-page legislation (plus hundreds of further pages of subsidiary legislation) in short time.
Australia as a nation spends its mining, agriculture and property revenue by providing very high levels of social services. Jim Chalmers, in recognition of this revenue source, has taken steps to make mining approvals smoother.
But, I suspect the treasurer does not know exactly what is being planned. You will remember he advocated pensioners use the gig economy to gain the extra income he was allowing them to earn without impacting pension entitlements.
He didn’t know the industrial relations legislation was going to hit the gig economy hard.
It is understandable an ALP government would seek to upgrade the environmental rules set down in the 1990s. But the right way to go about it is to bring the community together with wide consultation — just as was done in the 1990s.
I am told one version of the environmental secrecy technique was used before the industrial relations bill was put on the parliamentary table. The industrial relations blueprint was a total mess and will endanger our economy. And its “loopholes” title was also in the Orwell tradition.
************************************************
Why abolishing boys schools is an act of woke madness
Greg Sheridan
The campaign to abolish single-sex schools, especially boys schools, is a sign of the madness of ideology and the badness of groupthink.
It reflects the dreary, dull, lifeless, joyless, small “S” Stalinist bureaucratic conformity that progressive ideology routinely attempts to impose. It’s a rush to insanity, where pressure will come on every successful boys school to become coeducational.
Let’s state the obvious. Boys schools, girls schools and co-ed schools can all be extremely good, mediocre or terrible. It’s a good thing for our educational environment, and for countless families and students, that different types of schools flourish.
Gender Equality Advocate Michelle May says. “The argument is that currently it is not done on merit,” Ms May said. “It’s still very much a boys club. “As long as we’ve got More
It seems a pity that some boys schools with long, good traditions now feel obliged to go co-ed. They may be feeling cultural pressure.
Let me confess. I spent the majority of my schooling at a Christian Brothers school in Sydney that was for boys only. It was a great school, with wide socio-economic and racial diversity, and certainly taught its students respect for women and girls, and respect for everyone.
It wasn’t an exclusively male environment. There were female teachers, librarians, admin staff, mothers in the tuck shop. To be rude, much less sexist, towards any of these would have been unthinkable and would have earned draconian punishment.
The contemporary debate is too ideological. If a particular school has a behaviour problem, that needs to be fixed. Abolishing boys schools generally would be wretched iconoclastic vandalism.
In the Financial Review last week an anonymous business executive called for ending single-sex schools and said boys schools should stop trying to make “men” out of their students.
How weird is this? What is it that boys are supposed to become if not men? Giraffes? Oranges?
The piece reflects the confused and counter-productive campaign against masculinity. Men, like women, can do terrible things. Men are responsible for much more violence than women. I agree we’re living through a plague of domestic violence that we must stop. But you won’t make men decent, respectful and successful by telling them masculinity itself is bad.
Seventeen years ago, in central Melbourne, about 7.30am, a biker, who had been on an all-night binge, was beating up his girlfriend. Two men came to her aid. One was killed in the process. In giving his life to the instinct to protect a woman under assault, that man was displaying masculinity, and it wasn’t toxic.
At the school I attended more than 50 years ago, the brothers, and all the teachers, stressed that men had certain obligations to women – politeness, consideration, respect, courtesy.
The brothers taught that when walking down the street with a girl the bloke should try to walk between the girl and the road. That’s so any danger coming from the road, such as a car crashing off the street, hits the bloke first.
That may all seem hopelessly outdated. But men and women are still different. Completely equal but different. The idea that the differences are mainly the result of socialisation is contemporary ideology waging war against human nature.
Almost no one really lives their life according to the new ideology. Is there a household in Australia where, if a married couple hears a strange noise in the middle of the night, the husband turns to the wife and says: “Now, darling, why don’t you go and see if that noise is a burglar. I’ll stay here by the phone. I would go myself but I don’t want us to be trapped in gender stereotypes.”
It’s good that women’s sport is increasingly seen as the equal of men’s sport. But it’s still different. No one argues that men and women should play rugby league together. The army for a long time included boxing in its training. It’s a tough sport. Maybe its concussion risks render it no longer fit for such training. But you can see it helped soldiers cope psychologically with experiencing a physical blow but carrying on. It has never been the case that men and women enter the same boxing ring and box against each other.
The variety of human experience is vast but boys and girls are different. Co-ed can work superbly, but so can schools that focus only on boys, or only girls. Boys and girls do tend, within all kinds of statistical variation, to learn a bit differently, so boys schools can focus on the way boys learn.
Girls tend to mature earlier than boys and in that early adolescent period a single-sex school allows a boy to remain a boy for as long as necessary. And then become a man.
Cardinal George Pell once remarked that “self-confidence, directness and an instinct for struggle and competition” characterised Christian Brothers schools. That’s pretty accurate.
But boys schools also offer boys a distinctive diversity. At a boys school, if there’s going to be a choir it has to be the boys singing.
The school I went to was exceptionally strong in sports. My one season as a junior rugby league player led to a broken shoulder; my parents decided I’d dispense with footy. I wasn’t very good at sport anyway but the school offered multitudes of other activities. I was always in the debating team, the chess club, sometimes the drama performances, sometimes music groups, briefly in the science club, in Christian youth groups and a million other things.
Even though I didn’t play football or cricket, and hardly excelled at the sports I did participate in, I never felt out of place. Books, learning, contention, energy, purpose, competition – it was a pro-life environment.
The teachers occasionally gave us the strap for our malefactions. Some of life’s antipathies are irrational. I greatly disliked one teacher, who warmly returned my sentiments. No doubt unfairly, I thought him a dogmatic smart alec. Perhaps we were too much alike.
I persecuted him with many pedantic questions and points of order while staying well within the rules and norms. One day, nonetheless, he sort of gave in and gave me the strap. I went home that afternoon immensely chuffed, feeling I’d won a moral victory.
There were times, of course, when we were louts and hooligans, and needed strong direction. The school was pretty strict. Sensibly so. And it had a great tradition. Wearing its uniform meant something. We cared about it. No doubt it struck other kids entirely differently.
But it gave me wonderful treasures. In its library, in primary school, I met PG Wodehouse, my lifelong companion.
We moved house and I finished at a co-ed school. It was good, too. Diversity is good. The urge of ideological censors to hammer everything into a single monotonous conformity is as misbegotten as their demonisation of masculinity, and of the need to turn good boys, indeed, into good men.
*********************************************
Australian living standards going downhill
The news that the Paris-based OECD has confirmed that Australia has suffered the biggest drop in living standards in two decades would be unknown to most Australians, including the voters in the recent Dunkley by-election.
Nor would they be aware of the expert view that there is little hope of an early recovery.
From a world leader two decades ago, we now underperform comparable countries in the OECD by close to 8 per cent.
This is not just bad luck.
This is the result of the agenda of the political class and other elites who first handed over manufacturing to Beijing, and who are now targeting both agriculture and mining.
They will never be satisfied until, as a result of their efforts, we follow Argentina into third-world status.
At Federation, Australians were, per capita, the world’s second-richest people. This wealth was shared more equally than in most countries. We are now the 20th, our ranking in constant decline.
Contrast Singapore. From an impoverished colony within living memory, Singaporeans are today more than twice as wealthy. With low taxes and widely available housing, their disposable income is double ours.
But instead of such truly crucial news, Dunkley electors and Australians at large, were informed in excruciating detail about Taylor Swift, including the fact she was watched from a free place by a dancing Prime Minister, who then flew on a CO2-emitting RAAF jet to an exclusive concert by Katy Perry in a Melbourne billionaire’s mansion, before flying back to Sydney to decide whether to appear at Sydney’s Mardi Gras.
Nor was there much in the news about funding terrorism or the careless handing out of visas to potential supporters of terrorism and even terrorists.
Macrobusiness.com.au and the Australian Financial Review excepted, there was even less news about the collapse in living standards, a matter unconventional economist Leith Van Onslelen discussed in detail on ADH TV on the Thursday evening before the election.
The election campaign also coincided with the news, played down in the political world and much of the media, that the climate catastrophist chickens have at last come home to roost, at least in relation to our nickel industry. As our leading geologist Ian Plimer pointed out recently on ADH TV, whenever he asks science apologists for the learned articles proving CO2 causes global warming, now ‘boiling’, he never receives them, not once.
Net zero is unattainable and pointless.
The news which exposes the futility of adjusting for climate boiling which does not exist came from Indonesia. It would seem that their politicians are smarter than Australia’s.
Through a clever operation of banning exports until investment was attracted into the nickel industry and by using high-quality and cheap Australian coal to produce electricity for the extensive necessary processing, the Indonesians have effectively replaced our entire nickel industry.
The major reason for ours becoming un-economic is the Albanese-Bowen policy of burdening Australia with probably the Western world’s most expensive and unreliable electricity.
That buyers will pay a so-called ‘green premium’ for this the sort of infantile fiction pushed by Albanese and Bowen.
The reasons people buy goods or services are quality, efficient delivery and price.
When Australians realise that because of the elites’ agenda our GDP is falling towards a mere proportion of today’s, let us hope they do not seek salvation in some Juan Peron as the Argentinians did. While electing sound people rather than career politicians, let us hope they require fundamental reform to make our politicians accountable 24/7, just as they are in Switzerland.
As Ian Plimer jokes, the best politician is a frightened politician.
In the meantime, Leith Van Onselen points to a range of factors which explain Australia’s declining living standards and associated poor labour productivity.
Australia, he says, is unique in that it pays its way in the world primarily through the sale of its fixed mineral endowment.
A drover’s dog would realise that importing huge volumes of people through immigration distributes these mineral riches among more people, resulting in reduced wealth per person.
That is exactly what the Albanese government is now doing.
In fact Australia’s population has ‘ballooned’ by 8.1 million people (43 per cent) this century alone, with business investment, infrastructure investment, and housing and hospitals failing to keep pace.
Like so many New South Wales and Victorian state politicians, rather than standing up to Canberra, Premier Minns is acting as its lackey, planning to ruin Sydney by turning vast parts into canyons of high rise slums with hopelessly congested transport, roads, schools and hospitals.
Another factor is that the Reserve Bank, having kept interest rates very low, has significantly increased them in a highly concentrated mortgage market now more sensitive to such changes.
(There was a time when, with the presence of, for example, mutually owned building societies and government-owned banks, there was some protection against Reserve Bank variations.)
Leith Van Onselen argues that the biggest cost consequence of concentrated markets is in the energy market, especially on the east coast, which operates through a cartel which exports 80 per cent of the gas. There is little effective regulation over this and, unlike Western Australia, there is no domestic gas reservation policy requiring a certain amount of gas to be sold at fixed prices.
As we all know, we cannot depend on the much-vaunted so-called renewables, when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun is not shining. We need a backstop. And gas has the great advantage that it can be turned on very quickly.
So without a sensible reservation policy, when the international gas price goes up, Australians’ electricity prices go up and this is why we’re seeing such massive increases in household bills.
Among other factors for our declining living standards are the amount of bracket creep in personal income tax which is not indexed, as well as the increased excise on petrol and diesel.
This is notwithstanding the specially designed cosmetic change to taxation for the by-election, which involved the Prime Minister breaking innumerable promises.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/biggest-drop-in-living-standards-in-two-decades/
************************************12 March, 2024
Anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian feminism
A strange combination, considering the subordiate position of women in Muslim society. How is cutting the clitoris out of your daughters feminist? It's a widespread and respected practice in Islam. Islam is a religion of h*te and it appears that, for many, feminism is too. Only h*te explains the marriage between the two. It goes against all that feminism claims to be against
An anti-Israel academic who says “Zionists have no right to cultural safety” and disseminated a leak of private details of hundreds of Jewish artists will be one of the stars of a Sydney Opera House event on Sunday, sparking outrage from Jewish groups.
The venue is now facing calls to reconsider hosting Macquarie University academic Randa Abdel-Fattah, who is to give a talk as part of a festival co-curated by anti-Israel social media influencer Clementine Ford.
Ms Ford and Dr Abdel-Fattah were among the figures who sent to their social media followers a link to leaked personal details of Jewish creatives from a WhatsApp group.
The talk is advertised as a “timely discussion about the need for white feminists to decentre themselves to embrace supporting roles rather than equating empowerment with the ability always to lead”.
Dr Abdel-Fattah has come under fire for a comment she made on her Instagram account on Thursday afternoon that “if you are a Zionist you have no claim or right to cultural safety”.
“And it is my duty as somebody who fights all forms of oppression and violence to deny you a safe space to espouse your Zionist racist ideology,” she continued.
“It is the duty of those who oppose racism, misogyny, homophobia and all forms of oppressive harm to ensure that every space Zionists enter is culturally unsafe for them.
“And institutions and festivals that continue to defer to the fragile feelings and tears of Zionists are as abhorrent as those who would defer to the feelings of misogynists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis.
“You want to cancel pro-Palestinian voices and Palestinians because of cultural safety?? Whose cultural safety are you privileging?”
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Alex Ryvchin labelled Dr Abdel-Fattah an “odious extremist” and called on the Sydney Opera House to decide “whether our most iconic venue is the people’s house or a platform for those who denigrate and vilify others”.
“She has likened the Jewish national liberation movement that restored the Jews to Israel after the land had been colonised by others for 2000 years to Nazism and white supremacism,” he said.
“This is an extraordinary piece of deceit that places a target on the back of virtually every Jew. She will deny she hates Jewish people, she will tell us about all the Jewish people she’s friends with but anyone with any awareness of what anti-Semitism is and how it works knows what this person is.”
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip also condemned Dr Abdel-Fattah’s comments.
“Randa Abdel-Fattah, who has infamously refused to condemn Hamas or accept that it is a terrorist organisation, is now seeking to deny safety to Jews here in Australia,” he said.
A Sydney Opera House spokesman said: “The All About Women festival supports freedom of expression, thought, discussion and debate.
“We recognise this is a challenging time of conflict and division about which artists, audiences and the community feel very strongly, and that not all views presented will be shared.”
Dr Abdel-Fattah was contacted for comment.
****************************************
Court Finds Emergency Doctor Guilty of Misconduct for Questioning COVID Vaccine
Must not mention clinical experience?
A junior emergency room doctor in Western Australia has been found guilty of professional misconduct after giving a series of speeches and interviews critical of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and questioning the safety of the Pfizer vaccine.
Dr. Mitch Sambell, who has not practiced medicine since April 2023, has had his registration suspended for three months, and will be subject to a 12-month mentorship by another doctor.
Further, he has been ordered to pay a contribution of $2,500 toward the costs of the Medical Board of Australia, which sought review by the State Administrative Tribunal.
In a schedule of agreed facts, Dr. Sambell admitted to telling an interviewer that administering the vaccine to the wider populations was “at best manslaughter, and at worst, like, outright murder.”
He also described the director-general of the World Health Organisation as a “communist.” That interview was published on a video platform, Rumble, titled “Medical Cover-Up in Australia—Albany Doctor Speaks Out.”
ED was ‘Flooded’
When asked by the interviewer, “Could you confidently say that people died in Australia from the vax jab?'’
Dr Samball responded, “Oh, a 100 percent. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it in ED. I saw so many people die in the hospital, so many people. I’ve got people who are 40 that have heart failure after taking this vaccine ...”
“When it started getting rolled out I started seeing ED just got flooded; our hospital was at 117 percent pretty much all the time. And people say, ‘Oh it’s just a lack of staff, it’s flu season,’ but it wasn’t. We rolled out an experimental therapy to supposedly 95 percent of the population, and then our healthcare system couldn’t cope.”
He noted that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has threatened disciplinary action against medical professionals who spoke out against the vaccine and said: “The truth always come out. And you can hide, and you can use your money, and you can manipulate things, but when people find out, you’re in big trouble.”
Dr. Samball repeated similar views at a public meeting in the Shire of Denmark in Western Australia in March 2022, saying, “If you are injected you can still acquire and spread the disease, so why are we allowing this issue to tear apart families, destroy businesses, and ultimately remove people’s ability to choose a medical intervention without coercion, and therefore consent? ... I’m disgusted that the career I love has been used to destroy people’s lives, and honestly I’m ashamed to be called a doctor.”
The State Administrative Tribunal found these remarks “legitimised anti-vaccination sentiments and/or were contrary to accepted medical practice and/or were untrue or misleading,” they were also “designed to, or had the potential to, undermine public trust in the medical profession” and were inconsistent with the Code of Practice with which doctors are expected to abide.
In setting the penalty, the Tribunal noted that Dr. Samball had no previous disciplinary history, has made no public comment on the issue since 2022, and had “shown insight and remorse.”
The ruling has been criticised by newly appointed One Nation member and former Liberal Party MP, Craig Kelly, who said on social media it was “Medical Fascism in Action” and that “Australia is officially a medical fascist state.”
*********************************************
Christian schools under fire from official body
Tax deductibility for Greenie bodies is OK but not for Christian ones.
The insidious influence of Catholic schools was a matter of no small concern to the colonial establishment in the late 19th century, not least because of their devilish power to corrupt the youth.
“Large numbers of children are perverted to Popery before their parents are aware of the true character of the teaching,” The Protestant Weekly reported in 1886, arguing that Catholic schools should be barred from government funding. Romanist education was “a false mean deceit” propagating “a religion degrading to the intellect and the heart as its design was simply to extract money”.
Such narrow sectarian prejudice would be deemed inappropriate in the 21st century by the guardians of diversity and inclusion, whose job is to make everybody feel comfortable.
Today, their intolerance extends to all forms of Christian education and, indeed, to any private school that undermines the monopoly of the state system. The Productivity Commission fired a particularly nasty salvo against religious schools, out of character for an organisation that once anchored its findings in data rather than the fashionable preconceptions of the intelligentsia.
In November, the Commission published a draft report recommending that donations to Christian school building funds should no longer be tax-deductible. The draft argued that the Deductible Gift Recipient status granted by the Australian Taxation Office to a wide range of registered charities was inappropriate since religious education had limited claim to a broader public purpose.
The PC argues that DGR donations require co-investment from taxpayers since a $100 donation from someone in the top income bracket saved them $35 in tax. This, the PC argues, is unfair since the priorities for public investment in schools should be decided by the government, not God-bothering tax dodgers.
They were not the exact words the PC used, but how else should we read a passage like this? “The Commission does not see a case for additional government support for the practice of religion through the DGR system.”
Or this? “Providing indirect government support through school building funds means government funding is not prioritised according to a systemic assessment of the infrastructure needs of different schools.”
The naive proposition that the government knows better where to spend public money than the public themselves sits awkwardly with the lessons from the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution program, a $16.2bn splurge on school infrastructure projects to stave off the recession that never was. The official report into the implementation of the BER by Brad Orgill found public schools in Queensland, NSW and Victoria paid 25 per cent more than Catholic schools and 55 per cent more than independent schools for near identical projects.
Yet the Commission doggedly insists that tax deductibility for donations to school building projects is unfair. It bolsters its argument with a peculiarly perverse interpretation of what constitutes private benefit. Potential donors are most likely to be people directly involved with the school, it claims, and are likely to reap the fruits of their donations as the parents of students or as alumni.
The Commission does not oppose tax-deductible donations per se. Indeed, it argues that they should be extended to a broader range of charities. Nor is it opposed to charities that want to build things, just those who like to build buildings that could be used for religious purposes.
It declares the building of social capital to be a worthy charitable ambition. Ditto is the building of bonds between individuals and communities, however loose that goal might be defined. Capacity-building activities for organisations and individuals get a tick, particularly the building of empowerment and self-determination by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. Indeed, the Commission recommends the establishment of an independent philanthropic foundation controlled by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for that very purpose.
It is religion to which the Commission seems to object. Not all of the 5000 school building funds that are currently endorsed are religious. Some three-quarters are for charities, and a quarter for government entities, such as public schools.
Yet the Commission wears its prejudices on its sleeve by mounting arguments exclusively against Christian schools rather than private schools. The concerns about tax-deductible proselytising do not extend to the 148 environmental charities with tax-deductible status.
The Commission does not question the broader public purpose of Boundless Earth Limited, which attracted $30.6m in revenue in its most recent annual report lodged with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.
Boundless Earth gained its tax-deductible concession in 2021, stating its purpose is ”to accelerate climate solutions at the scale and speed required for Australia to do its fair share to avert the climate crisis”. Boundless Earth’s registered address is 13 Trelawney Street, Woollahra, the site of the former German consulate now owned by Mike Cannon-Brookes.
The Commission makes no recommendation that the projects and organisations Boundless Earth funds should be put on the public record, or suggest that Boundless should be declared an associated entity by the Australian Electoral Commission under the disclosure rules for political donations. And this would not be an unreasonable recommendation since Cannon-Brookes has made no secret of his financial support for the teal campaign at the last federal election.
The granting of DGR status to Boundless, Greenpeace, Lock The Gate, the Australian Solar Energy Society (which operates as the Smart Energy Council) the Climate Council, Farmers for Climate Action, Veterinarians for Climate Action and other members of the renewable energy cheer squad reinforces the growing concern that privileges of charitable status should be reviewed.
The Albanese government has prudently distanced itself from the Commission’s recommendations. “It’s not something we’re considering,” Assistant Education Minister Anthony Chisholm told a Senate committee last month.
The Commission is right to complain that the DGR system is poorly designed. It is piecemeal, overly complex and lacks a coherent policy rationale. It is responsible for inefficient, inconsistent and unfair outcomes for charities, donors and the community. It is badly in need of review.
Yet the draft report of the philanthropy inquiry is a small-minded, mean-spirited document unworthy of an organisation with a reputation for forensic and impartial examination of public policy. For the sake of their own reputation, the commissioners should find the courage to send the report back to its authors and ask them to start again.
******************************************************
Embracing ‘feelings’ is no solution to scourge of youth crime
It is beyond incredible that in this technology age, where billions have been devoted to research into the causes and cures of crime, governments remain functionally clueless on how to efficiently deal with the scourge of increasing youth crime.
The most recent data from the ABS shows that in the previous year police charged nearly 50,000 offenders aged 10-17, a 6 per cent increase from the previous year. And we are not taking about petty transgressions. The most common offence among juvenile offenders (25 per cent) is assault intending to cause injury.
The youth crime rate will only drop once the legal system makes young people accountable for their actions and the system reverses the trend of encouraging young people to embrace their feelings. Instead of surrendering to their feelings, they need to be taught impulse control and that the welfare of others is no less important than their own.
The importance of stopping crime cannot be overstated. The empirical data shows crime, especially violent and sexual offences, can ruin people’s lives. Research demonstrates the most effective way to reduce crime is to increase the chances people will be caught. This is known as the theory of absolute general deterrence. It works – all of the time. That’s why speed cameras have had such a dramatic effect on reducing speeding and people don’t commit crime outside police stations.
If governments want to reduce crime, there is a sure fix. Put more uniform police on the streets. In crime hotspots, this should be supplement with AI-enhanced CCTV which automatically notifies police when suspicious activity is detected.
This will only be effective if criminals face unwanted consequences. The primary aim of the criminal justice system is community protection. The main consideration in setting penalty severity is the principle of proportionality; the view that the harm caused by the crime should match the harshness of the penalty.
Both of these considerations mean all serious sexual and violent offenders should be subjected to harsh sanctions. The human body does not distinguish between the level of suffering caused by being stabbed by a 50-year-old or 15-year-old. The community needs to be protected as much from teenagers as adult criminals.
The goal of rehabilitation is alluring but it’s failing – youth reoffending rates are higher now than five years ago. Clearly the offenders are receiving the wrong advice and treatment. The criminal justice system needs to stop the nonsense of encouraging youth to connect with their inner selves. It needs to teach them objective truths in the form of the importance of hard work, grit and being good at not getting what they want – even if it triggers their feelings.
At present, the evidence shows the only forms of rehabilitation that work are age and education. People age out of crime. The prefrontal cortex of people does not mature until age 25. All young offenders are salvageable and can become contributing members of the community. This can be accelerated through better education. Nearly 80 per cent of young adult prisoners have not completed high school – an approximately four times higher non-completion rate than other young adults.
This gets us to the complex tension between the desire to rehabilitate young offenders and the need to protect the community from serious acts of violence.
Primacy must be accorded to incapacitating offenders from inflicting serious harm on more victims. Yet prisons are not the solution for young people: they diminish educational progress and governments have no idea how to run youth detention centres in a non-profligate way.
The excessive spending on youth justice provides an easy alternative to youth detention. Each serious juvenile offender should be chaperoned by a police officer 24/7 as they go about their daily activities.
Police chaperoning sounds excessive and simplistic, and there are many theoretical reasons not to pursue this approach, but all of them are evaporated by the thudding economic reality that the cost of a 24/7 police chaperone for each young offender would be approximately $400,000 annually (ie, five full-time police salaries – factoring in holidays and other leave – working on this one task). Incredibly, this is more than a $600,000 annual saving for each offender (the saving is $1.5m in Victoria).
The job of police would be made easier if the offenders were required to wear GPS tracking bracelets and compelled to stay within set geographical confines, which were sufficiently expansive to include important facilities, such as school and sports activities. Thus when offenders were inside their home or school, the police would not need to have visual contact with the offenders.
Constant police monitoring of young offenders would obviously have downsides. Some offenders would find it embarrassing and humiliating. Others would regard it as a serious invasion of their privacy. But these disadvantages are minor when compared with the harshness of the alternative: being removed from their family, school and friends and placed in detention.
The money saved through appointing a police chaperone to each serious juvenile offender should be spent on putting more police and AI-enhanced CCTV cameras on the street, which would reduce the crime problem at the outset.
Alternatively, governments can keep employing even more misguided youth counsellors and hiding the cost of their incompetence in remote government reports and hope they can continue to avoid accountability for their breathtaking missteps.
************************************
11 March, 2024
Wishy Wilson is back, madder than ever
He has launched a tirade of Warmist claims with no scientific foundation whatsoever. But he is marijuana-dependent these days so perhaps we should cut him some slack
He is something of an elitist so Green/Left views are to be expected of him, though he is more extreme than most. His past as a Duntroon student and an investment banker certainly confirm his elitist identity
He is also an enemy of Christmas. That is he in the centre below
Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson has criticised Labor for failing to protect The Great Barrier Reef, saying the Albanese government’s policies have Australia “on track to blow through the two degrees warming threshold.”
“Warming oceans caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the single greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef, and still Labor wants more coal, more gas and more Reef destruction,” Mr Whish-Wilson wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“Try as they might, Labor’s attachment to the “drug dealers' defence,” that if we don’t export it someone else will, is meaningless to the protection of the Reef.,” he said More
Mr Whish-Wilson said a 99 per cent decline in the world's coral reefs will ensue if the threshold is broken, including the world’s largest living organism, the Great Barrier Reef.“The only thing that will save the Great Barrier Reef is an end to fossil fuels. That starts with saying no to new coal and gas. This is the bare minimum required to give the Reef a chance of survival," he said. “After two years in government, Labor refuses to do what is required to protect the future of the Reef. Only the Greens in balance of power will implement a climate trigger and take action to stop the fossil fuel cartel before it destroys our climate and the places we hold dear.”
*******************************************
Pure unadulterated hate
From a religion of hate
A Sydney imam has described Jews as a 'criminal, barbaric, tyrannical enemy' in an anti-Semitic sermon, claiming Jihad was the 'only solution' to restore Palestine.
Australian Imam Abdul Salam Zoud delivered the sermon to his congregation at Masjid As-Sunnah Mosque in Lakemba, southwest of Sydney, on February 9.
The sermon, which was streamed live on the Mosque's Facebook page, was unearthed and translated by the Middle East Media and Research Institute - an American group that monitors Muslim extremists.
Imam Zoud said the Jews had trespassed on land and oppressed the people of Palestine.
He praised Jihad and Hamas, claiming the Prophet Muhammad and the Righteous Caliphs did not conquer the world by peaceful means, negotiations or concessions.
'These people (Jews) only understand the language of force,' Imam Zoud said.
'Do not even dream that [Palestine] can be regained through negotiations. By Allah, Palestine will only be restored through Jihad.'
'Jihad for the sake of Allah is the only solution when it comes to the infidels.'
He said'all the billions that were spent to improve, beautify, and highlight the image of the Jews have all gone in vain'.
He added the goal of Jihad was not to kill people and take over their land but rather to remove obstacles preventing the spread of Islam.
The sermon has outraged MPs and Jewish leaders in Australia, with many claiming the hateful speech should not be tolerated.
Liberal Senator Dave Sharma labelled the sermon 'disgusting' and 'un-Australian', claiming the imam was inciting violence.
'If it is not unlawful it should be,' Senator Sharma told the Daily Telegraph. 'That crosses the line from free speech into inciting violence.'
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies David Ossip said the sermon was 'incredibly dangerous' and 'inconsistent with Australian values'.
'If we are serious about maintaining the communal cohesion and harmony we all treasure, we surely cannot tolerate hate preachers poisoning the minds of their adherents by vilifying other Australians and calling for jihad,' Mr Ossip said.
*************************************************
Unachievable at any cost
Political blindness in Western Austraia
Two weeks ago, we got a taste of the brave new world of renewable energy. Victoria’s grid collapsed on a hot and windy afternoon. 530,000 homes were left without power, train lines were shut down, schools and businesses had to close their doors, phones couldn’t be used even for emergency calls, and hundreds of sets of traffic lights were out of order.
The same fate awaits Western Australia unless it reverses course on its ideological determination to pursue Net Zero.
In June 2022, the WA state government announced its plan to close all coal-fired power stations (Collie, Muja, and Bluewaters) in the state by 2030 as part of a commitment to an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by that year.
This will result in the removal of two-thirds of the WA network’s current electricity supply.
The justification for this policy was the ‘overwhelming uptake of rooftop solar’, adding that, ‘…an estimated $3.8 billion will be invested in new green power infrastructure in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), including wind generation and storage, to ensure continued supply stability and affordability. This investment is expected to pay for itself by 2030-31 relative to the status quo of increasing electricity subsidies.’
A detailed analysis conducted for the IPA by Senior Research Fellow Kevin You, former General Manager of Generation at Western Power Mark Chatfield, and this correspondent, demonstrates that this plan is neither feasible nor achievable at any cost.
Our research shows that the cost to replace coal-fired power generation will be far more than the already huge sum of $3.8 billion – it will be far greater than even 10 times that amount.
WA’s vast size means that it is geographically isolated, not only from the rest of the country, but internally. Therefore, it cannot be connected to a national energy grid, as is the case with states on the eastern seaboard. It must – and does – produce and rely on its own energy. Therefore, the huge fluctuations that arise from taking out coal in the main network cannot be addressed by relying on other states.
In the southwest of the state, there has been an historical reliance on coal, but WA also has abundant energy in the form of gas.
Following the discovery of large gas reserves in the mid-1970s on the North West Shelf, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBP) was constructed. It is one of Western Australia’s most critical pieces of energy infrastructure.
The pipeline was privatised under the Court government in 1998, however, the easement surrounding the pipeline was not privatised. In fact, it was enlarged to accommodate potential future expansions to the gas pipeline’s transmission capacity.
Until now, gas has been able to back up the increasing move to solar and wind. The state’s domestic gas reservation policy, which requires gas exporters to set aside 15 per cent of reserves for domestic use, has been considered a key to avoiding the energy shortages and price rises seen in the east.
However, the warning signs are already there that the WA government’s Net Zero energy policy will not provide the stable, affordable, reliable power its proponents claim.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in a recent report suggested WA could face electricity blackouts as soon as 2025 unless it fills a forecast shortfall in energy supply.
This report is the first time AEMO has given a forecast that takes into account WA’s commitment to transitioning off coal-fired energy by 2030, which it says would strip an estimated 1,366 MW of power generation out of the system.
Unfortunately, the WA public is not being told of the true costs of the WA government’s 2030 renewable energy feel-good dream. There is the real threat that Western Australians will not be able to keep the lights on or turn on the air conditioning when they need to.
A key finding of our analysis is that by phasing out coal by 2030 and without expansion of the DBP, even if:
wind capacity from today is trebled
battery capacity is increased nine-fold
the state’s solar capacity is doubled
Greater Perth and the Wheatbelt still risk blackouts close to four months in a year.
Our analysis shows further that, theoretically to maintain the network in the absence of coal and gas, there would have to be a massive overbuild of renewables, requiring approximately:
50 batteries, with a total capacity of 5000 MW, (currently one battery is in service)
8,000 MW of solar factories, currently at 180 MW
12,000 MW of wind factory capacity, currently at 1,040 MW
4,134 MW of rooftop domestic solar capacity, currently it is 2,406 MW
Once transmission easements, poles and wires are added in, we calculate the total cost to be – not $3.8 billion – but more than $52 billion, which is equivalent to over 130 per cent of budgeted general WA government spending for the financial year ending 2024.
This can only result in ever-increasing energy bills for ordinary Western Australians. As far as we can tell, no thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done of the government’s plan, especially in relation to battery production and storage.
Consider also the destruction of the environment – and much of the state’s available arable land – by plastering its landscape with solar panels and wind factories.
All in a reckless pursuit of emissions reduction. Let’s not forget that Australia is responsible for just over 1 per cent of the world’s emissions.
Less than one-fifth of that 1 per cent comes from WA, and about 6 per cent of that one-fifth of the 1 per cent comes from WA’s coal-fired power stations.
Therefore, shutting them down would contribute to reducing roughly 0.013 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.
For $52 billion, the money would be better spent keeping coal-fired power stations open for the foreseeable future and in the meantime expanding the DBP and buying gas, which is the only way to avoid blackouts while sensibly reducing emissions.
If WA wants to avoid what happened in Victoria, its government must abandon its ideological fantasy of Net Zero, which, as our research shows, is unachievable at any cost.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/unachievable-at-any-cost/
*********************************************Envy and the left
We are all familiar with the concept of envy. As we know, this corrosive, malignant state of mind is one of the seven deadly sins of Christianity, but it’s also condemned in Islam, Buddhism, and most secular ethical systems. Writing in 1930, Bertrand Russell identified envy as a major, and largely unacknowledged, cause of unhappiness in Western societies. If anything, its pernicious hold is stronger than ever today and growing. Social media is widely blamed for this, but progressive ideology is also a culprit, and perhaps the most important one. True, the left has always appealed to envy, but as its Utopian ambitions have grown, so too has its demonetisation of the successful.
Let’s start with the government’s ditching of the Stage Three personal income tax cuts. In a classic Robin Hood ploy, it is taking money from all those who earn more than $150,000 (compared to what they would have received under Stage Three) to pay for higher tax relief for those on lower incomes. The latter could have been funded by spending cuts, preserving the reform intention behind stage three.
So why was this option apparently not even considered? Doling out benefits to the needy does not provide, for the envious, the frisson of pleasure that penalising others in the community does. Envy was the leitmotif of Bill Shorten’s leadership. Under Prime Minister Albanese, the appeal is less overt, but still unmistakably there: a dog-whistle rather than a campaign slogan.
Envy’s reach extends well beyond tax. It is hard-wired into identity politics. Consider what kind of world its adherents aim to create. Their goal is not equality in the true sense of the word: a colour-blind society where all enjoy the same rights and freedoms. No, they crave hierarchy and privilege. Power must be stripped from imagined oppressor groups (white males and Jews, to take two favourite targets) and transferred instead to their supposed victims (women, Indigenous people, and Palestinians). Where the traditional left at least paid lip service to the abolition of all privilege, progressives covet it for themselves. Covetousness, as we know, is a close relation of envy.
Nor is climate change ideology free of envy. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, many people mask their envy in virtue. I suspect this was a large part of the psychological appeal of last century’s prohibition movement. I have no doubt that it motivates climate change moralisers today, who insist we give up – for our own good, of course – cheap and reliable power, viable agriculture and industry, and even the type of cars most of us want to drive. For many of them, I suspect, this harsh prospect provides a warm inner glow. Not only can they indulge their worst envious instincts, they can pose as morally superior at the same time.
If you think I am drawing a long bow, consider why renowned economist and climate believer Bjorn Lomborg is so despised by the left. By rejecting the need for emissions austerity, he is denying climate zealots the opportunity to take others’ petrol-powered SUVs away.
Of course, none of us is immune from envy. This vice can afflict conservatives as well as progressives, libertarians as well as socialists, in their personal lives. Equally, no political philosophy is free from morally corrupting influences and ethical blind spots. For conservatism, at least in the eyes of its critics, a lack of compassion toward the less fortunate is highlighted in this regard. For the left envy is the age-old moral hazard, given how easily compassion can morph into the urge to hurt the better off.
Mainstream social democratic parties, to their credit, used to keep this malign instinct within certain limits, confining their ambitions to income redistribution. In the past, the tall poppy syndrome was about pricking the pretensions of high and mighty rather than outright cancellation. Today’s progressive left, like its socialist predecessors, has given envy far freer rein. Indeed, it is an inevitable by-product of progressivism’s basic worldview.
By denying the existence of individual merit or excellence, progressives are suspicious of success of any kind, which is attributed to privilege, luck or the lottery of the free market. By rejecting traditional religion, they blind themselves to the darker realities of human nature, not least their own. And consider the effect of the depressing, zero-sum view of the world progressivism adopts: the belief that everything we value, whether material wealth, cultural riches, and indeed treasured historical memories, must have been stolen or appropriated from some oppressed group.
Rather than giving in to envy, we can respond to the success of others in a constructive way. We can admire them. We can seek to emulate, and possibly even surpass them. This competitive impulse, while decried by some, is a positive social and economic force. It has always been the key to capitalism’s dynamism and social mobility.
This truth was recognised by our greatest Prime Ministers, Bob Hawke and John Howard. Their policy settings, which put aspiration (and where merited, compassion for the less fortunate) before envy, yielded enormous economic and social dividends. We became richer and more socially cohesive as a result. I suspect we were happier and more content. Yet this era seems a world away.
If you want to know why socialism, for all its manifest failures, retains its attraction, you don’t need to look beyond its appeal to envy. After all, there is a reason why the major political party of the left in Australia is called the Greens. Progressive ideology, the socialism of the 21st Century, has given this vice new impetus and cover, pulling the impressionable young into its orbit. They may initially have good intentions, but for too many envy’s seductions (and addictive effect) eventually take over. This is a recipe not for happiness and fulfilment, but for anger, emptiness, and demoralisation. We can see every day in the faces of progressive protesters.
Envy can be overcome. People can change for the better. The ancients, in their wisdom, gave us the clue we need. Envy, they believed, is a form of selective blindness (as its Latin word invidia suggests). Those afflicted by it must remove their self-imposed blinkers. Yet for progressives who, whether from hubris or vanity, refuse to see this is no small task.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/envy-and-the-left/ ?
************************************
10 March, 2024
Drumgold still in trouble
If ever a man has been destroyed by his own political correctness, it is Shane Drumgold, SC. He abused his position as prosecutor to launch a very weak rape case against Bruce Lehrmann, because "believe the woman" was all the rage. And to help a weak case to stand up he said a number of things that have come back to haunt him.
I feel sorry for him. He clawed his way up to a prestigious position depite humble origins in Mount Druitt. But the battle apparently left him insecure so he was unable to resist media pressure to prosecute. He lacked the self confidence that would have come from a private school background -- the usual background for a barrister
I too have a humble background and went to no school at all for my university entrance qualification but I have never aspired to public prominence. Economic and academic success has been plenty for me. Good interpersonal relationships are the only important form of success as far as I can see and my record there has been mixed. One wonders how Drumgold's second marriage is faring
Five Australian Federal Police officers have begun defamation action against the ACT government over allegations by former chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold that they engaged in “a very clear campaign to pressure” him not to prosecute the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.
Lawyers for the five officers have sent a concerns notice to the government and to Mr Drumgold over his allegations against them, which included that they had engaged in “consistent and inappropriate interference” in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann.
The allegations were made in a letter Mr Drumgold sent to ACT police chief Neil Gaughan on November 1, 2022, expressing concern over “some quite clear investigator interference in the criminal justice process”.
The letter sparked the Sofronoff inquiry into police and prosecution conduct in the Lehrmann case, which largely exonerated police and found that Mr Drumgold’s assertions were baseless.
One of the AFP officers told The Australian the letter had “destroyed careers and destroyed people’s lives”. “When you’re in a profession where integrity is pivotal, if you lose your integrity, if it’s suggested that you are corrupt or you’ve trying to pervert the course of justice or influence something, it just goes against the grain,” the officer said.
“I don’t think people appreciate the impact that this whole debacle over the four years has had on individual police officers. We did nothing wrong, and we are paying the price.”
The concerns notice – a precursor to defamation proceedings – comes just days after the ACT government apologised to former Liberal minister Linda Reynolds and paid $90,000 in damages and legal costs over accusations by Mr Drumgold in the same letter that the senator had engaged in “disturbing conduct” that included political interference in the police investigation.
Mr Drumgold authorised the release of the unredacted letter after talking to a journalist from The Guardian, who then lodged a Freedom of Information request.
The letter, containing the DPP’s suspicions of impropriety against the named police officers and Senator Reynolds, was released without any of the consultations or redactions required by law. The FOI application was determined and executed within four hours of being considered for the first time.
The Sofronoff inquiry found that suspicions Mr Drumgold formed during his early interactions with the investigators “predisposed him to see non-existent malignancy in benign interactions between the police and the defence at the trial”.
Mr Drumgold complained police were speaking with the defence at the trial during adjournments. However, it was not surprising police felt deep antipathy towards the DPP since the feeling was mutual, the Sofronoff inquiry found. “Mr Drumgold did not seem to appreciate that mutual trust is a two-way street. It was he who, at the first opportunity, formed the baseless opinion that the investigators were improperly trying to thwart a prosecution.
“This inquiry has thoroughly examined the allegations in Mr Drumgold’s letter. Each allegation has been exposed to be baseless.”
Late in giving his evidence, Mr Drumgold “finally resiled from his scandalous allegations,” inquiry chair Walter Sofronoff noted. Mr Sofronoff said that “any official writing a letter of that kind would also know that copies of the letter would have to pass through many hands and that there was a real risk that it would be made public”.
“In fact, it was with the help of Mr Drumgold himself that the letter defaming others made its way into a newspaper.”
Mr Sofronoff found no police acted improperly: “The evidence before me showed that the investigators consistently acted in good faith and conducted a thorough investigation … Nobody suggested to me that the investigation was flawed in any way.”
The police had made mistakes, Mr Sofronoff said, including conducting a second interview with Ms Higgins that was not likely to produce anything useful and which caused her distress.
“None of these mistakes actually affected the substance of the investigation and none of them prejudiced the case … I do not find that any police officer breached a duty or acted improperly.”
One of the officers bringing the defamation action was critical of the ACT government’s attitude towards its police force. “The ACT, it’s a bubble here. It is a very closed shop and I think some of the people in these positions are batting way above their weight. Two police stations are closed because the government hasn’t invested. They have no care for the police at all. The number of police that are off due to stress, or leaving, it’s phenomenal.”
*********************************************
Understanding national conservatism
National conservatism sounds suspicuously like Trumpism, particularly on trade issues. "Free trade" has always sounded good to conservatives but Trump showed that it should not be an all-powerful consideration.
And Trump was not really being unorthoox in his trade restrictions. Economists have always recognized exceptions to the desirabiity of free trade: "Infant industry" and the "Australian" cases for instance. And the "supply-chain" difficulties presently besetting trade rather vindicate that
The Economist, the British magazine well-known for its particular metropolitan liberal worldview, had a pearl-clutching cover piece last week where it bemoaned ‘the growing peril of national conservatism’.
‘It’s dangerous and it’s spreading,’ the editorial warned its readers – making it sound like some new Covid variant.
What exactly is national conservatism?
Australians could be forgiven for being a little in the dark, for while there have been national conservative conferences in Washington DC and Florida in America, and in London, Brussels, and Rome in Europe, there has been nothing similar so far here. There are no mainstream Australian journalists who describe themselves using that label. Nor, unlike elsewhere, are there leading politicians or any groupings in any of our mainstream parties who march under that banner. I have found it a struggle to get those involved in the think tank world and in centre-right politics in Australia to even understand the concept properly.
The Economist labelled national conservatives as those ‘seized by declinism’, ‘the politics of grievance’, and those who see the ‘state as its saviour’. But that is unfair and does not do this intellectual movement justice. National conservatives have a deep philosophical critique of the assumptions held by policymakers in the capitals of the West. As some of the leading intellectuals of the movement, like Yoram Hazony, have explored in great depth, they are critical of aspects of classical liberalism and the dominant worldview which over-emphasises the sovereign individual, rather than the family, the nation, and our religious traditions as the source of our prosperity and freedoms. They believe the focus in centre-right circles has, in recent years, gone awry. In the words of Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, it is time to ‘put conservatism back into its traditional sphere of national identity’.
Perhaps the most obvious areas where national conservatives differ from the current centre-right are in relation to immigration, trade, and foreign policy.
First and foremost, national conservatives reject the long-standing consensus on immigration. They believe that mass immigration perhaps poses more of an existential threat to the West than Soviet missiles ever did. Nations like Poland and Hungary recovered from years of communist domination. But it is far less clear whether parts of Western Europe and elsewhere will survive the ethnic conflicts and other threats to social cohesion that have been carelessly imported into their homelands. This is not simply about ‘stopping the boats’ or ‘building the wall’ – although many Western governments struggle to do even that. It is emphatically also about legal immigration. There needs to be a reassessment from first principles as to what level and what type of immigration, if any, makes sense for Western nations and our peoples going forward. In the Howard era, there was an oft-repeated line that because the government was able to control illegal immigration Australians welcomed higher levels of legal immigration. If that was ever actually true, it is not true now.
National conservatives also recognise that the trade and investment policies of the West need a serious rethink. They reject the idea that the end goal, beau ideal, should be open borders trade and investment between nations, without regard to their differing economic, social, or political circumstances. To be clear, this means large numbers of Australia’s existing trade and investment agreements, including but not limited to, the one we signed with China, will need to be torn up or at the very least significantly redesigned. Our trade and investment policies have created boom towns in places like Shenzhen and Bangalore and rust belts in places like Stockbridge, Elizabeth, and Youngstown. They have gutted our national industrial capacity and destroyed communities. They have turned us into exquisite connoisseurs of imported goods, rather than producers of anything other than primary produce or overpriced housing to sell to foreigners. The idea, so beloved by The Economist, that it should be as easy to import manufactured goods from China to Australia as it is to import the same from England to France needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history.
National conservatives also believe that our foreign policy needs to change. The reckless evangelicalism that has characterised Western military adventures for well over the last quarter century needs to stop. What is needed is a new prudence that is focused instead on our vital interests (narrowly defined) and which is far more selective about the conflicts we allow ourselves to be dragged into. Large numbers of our people are simply sick to the back teeth of endless and pointless wars in places like Somalia, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere. These are places that they do not really care that much about, but which they or their children have been expected to die for. These interventions always seem to follow a similar storyline: some bad guy is the ‘next Hitler’, a particular incident is the ‘new Munich’. Unless we get involved and offer unlimited economic or military support, we are Neville Chamberlain-like appeasers. Certain politicians then get to globe-trot around the globe pretending they are the next Winston Churchill. Inevitably what then follows, many years later, is a loss of blood, treasure, and national prestige, the destabilising of entire regions and a flood of refugees, and all manner of second-order unintended consequences. In nearly all cases these are not grand ideological struggles, but messy intractable ethnic disputes where there are no pure actors on either side.
There are other areas of policy where national conservatives have new and constructive things to say, including on social policy – where a reconstitution of family structures and traditional ways of life is going to be as important as the reconstruction of our national borders and identity. But if there is one theme that unites this movement, it is that they are anti-Utopian. The left was in the past the utopian ones, the ones who liked to ‘imagine there is no countries’. But since the great victory in the Cold War the centre-right has also become increasingly un-moored from reality. It has ignored the importance of the nation-state when it comes to trade, immigration and foreign policy and many other issues. All national conservatives are asking is that we get real again.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/understanding-national-conservatism/
***************************************************Transgenderism is an attack on women
The 21st Century Australian woman has greater freedom and opportunities afforded to her than at any other time in history, and to truly honour this legacy, we must reflect, be proud and thank those who led the way.
However, in the abundance of blessings, women face a new battle. It is not to do with votes or pay but an attack on our very being – an attack on the identity of a woman.
What is a woman? An adult female human.
Plain and simple I would have thought. Not so, according to some. Sadly, the movement to let men parade as women and demand female recognition has erased the uniqueness, beauty and femininity of a woman by claiming that womanhood is merely a subjective feeling that can be experienced by any person, notably men!
This modern tendency to question basic biology places women in greater danger than even the suffragettes would have thought possible. It disgraces the hard-fought battles women have mounted and won, to achieve equality.
Women deserve to feel safe and respected. We have achieved this through removing the marriage bar, criminalising marital rape and legislating against sex discrimination.
However, despite this progress women today now find themselves in a fight for the right even to be recognised as biological women. The right to safe spaces including single-sex toilets, change rooms and female-only prisons has now also been denied.
It is becoming increasingly common to have all-gender and trans-inclusive bathrooms to cater to a minority of men who feel like women. Women can’t even be guaranteed a safe place to champion women’s rights, including on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne. This idea would outrage suffragette women and the early feminist movement and rightly so.
The fact is that today, feelings trump women’s safety and very existence. And for what?
The logical fallacy that people should choose the restroom that they feel most comfortable using over the protection of vulnerable girls is unacceptable. The fact that women can be raped in a woman’s prison by a man masquerading as a woman is deplorable.
The dignity of women is further disgraced by rhetoric that distorts the truth of motherhood.
The ability to produce and nurture life is a phenomenon that only women can experience. But today, inclusivity has overridden our right to be called a mother, in favour of ‘person who gives birth’, ‘chest-feeder’, or simply ‘parent’. For the record, I’m not a birthing parent but a proud mother.
Gender blindness, including the use of gender-neutral language, destroys the significant differences between men and women, a basic biological factor in life.
Our over-sensitivities today strip women of their dignity and right to existence.
I never thought that upon my entrance into the Victorian Parliament in 2018, I would have to fight to uphold the definition of womanhood and argue for the protection of rights for women and girls.
We do a great disservice to those women who achieved equality and respect by allowing the identity for which they were really fighting to be erased.
As we approach International Women’s Day, let us celebrate the achievements of women yesterday, be thankful for the blessings we have today, and proudly and boldly proclaim the uniqueness and dignity of womanhood for tomorrow and the foreseeable future. And we must also applaud our modern-day heroes, fighting at the barricades of social media and legislative halls to preserve the unique and precious identity of what is, a woman.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/women-back-to-the-barricades/
*************************************Universality and the university
More selectivity needed for admissions, not less
Recently, the Australian University Accord met to discuss the manifest failings of our tertiary education system. The result has been a predictable raft of recommendations, couched in the langue de bois of our modern class: equity, innovation, agility, et al. In other words, all the things that got us into this mess to start with. These are words that, once they start tumbling from someone’s mouth, indemnify them against the risk of being identified as a genuine mind.
Established by the Labor Party, we should expect the Australian University Accord’s report would reflect Labor values. Those Labor values now apparently include the annihilation of the working man, with the recommendation that 80 per cent of Australians should pass through the hallowed doors of the university system. They, like everything else in a society driven by data-as-God, mistake quantity for quality.
In one respect, they are addressing a genuine problem. As a nation we are perhaps stupider than ever; PISA results continue to decline, and our primary and secondary education systems are mutual reflections of our tertiary system. Literary references, a command of basic mathematics, a sense of history, and the ability to write coherently: these all seem blue remembered hills.
However, furthering universal education is unlikely to fix the problems the proliferation of universal education created. For reasons entirely predictable, education proved vulnerable to the law of diminishing returns. An elite education cannot be made available to everybody; it is far easier to ensure that nobody receives an elite education. This is the cost of equity-above-all-else as a governing principle. People are not equal, and cannot be made equal. People cannot even be made to regard one another as equal. Equality, along with our obsession with data, is another false god of our age.
The problem with the university system is not one of scarcity, but one of inflation. We bend every possible requirement to allow people the opportunity to enter university, and do everything possible to prevent them failing once they’re there. We’re one step from conscripting the population into tertiary education, and the credentials required for entry-level jobs have changed to reflect this. This is to say nothing of adolescence extended, family delayed, and earning prospects limited for several years of study. A bachelor’s degree today is the equivalent of the school leaver certificate of yesterday; people collect master’s degrees today like they collected Pokémon as children. Credentialism for most of the population represents a ticket to the middle class and social respectability, as much as potential earning power in the future. These are powerful incentives, which explain why 60 per cent of the population has been pressed into the ivory tower at some point in their lives. Yet careerism is not the only purpose the university is supposed to serve.
Among those giving, everything produced by the university sector – certainly in the non-empirical world – has been through a peer-reviewed strainer to prevent anything original or novel emerging. They reference one another like incestuous monks and write in a bizarre argot to demonstrate their membership. Some faculties, and some universities, are worse than others. They bring to mind the scholasticism of earlier centuries, but without the rigour. And, as was the case in the Reformation, genuinely new ideas will emerge from outside the walls of what we consider epistemologically established. Many academics are reincarnations of apocryphal medieval theologians arguing about the quantity of angels that can fit on a pinhead. It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for your average academic to produce something interesting.
On the receiving end, the university system is no better. Every second person has a Mickey-Mouse degree from a Mickey-Mouse university, and few of them could hold an intelligent conversation with a secondary school graduate from half a century ago. Whatever the university is producing, it is not minds. But I’ve long held the suspicion that this is exactly the point. The last thing the postmodern West is interested in is a population with minds, and for most people what passes for wisdom today is browsing Wikipedia and calling out logical fallacies on Reddit. The snarky intellect of the educated Millennial or Zoomer, like a shallow and unbearably noisy stream, lacks blue water. We produce sophistry among those who should be passing on the knowledge of our civilisation, and encourage cynicism among those who receive it.
Aside from the turgid careerism of academics and the acquisitiveness of students – perhaps sellers and buyers of indulgences is a better term – there are two obvious reasons why The Powers That Be encourage this. The first is for financial reasons. Education is big business in Australia. Only mining has a larger output share. The university system doubles as a means of laundering citizenship and immigration, and siphoning money from overseas elites adds to the cash paid over the span of their working lives by native-born graduates. The government collects more revenue from HECS than it does from the petroleum resource rent tax. No government that values its bottom line is going to advocate for less tertiary education.
The second reason is an ideological one. The universities are captured institutions: an American report estimated that the ratio of conservative to liberal professors shifted 350 per cent in the latter direction since 1984. Even if you enter to study STEM or something vocational, they’ll still get you with the mandatory modules on diversity and Indigenous perspectives and all the rest of the postmodern religiosity we now accept as normal. The result is a braindead middle class composed of eunuchs and temple priestesses. If this sounds hyperbolic, remember how the university sector responded to the Western Civilisation courses offered by the Ramsay Centre. You’d think they’d like more money and more students, but to give them credit, occasionally their principles get in the way. Both ANU and the University of Sydney weren’t interested. They value the message above the money. Today’s liberal-Marxist elite, who live in constant terror afraid of their own shadows, will broker no competition in the world of ideas. They know it was thanks to that they got their stranglehold to begin with. They also suspect, in their heart of hearts, that their cherished ideas are terrible, anti-natural, and essentially anti-human.
The postmodern university is a house of cards. It would be too much to expect the Australian Universities Accord to admit as much.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/universality-and-the-university/
*************************************************Will no one rid us of the meddlesome mandarins?
It’s time to call a spade a spade. We no longer live in the democratic Commonwealth of Australia but in a federation of socialist states.
This federation is run by nearly two-and-a-half million unelected bureaucrats who intrude into every aspect of our daily lives. If you know what’s good for you, you will obey them and keep your opinions to yourself. After all, governments know best and better that you become dependent on them rather than take personal responsibility for your misfortunes and disappointments.
Without the public realising it, bureaucrats have successfully inverted the democratic system. They now set the policy agenda while left-leaning, elected representatives, from all sides, do their bidding.
Form over substance is a self-serving public servant’s stock-in-trade. They are driven by woke causes, internal politics and enhanced authority. The bigger the department, the more they are paid. As well as handsome remuneration they enjoy some of the most generous work-from-home rights in the country.
Woke activism has become a particular preoccupation. Climate change, Aboriginal causes, LGBTQIA+ observances and diversity, equity and inclusion are central to policy formulation.
Women now comprise 50 per cent of the total federal senior executive service cohort. It is unknown how many of these appointments were appointed on merit and how many are there to fill quotas.
Privileged employment conditions usually carry superior performance obligations. However, that remains a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Take the head of the Defence Department, Greg Moriarty. Previously the chief of staff to prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, he received $1,006,474 last year for presiding over a department which deemed it unnecessary to inform the government of a $100 million cost over-run on a $50 million classified programme; where eight years is considered acceptable to assess urgently needed armed drones. And where, according to the Auditor-General, a $423 million cost blowout on a frigate project was due to lack of focus during the tender process.
Recasting military culture into a gentler, more caring cohort is driving out traditional warriors. Uniformed numbers shrank by 1,161 last year leaving the ADF 3,400 under strength.
The first object of the Australian Public Service, set out in Section 3 of the Public Service Act 1999, is, ‘to establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public’. A noble objective to be sure, but in practice there continues to be an unrelenting decline in efficiency, transparency and neutrality. For example, the Grattan Institute found since 2016, of 22 large federal government projects, just six had a business case.
It is no coincidence that the government’s Productivity Commission reports that over the past decade growth in GDP and income per person have slipped to their slowest rates in 60 years. While not all of this is due to growth in government, it is a major factor.
Not only does government not conform on efficiency, it also fails the apolitical test.
Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts chief, Jim Betts, who earns $928,340 a year, wore a t-shirt featuring the Aboriginal flag and a fist at Senate Estimates during the Voice referendum campaign.
While not federal, many local governments lowered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags to half-mast following the referendum defeat. Some fly the Palestinian flag; hardly demonstrations of political neutrality.
Indeed, post-modern activism is observable throughout the public service. In education, politically motivated curricula have been developed to subtly indoctrinate children as young as five. State universities are intolerant of views which run counter to their post-modern orthodoxy. The government broadcaster, the ABC, is a shameless activist for socialist causes. The one million dollars a day Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s modelling and forecasting faithfully follows a global ‘boiling’ narrative.
Socialism is also deeply imbedded in Australia’s failing ‘public’ health system. Epitomised by the NDIS, it is the result of a ‘know better’ authoritarian culture and a disdain for the laws of economics.
Meanwhile, as bureaucratic red, green and black tape proliferate, criminal sanctions feature with increasing regularity. This year it is estimated the number of federal employees engaged in regulatory roles will increase nine per cent overall with some agencies upping the number by 30 per cent. Since 2005, 97 per cent of new regulations have avoided parliamentary process. No wonder. Coercive powers enhance bureaucratic authority and give reasons for expansion. Political interference is unwelcome.
The enormous cost burdens now borne by business from ever increasing environmental and workplace laws seem to matter little. After all, fewer businesses are easier to control. Australia has become a net exporter of capital, meaning investors see better opportunities overseas.
Yet corporate Australia meekly surrenders and is now a standard-bearer for bigger government and post-modernism. Reminiscent of 1933 Germany, business leaders accept that when their organisation’s future is inexorably linked to being on one political side, they must pay close attention to the new doctrine. Crony capitalism has attractions, at least for a while.
Although authority now resides within Marxist-Leninist bureaucracies, headline announcements are left to elected representatives. They are mainly theatre and used for election purposes. The execution is left to unaccountable public servants. Meanwhile, the ballot box has just become a place for voters to register protests.
Where to from here?
Buoyed by booming exports, Australian governments have bet the shop on the minerals boom continuing. It’s a dangerous bet, made more so by environmental laws which generously gift Australia’s competitors significant cost advantages. Regulatory obsession has also resulted in a massive decline in Australia’s manufacturing sector. It seems national security is the last thing on government minds.
Unless and until a political leader with the courage and support of its party takes on the public service like Javier Milei has done in Argentina, the will of the people will not be represented, nor prevail.
Hopefully Australia takes action sooner than Argentina did.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/will-no-one-rid-us-of-the-meddlesome-mandarins/
************************************7 March, 2024
The pot calls the kettle brown
One brown man insults another brown man. Leniu is a Samoan and Mam has some Aboriginal ancestry. Both are footballers in the Rugby League, a form of football with a mainly regional following in Australia. "Monkey" is widely held to be a very bad word
Spencer Leniu has admitted to using a racist remark against Broncos star Ezra Mam in the NRL’s season-opening double-header in Las Vegas.
Leniu, who was playing his first game for his new club, lodged a guilty plea to a contrary conduct charge with the NRL judiciary on Thursday. He now faces a long suspension after admitting to calling his opponent a “monkey”.
“I want to apologise to Ezra and his family for using the word I did, and I am sincerely sorry to cause him such distress,” Leniu said in a Roosters statement.
“I’ve put my hand up and want to take ownership of this. I said the word, but I didn’t mean it in a racist way. Anyone who knows me knows that’s not who I am.”
Leniu had initially denied using a slur in post-game interviews after the Roosters’ 20-10 win over Broncos at Allegiant Stadium, telling Triple M the angry exchange with Brisbane players was “fun and games”.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/leniu-admits-to-racist-slur-against-mam-20240307-p5fam9.html
**********************************************Airline Fined $250,000 For Standing Down Worker Concerned With COVID-19
Australian national carrier Qantas has been fined $250,000 after standing down a worker—who was an elected health and safety representative—after he raised concerns about the risk of COVID-19 to staff cleaning aircraft that had arrived from China—an action the judge described as “shameful.”
Lift truck driver Theo Seremetidis was employed by subsidiary Qantas Ground Services (QGS) at Sydney International Airport, and was sidelined in early 2020, before which he had worked for Qantas for nearly seven years as a ground crew fleet member.
Last year, NSW District Court Judge David Russell found the airline engaged in discriminatory conduct, ruling that Mr. Seremetidis was unfairly cut off from other staff who were seeking his help.
“The conduct against Mr Seremetidis was quite shameful,” the judge said. “Even when he was stood down and under investigation, QGS attempted to manufacture additional reasons for its actions.”
Last week Qantas agreed to pay Mr. Seremetidis $21,000 for economic and non-economic loss.
On March 6, Judge Russell ordered that QGS be convicted and fined $250,000, finding that the company’s conduct involved significant culpability and was deliberate, rather than inadvertent and that QGS had “deliberately ignored” the consultation and other provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act. He said there was a “gross power imbalance” between Mr. Seremetidis and senior managers at QGS.
Mr. Seremetidis was “most conscientious” in carrying out his role as a health and safety representative, the judge found, staying up-to-date with official announcements about the pandemic and even doing research on his day off.
Judge Russell found QGS saw Mr. Seremetidis’s directions to cease unsafe work as a “threat” to the conduct of the business, in particular to its ability to clean and service aircraft and get them back in the air, and pointed out that the role of health and safety representatives was “vital” to the protection of workers and the running of any business.
During the hearing last year, Qantas said it had taken the action because Mr. Seremetidis had been “creating anxiety amongst the workforce.”
It was revealed the airline had told concerned workers that the risk of them contracting COVID-19 from their work was “negligible,” and they could not “be reasonably concerned about contracting the virus.”
Prosecutor Matthew Moir said Qantas gave priority to its commercial interests over the health and safety of its workers. But Qantas lawyer Bruce Hodgkinson argued the airline had been doing its best to deal with the fast-unfolding pandemic.
Qantas Apologises
A Qantas spokesperson said the airline accepted the penalties. “We agreed to compensation for Theo Seremetidis and the court has today made orders for that compensation to be paid,” the spokesperson said.
“We acknowledged in court the impact that this incident had on Mr. Seremetidis and apologised to him. Safety has always been our number one priority and we continue to encourage our employees to report all safety-related matters.”
*****************************************
GDP figures paint a picture of a very sick Australian economy
The GDP numbers paint a picture of an economy that is sick, seriously sick.
It is an economy that is being held up – barely, held up, I should stress - by a bizarre and explosively volatile and quite simply unreliable combination of China-driven demand for our iron ore, coal and natural gas, and the utterly out-of-control flood of 1500 migrants every single day of the year, weekends included.
In the December quarter the economy grew by just 0.2 per cent, after growing by just 0.3 per cent in the September quarter.
Indeed, it slowed through each quarter of 2023. So over the year, the growth was a miserable 1.5 per cent. Over the latest six months it was an even more miserable annual rate of just 1 per cent.
But when you factor in the utterly unprecedented population surge, thanks to the equally unprecedented migration flood, per capita growth was negative 0.3 per cent for the December quarter and a just horrible negative 1 per cent for the December year.
The economy was in clear and undeniable per capita recession all the way through 2023.
All those migrants kept the aggregate numbers positive. But it was a false positivity, with the per capita numbers, the numbers that reflect the actual reality for Australians, going backward.
And that’s before you factor in all the other negatives from the migrant surge – the pressure on housing, on infrastructure, the complications it causes for wages and business costs, and cost-of-living.
Now bring in China.
But for the surge in exports (that’s, importantly, export volumes) – combined with an entirely understandable fall in our demand for consumer imports, given the terrible state of the local economy and household incomes - the overall December quarter GDP growth number would have been negative 0.4 per cent
Let me just draw out and stress this utterly critical point.
But for China – and more general demand globally for our coal and natural gas – our economy would have shrunk by 0.4 per cent in the December quarter.
But for China, per capita GDP would have fallen by nearly 1 per cent – an annualised fall of close to 4 per cent. That’s recession, with a very big capital R, in terms of actual reality for individual Australians.
Ask yourself: can we really rely on China to keep the music playing? A China, that is experiencing all sorts of problems, with all that concrete poured into ghost cities and now also export challenges?
Yet we still have almost all our eggs, so to speak, in that basket marked ‘China miracle’.
That, and sustained massive immigration to supply workers on the one hand, and demand for businesses from construction and housing to retail, on the other.
And yet even with those two spigots still pouring through 2023, our economy was staggering.
The figures further confirm what I have been writing since Melbourne Cup Day. The Reserve Bank should not have delivered that last rate hike.
Governor Michele Bullock will have to think long and hard about what she proposes the board does next Tuesday week.
***********************************************
Origin, NSW government negotiate delay to coal-fired Eraring power station’s closure
East coast residents should hope they agree. Blackouts loom otherwise
The planned retirement of Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will be delayed as Origin Energy holds talks with the NSW government to keep the Eraring plant open beyond August 2025, easing the prospect of blackouts hitting electricity consumers.
Eraring, which supplies more than 25 per cent of NSW’s electricity needs, is due to shutter as early as August 2025 – though an independent expert last year concluded the state Labor government would need to strike a deal to safeguard electricity supplies.
More than six months into the talks, The Australian understands both sides are confident that a deal will be struck, although progress is limited to a point where a deal could be some weeks if not months away.
The extension of Eraring would ease fears that the rapid fire exit of coal from the national grid may increase the risks of blackouts, given the lack of replacement back-up power in the system.
A deal could still fall over, underlined by the collapse in talks between the previous NSW state government which held talks over acquiring Eraring.
Representatives for both the NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe and Origin declined to comment. Both sides negotiating have signed strict nondisclosure agreements.
Origin chief executive Frank Calabria said last month that both sides were keen for a deal as quickly as possible. “Both sides are governed by a very strict confidentiality agreement, but I can say that negotiations are active, they’re constructive, and they’re ongoing, and both parties will want to bring that to conclusion in as timely a way as possible.” Mr Calabria said.
Such is the confidentiality, neither party will discuss the nature of the deal though a risk-sharing agreement shapes as the only feasible option.
Such a deal has been used by Victoria in the past as the state Labor government struck deals with AGL Energy and EnergyAustralia to keep the state’s two largest coal power stations open.
EnergyAustralia’s Yallourn will close in 2028, while AGL’s Loy Yang A will shutter in 2035 – giving the state enough time to bring online sufficient quantities of renewable energy. The terms of both deals remain a closely guarded secret, but they are a guiding principle for any extension of Eraring.
But the deal is complicated, compounded by a rapidly evolving energy market and a looming end to a coal cap that will likely uproot the economics of Eraring.
The federal government in conjunction with state counterparts introduced a $120 a tonne cap on the price of coal, a scheme that drastically improved the financial performance of Eraring.
Eraring has in recent years been losing money. A rapid rise in rooftop solar has seen wholesale prices plunge to zero or below during sunny days, which explains why Origin in 2022 announced the retirement of the coal-fired power station in August 2025 – some seven years earlier than initially expected.
But Eraring’s fortunes changed in 2023 when the coal cap allowed Origin to recoup costs above $120 a tonne for coal, which returned the generator to profitability.
The scheme will end in June and Origin is facing higher costs for coal that will dent the financial returns of Eraring without an unexpected move in Australia’s wholesale electricity market.
Should it return to a loss-making entity, a risk-sharing agreement with the NSW government would likely see the taxpayer compensate Origin beyond 2025.
Such a scheme would be politically sensitive to the Labor government which has won favour with large swathes of the electorate with its commitment to renewable energy.
Moving to curtail political hostility, the Labor government is talking tough – insisting it will not be held hostage.
NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey has highlighted Origin’s recent bumper half-year revenues as evidence of the company’s responsibility to prolong Eraring’s lifespan, a stance that caused bewilderment among those close to Australia’s largest electricity and gas company.
Origin is a publicly traded company and law requires the management to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Prolonging Eraring might be in the best interests of NSW, but it may not satisfy shareholders.
Despite the political posturing, Origin has the whip hand. The loss of Eraring would remove 2.8 gigawatts of capacity from the state’s energy grid, which independent expert Cameron O’Reilly in 2023 said would risk grid stability.
Without sufficient electricity generation capacity, households and businesses in NSW would face a heightened risk of price increases and even blackouts.
With such a risk, Australia’s energy market has positioned for Eraring staying open.
“The NSW government is extremely concerned about reliability and affordability. They are very worried, but nobody thinks Eraring is closing in 2025,” one senior energy executive told The Australian.
“If the market thought Eraring was closing, there would be a substantial increase in wholesale electricity prices between 2024 and 2025 and there isn’t. The only question is, however, how long it will stay open for and how many units (operating).”
Extending Eraring, however, will undercut NSW’s energy transition timetable, critical if the state is to meet its emission reduction plans. NSW has set a target of halving emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels and reaching net zero by 2050.
************************************
"Build to rent" is no solution to rental housing shortage
The build-to-rent (BTR) industry, virtually non-existent in Australia seven years ago, is becoming a small part of the solution to solving housing supply issues. But BTR will never replace mum and dad investors.
BTR’s 2017 arrival was certainly timely since demand for rental accommodation is being driven by the systemic change in living preferences, with a growing proportion of the population renting, and renting for longer.
BTR makes up just 0.2 per cent of Australia’s housing market with the most recent report by Ernst & Young calculating just 11 developments are up-and-running, with a further 72 in the works.
The majority of the pipeline is coming to Melbourne, followed by Brisbane, with Sydney a distant third.
BTR apartment projects are purpose-built projects for long-term rent that do not rely on the typical off the plan pre-sales. BTR housing is held in single ownership with tenants getting the security of longer-term leases from institutional landlords, who are getting tax incentives from state and federal governments.
The last federal budget offered a tax break from July this year for BTR foreign investors. But the industry reckons far more needs to be done to incentivise investment, saying further changes to the GST and to land tax are essential as BTR projects are at least 10 per cent more expensive to build and operate than typical build-to-sell (BTS) projects.
To date two thirds of BTR investment has come from overseas where the product is well established. The 2023 MIPIM (Marche International des Professionnels d’Immobilier) international conference in Cannes, France, heard the rental model has been embraced in Europe and North America, but with some stigma against it in the UK.
Attendees were told BTR must be seen as complimenting the traditional housing delivery model, rather than being in opposition. With more than 20 million housing units, the US BTR sector comprises 12 per cent of the total value of the residential sector, but 5.4 per cent in the UK.
The Australian property consultancy Charter Keck Cramer (CKC) noted 2024 will be a “defining year” for BTR in testing the resolve and investment thesis of many BTR developers and their financiers.
It warns capital has been harder to raise given higher risk adjusted returns after rapid rate rises and construction cost increases.
“The role that the build-to-sell (BTS) and build-to-rent apartment markets respectively need to play in addressing the housing and rental crises cannot be overstated,” says CKC’s Richard Tremlett.
“In comparison to the established housing, or the greenfield house and land markets, the BTS apartment market is not well understood by many policy makers. The BTR apartment market is even less understood given it is still emerging as a residential asset class.”
**************************************************
6 March, 2024
"Accord" proposals won’t do anything to fix our universities
JUDITH SLOAN
Through the years I have become something of a dab hand at reading government reports. They are almost always far too long, badly argued and littered with carefully chosen photographs. I figure I can save my readers the trouble of wading through these tomes by simply cutting to the chase.
The final report of the Australian Universities Accord, at around 400 pages, is dubious and unhelpful. It is built on a highly unconvincing premise and works its way from there. On the basis of a bit of arm-waving by a consultant and asking around, the panel concludes the tertiary education attainment rate must rise from its current figure of about 60 per cent to at least 80 per cent of the workforce by 2050. For those aged 25 to 34, the proportion with a university education must rise from 45 per cent to 55 per cent by 2050.
Let’s face it, other guesses are equally plausible. After all, artificial intelligence is about to cut a swath through the workforce, meaning many university-educated workers may be out of jobs as machines replace their roles. And just in case you think it’s simply those who undertake repetitive, low-level jobs who are in the firing line, it seems AI can be highly creative and solve problems, to boot.
There is also the important issue of credentialism. It’s not as though jobs always require a university education – or indeed completion of school. But university education creates its own momentum by giving a head start to other applicants without qualifications. It doesn’t actually add to productivity, it simply alters the pecking order. To the extent that this is the case, the government – aka taxpayer – shouldn’t be investing even more in university education, particularly certain courses.
The accord makes much of the lack of equity in the admission to universities. Those from poor socio-economic backgrounds, those from regional areas and First Nations students are much less likely to go to university, let alone complete a course, relative to their better-off city-based cousins. Reflecting the backstory of federal Education Minister Jason Clare, who was the first in his family to attend university, the panel makes several suggestions to “expand opportunity to all”.
But here’s the rub: many students simply are not suited to university study and it is selling them a pup to suggest university is the best post-school pathway for them. I once taught economic statistics to university students with low entry scores – it was a nightmare. Most of them struggled, many lost self-confidence and a reasonable chunk failed. My advice to many of them was to consider alternative opportunities, such as becoming a tradie.
We have had a recent experiment with allowing universities to enrol any student they deem to have the necessary qualifications – the so-called demand-driven system of enrolments. Of course, “necessary qualifications” is a rubbery concept and allowing self-serving universities to set the entry standards is really akin to handing the keys to the chook house to the fox.
It is clear what happened when the demand-driven system was in full flight: the participation in higher education of marginal groups increased but the rate at which they completed courses was significantly below those with higher marks. According to higher education expert Andrew Norton, “students with ATARs (year 12 ranking) below 60 are twice as likely to drop out of university as students with ATARs over 90”. He estimates that those who fail to complete a university course are, on average, stuck with a debt of $12,000 to pay off.
Working backwards from the accord’s arbitrary targets, students with an ATAR as low as 45 will now be expected to go to university. And this in the context of sliding school performance across the past two decades.
Rather than accept that most of these students simply are not suited to university study, the panel wants additional funding, foundation courses, study hubs and the like. On the face of it, this just looks like a waste of resources given there will be plenty of jobs in the future that don’t require a university education.
Is someone with a bachelor of arts in cultural studies really more qualified than a plumber?
The one recommendation of the report that gave me a good laugh deals with the establishment of a higher education future fund. At this rate we’ll have future funds for everything. The source of funds will be a tax on our best universities – probably the Group of Eight – with the federal government matching their contributions. It’s a bit like how the Australian Football League operates: penalise the top teams to level out the competition. It’s really a form of socialism.
While this might make some sense for a football code, it makes no sense for a university system that should be focused on attaining global excellence. Why would we want to tax the best universities to spray money around with unknown outcomes? If I were heading up one of the Go8 universities I would be objecting in the strongest and loudest terms.
As is the case with most government reports, there are suggestions for more reviews and new bureaucratic agencies. There should be a centre of excellence in higher education and research (refer to previous paragraph); a survey on the prevalence of racism in higher education; and a First Nations-led review of higher education.
The most significant is the proposal to establish an Australian tertiary education commission, “a statutory, national body to plan and oversee the creation of a high quality and cohesive tertiary education system to meet Australia’s future needs”. You will be pleased to know one of the functions will be to negotiate “mission-based compacts for universities”, whatever that means.
The reality is we have had such agencies in the past and they haven’t worked well. Where does the minister sit in all this, let alone the federal Department of Education? The appointed commissioners often get ahead of themselves and the outcomes are often extremely disappointing.
Don’t get me wrong here: I think there is plenty wrong with the Australian university system.
Many of our universities are too big; they are clones of each other but of highly variable quality; and many offer a very poor offering to domestic students. The links with vocational education are patchy at best.
But the 400-page accord report is not the path to fixing these problems: indeed, most of the recommendations would make them worse and cost the taxpayer a small fortune. Obviously, the notion of opportunity cost has not been front of mind to the panel. The government would be ill-advised to spend even more money on a bloated, poorly performing sector based on made-up targets.
******************************************************
3rd SA Council Replaces Acknowledgement of Country
A local government authority in Australia has replaced the Acknowledgement of Country with a simple two-line welcome at the start of meetings.
Mayor Patrick Ross pushed to make changes to the operating procedures at meetings of the regional Naracoorte Lucindale Council in South Australia’s southeast.
A new statement to open Council meetings now reads, “We acknowledge and respect our complex history. We welcome everyone to build our future together.”
This replaces a statement that acknowledged the traditional owners of the land and the deep feelings of Aboriginal peoples toward the country.
“We acknowledge and respect the traditional owners of the ancestral lands of the Limestone Coast. We acknowledge elders past and present and we respect the deep feelings of attachment and relationship of Aboriginal peoples to country,” the original statement said.
Commenting on the changes, Mayor Ross said the Naracoorte Lucindale Council was acting on behalf of all residents and ratepayers.
“To that end, a general acknowledgement of our history and an inclusive welcome is what is desired by our community,” he said according to Council minutes (pdf).
“According to the LGA handbook, a welcome may be a simple welcome—some include a prayer and others make statements around what they wish to achieve within a meeting regarding collaboration.
“Elected Members have read a pledge and signed up to represent their community for a term of 4 years. The community has an elevated expectation of the Elected Members to do just that and therefore I see no reason to continue to reiterate that which we have agreed to do.”
Further commenting on the change, Mr. Ross said all statements should be kept simple.
“The modern society which we live in is so diverse in culture, language and religion, that either an omission or inclusion may be divisive, and therefore I’m happy to put forward this proposal,” he said.
The motion was carried six votes to four. A prayer at the opening of council meetings which did not mention God has also been removed.
“We gather to make decisions for our community. May we use only our best skills and judgement keeping ourselves impartial and neutral as we consider the merits and pitfalls of each matter that is placed before us and always act in accordance with what is best for our community and our fellow citizens,” the prayer read.
Reconciliation SA said it was “deeply disappointed” that the majority of elected members of the Council voted to replace the Acknowledgement to Country. CEO Jason Downs said erasing the existence of a culture to “keep things simple” is not a good position for a region that relies on tourism.
“We see this as walking back progress and signaling a lack of understanding of the significant and important role of First Nations culture,” Mr. Downs said.
“When you remove Acknowledgements to Country and Elders you remove visibility and you diminish the importance of First Nations in our Country’s 65,000 year history. We are the only country to lay claim to the world’s oldest living culture. For those unaware, Naracoorte is derived from First Nations language.”
Mr. Downs said when individual ideology impacts on a community’s future and business growth, there is cause for concern.
“We support all our Allies and First Nations people and will continue to challenge the ongoing demise of First Nations position in South Australia,” he said.
“Reconciliation SA extends its hand to the elected members and council staff for a workshop to provide context, advice and perspective on the importance, relevance and need to embrace the rich cultural history of our country.”
‘Praiseworthy’: One Nation MLC Sarah Game
However, One Nation member of the South Australian Legislative Council, Sarah Game, welcomed the move in a statement posted to X on March. 4.
“The Naracoorte Council will replace its Acknowledgement of Country with a more inclusive statement that reflects the entire community. The council’s alignment with the community they serve is praiseworthy,” she said.
City of Playford and Northern Areas Council in South Australia have also passed motions in recent months to replace the Acknowledgement of Country
*********************************************
How low can Covid catastrophists go?
Who’d have guessed that there would be two startling revelations about the great Covid over-reach in the space of about a week, upholding claims previously dismissed as conspiracy theories and misinformation?
First came a peer-reviewed scientific study which linked Covid vaccines to a range of serious health disorders. It was soon followed by the Queensland Supreme Court ruling that vaccine mandates imposed on police and ambulance workers in the state were unlawful.
Both provided a welcome dose of reality after the worst days of lockdowns and vaccine roll-outs when we were bombarded with the message that the jabs were ‘safe and effective’. Years later, we know for certain that they do not prevent contraction or transmission of the virus and there’s an acknowledged chance they could cause serious harm and even death.
Some of us have been aware of this for a long time, but vaccine promoters, including Big Pharma and government bureaucrats, insist that the risk is ‘very low’, the acknowledged disorders are ‘rare’, and that vaccines provide the best means of protection against Covid.
But how low is ‘very low’ and how ‘rare’ is rare? Let’s look at the latest findings from the largest vaccine safety study to date conducted by the Global Vaccine Data Network. A research division of the World Health Organisation, it reportedly looked at 99 million vaccinated individuals across six continents.
The study confirmed connections between Covid vaccines produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca to several serious but ‘rare conditions’.
According to a report in Forbes:
While the side effects are serious, the chance of experiencing them is low. Some highlighted increases include a 6.1-fold increase in myocarditis from the second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Cases of pericarditis had a 6.9-fold increase as a result of the third dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. There is a 2.5-times greater risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome from the AstraZeneca vaccine along with a 3.2-times greater risk of developing blood clots from the same vaccine. There is a 3.8-times greater risk of getting acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from the Moderna vaccine, and a 2.2-fold increase in the AstraZeneca vaccine.
When choosing to get vaccinated, it is important to weigh the benefits and risks of the vaccine. Information like this makes it easier to make the right choice…
Well thanks, but my wife and I made that choice a few years ago and we remain very glad we did, given there are some still trying to pedal the message that a six to seven times chance of contracting a serious heart condition is ‘low’.
I’m reminded of the old Chubby Checker hit Limbo Rock, ‘How low can you go’? Much lower than that, if you want to convince people the vaccines are safe – let alone effective.
My own long-term scepticism possibly has links back to my first job after leaving high school many moons ago, when I undertook a pharmacy apprenticeship in a very busy regional pharmacy.
Maybe it didn’t help when I was questioned by a detective when a patient died after taking a sleeping mixture I had dispensed, even though I was later cleared after forensic tests showed the medicine contained the correct level of ingredients and the poor bloke had swallowed an overdose. But possibly the last straw had something to do with a drug I had dispensed many times to pregnant young women suffering morning sickness. Finally, the authorities woke up to the fact that the ‘cure’ – thalidomide – was causing horrific birth defects. Sound familiar?
Fast forward to February 2021, when the novel Covid vaccines were rolled out in Australia after being developed and approved in record time without long-term human trials. Manufacturers were granted immunity from liability for subsequent mishaps despite some of these companies having records of huge fines for past problems.
There were also experts, including highly qualified epidemiologists, sounding warning bells, particularly in Europe and America. Some adverse events might only become apparent months or even years after the jabs were administered, but that was dismissed as ratbag conspiracy theory, disinformation, and misinformation.
Well not any more, and hopefully the Queensland Supreme court ruling that some of these vaccine mandates were unlawful will lead to justifiable and wide-ranging compensations.
As Rowan Dean wrote in The Spectator Australia, ‘The news, of course, is to be welcomed. It is the first crack in the dam wall and will hopefully be followed by significant class actions and further court cases…’
Here, here! And let’s hope that the issue does not become bogged down in appeals courts by a government with a guilty conscience and deep pockets.
Finally, my short-lived dispensing career was never a waste of time and it actually saved one of our young son’s lives when a pharmacist dispensed the wrong medication which I recognised as a potent heart drug that could have stopped his from beating!
Again, that’s another story.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/how-low-can-covid-catastrophists-go/
**************************************************Unusable solar farms in the NT
Northern Territory Chief Minister Eva Lawler says government-owned Power and Water Corporation could purchase four privately owned solar farms across the Top End in a bid to finally bring them online.
The handful of solar farms were built near Katherine and in Darwin's rural area. However, they have been sitting disconnected from the Top End grid for at least four years.
Power and Water has long held concerns about bringing the facilities online, fearing their power generation could be volatile and destabilise the Darwin-Katherine grid.
When asked whether the solar farms could be purchased by the NT government, Ms Lawler said: "That's a possible option."
"We need to be able to control the energy that comes from those, so it is an option," she said.
Ms Lawler said the solar farms the government was interested in buying were currently owned by energy company ENI, but she refused to provide an estimated cost.
The comments sparked criticism from opposition shadow treasurer Bill Yan, who questioned whether such a purchase would be the best use of taxpayer dollars. "The more important point is, can we afford to buy these things," he said.
He also criticised the NT government's renewable energy rollout, saying the construction of these solar farms before infrastructure could handle them was "putting the cart before the horse".
"Territory Labor led all these contracts to companies to build all these giant solar farms across the Top End," he said.
"All of a sudden, the territory government found out they couldn't hook them up. The grid wasn't stable enough."
The architect of the NT's "Roadmap to Renewables", Alan Langworthy, last year criticised the government's handling of the transition to 50 per cent renewables by 2030, saying "unrealistic" regulation was stymieing the commissioning of solar projects.
************************************
5 March, 2024
Kochie tells renters to ‘love your landlord’
Unusual wisdom in a public figure
Former Sunrise host David Koch has weighed into the rental crisis debate, urging renters to “love your landlord” and instead point the blame at governments.
Writing for The Nightly, Koch said it may sound like “heresy, but tenants should direct their anger towards all three levels of government — not their landlords — when it comes to skyrocketing rents”.
“Governments, not landlords, have been derelict in not foreseeing and planning to avoid this rental crisis,” he said.
“It’s complex and there is no silver bullet solution. But so-called ‘greedy’ landlords are being unfairly targeted as the scapegoat. You probably have one in your family, or among your friends, and I bet they have increased the rent to cover rising loan repayments. But vilifying property investors is going to make the crisis a whole lot worse. The reality is many of those landlords are now saying it’s simply not worth it and are selling up, which just adds to the problem.”
Koch noted that there were around 2.2 million landlords in Australia, according to Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data, or one fifth of the population, the vast majority of whom own just one investment property.
“They aren’t property moguls, they’re ordinary Australians trying to build a nest egg,” he said.
He argued the reason rents were rising — in some cases by more than 50 per cent — was not “greed” but a combination of “rising interest rates, a lack of new developments because of a shortage of land, delays in approvals, banks reducing borrowing capacity, and developers going broke”, as well as “a lack of commitment from governments to develop enough affordable low-cost rental housing”.
Koch did not mention Australia’s record immigration intake of 518,000 net overseas arrivals last year, which a growing number of experts have conceded is a key driver of housing demand.
He echoed comments last month from billionaire property developer Harry Triguboff, who said a large reason developers were going broke was the lack of investors due to the low net return of about 2.5 per cent.
“The only way to quickly resolve the rental crisis is to love your landlord and encourage more property investors to make more stock available,” Koch said.
“So when debating the merits of negative gearing, be careful what you wish for. Between 1996 and 2021, private investors provided 1.1 million rentals. Community groups added 41,000 but there was a reduction of 53,000 in government properties. Rather than castigate landlords, governments should be trying to match them in the amount of new properties coming onto the market.”
He added that the federal government’s “much-vaunted $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will only provide an additional 30,000 social and affordable homes which is tiny compared with what is needed”.
“So private investors will have to continue to do the heavy lifting,” he said.
The piece, for Seven West Media’s newly launched online news site, received mixed reaction online.
“The Nightly — off to a flyer delivering bangers,” former union boss Tim Lyons wrote on X. “Perspectives we don’t hear from new, interesting voices.”
Another user wrote, “This daring pro-boomer pro-landlord position is exactly the sort of fearless principled stand that has been missing from the Aussie media landscape. Well done to the editorial team at The Nightly.”
Anne Crarey, executive general manager of property services at Little Real Estate, told news.com.au last month that the rental crisis was “only getting worse” and “I don’t see anything on the horizon that’s going to change where we’re at”.
Ms Crarey also argued the solution to the crisis has to be “encouraging people to be buying investment properties”.
“I don’t foresee any other way out of it,” she said.
“I don’t think the government’s going to be able to build what we need to build to make the rental crisis go away, so the solution firmly lands with the government in regards to making incentives to invest in properties more enticing.”
Australia’s rental crisis has seen a “marked escalation” with an increasing number of suburbs recording the “highest possible distress score”, according to Suburbtrends’ February Rental Pain Index.
**************************************************
Incorrectness of ham sandwiches in schools
How ridiculous can you get?
With one in four Australian children classified as overweight or obese and an Australian state limiting the amount of ham sold in schools, what's on offer at the tuckshop is again in the spotlight.
What is sold in state school tuckshops or canteens is governed, or at least guided, by policies set out by state and territory government departments.
Queensland's is called Smart Choices and is run by the state's education department.
In New South Wales it's the Healthy School Canteen Strategy run by NSW Health and South Australia employs the Right Bite Food and Drink Supply Standards developed by its department for education.
What's central to them all is a "traffic light" system that classifies foods and drinks into green, amber and red categories.
According to most policies, red items like pies, pizzas and pastries should only be supplied twice per school term.
Amber items like burgers, muffins and lasagne shouldn't dominate menus, and green items like fresh fruit, vegetables and reduced fat dairy products should make up most items available.
Debate about healthy eating at school often flares up in term 1, but this year it's been helped along by Western Australia's review of its traffic light system which has resulted in ham being shifted into a new red category.
The Queensland Association of School Tuckshops (QAST) said it's time the Sunshine State's policy, which was written in 2007 and updated in 2016 and 2020, was also reviewed.
Ms Wooden said a QAST audit in 2022 examined the menus of more than 250 school tuckshops and found none were fully compliant with Queensland's traffic light system.
"At the moment, we know that the policy is not being implemented the way it should be [and] there's no incentive or mechanism to make sure that it is."
Principle nutritionist with Health and Wellbeing Queensland Matthew Dick said Western Australia's new rules on ham at school tuckshops were in line with expert advice.
"They want to limit it to two times per week, which is exactly the same message we as nutritionists are giving," Mr Dick said.
"Don't rely on ham all the time. It's okay as an occasional filling in your sandwiches but relying on processed foods like ham, bacon and sausages can start to become a problem."
Mr Dick said ham and processed meats were often high in fats, salt and additives and are considered carcinogens by the World Health Organisation.
"Long-term consumption of processed foods can contribute to cancers in people and that's one of the real concerns with them."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-04/tuckshop-menus-explained-school-food-nutrition/103521758
***********************************************A reality check for climate alarmists: net zero is impossible
A stable energy supply sourced from wind and sunshine was obviously impossible from the beginning but the Left have always had big problems with the obvious
One of Australia’s richest mining magnates, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, says you can already feel climate change, it has caused “deaths, devastation and hardship” all around the world already, Australia has “run out of time” and he knows how to fix it.
Forrest’s prescription promises “economic growth over generations” along with “full employment” and a “pristine environment” with “cheap energy being produced everywhere in our country”. Too easy; the only resource lacking, he says, is the “courage to get on with it”.
To deliver this energy and environmental nirvana he wants the coal, oil and gas industries to be “taxed out of existence”. Strangely, he does not include his own iron ore industry, which relies on fossil fuels for extraction, transport and blast-furnacing into iron and steel.
This simplistic combination of rampant alarmism and magic pudding economics is not rare. It is omnipresent in the rantings of Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, Greens leader Adam Bandt, Extinction Rebellion and the teals, but it is unusual coming from a titan of industry, albeit one in receipt of substantial government subsidies here and abroad for “green hydrogen” projects.
We were warned by the weather bureau and climate alarmists last spring that this summer would be extraordinarily hot and dry. Given that all turned out to be a damp squib, they are turning their forecasts a little further afield with the Nine Entertainment newspapers (in cahoots with the Climate Council) offering an online tool this week to show us how many days over 35C we can expect in our suburbs in 2050 and 2090.
It is as if these people have become so bored by the lack of public debate about their Chicken Little claims that they have opted for self-parody to amuse themselves. Not only do they seek to raise the fear of Gaia over these long-range predictions, they implore us to “take action” to make sure our particular postcode can keep the mercury below 35C for a day or two more in the summer of 2090.
The Greens voters of Penrith and Broadmeadows might be pretty cheesed off in 2090 when it still turns out that it’s only those affluent coastal postcodes that get the sea breeze. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald might encounter some sweaty subscribers with buyer’s remorse in the autumn of 2091.
In this climate of fearmongering and idiocy we need more reality checks. For starters we might ease the sense of crisis by levelling with the public that the prime reason many heat records have been broken in Australia in recent decades is because the Bureau of Meteorology revised most of its early temperature records downwards and because it ignores any records before 1910, thereby eradicating from calculations known hot periods such as the Federation drought. (It argues this was scientifically valid and necessary, but the fact it has been done is worth sharing more widely, for context if nothing else.)
Still, temperatures will do what they will, and global emissions are still rising. It is a scientific fact that whatever Australia does on emissions cannot affect global climate, and natural climate variations can easily override any human interventions, good or bad. From the upper echelons of state and federal governments we are fed two strands of argument that are seldom challenged. The first is the alarmism and the other tells us renewables are the only way to deliver the emissions cuts required.
“So, while moving towards a renewable grid is a massive transformation,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says, “it is necessary for our economy, for our energy security and for the climate. Stop the delay, distraction, deception and denial. Get with the program.”
Clearly we need to address the practical reality of moving to net zero, and the pretence that this can be done easily without a heavy economic cost. We can start with the International Energy Agency, which works closely with the UN and is all on board with the net zero zeitgeist. In its Global Energy Transitions Stocktake it recognises that “half the emission reductions needed to reach net zero come from technologies not yet on the market”. Got that? We cannot ever get to net zero unless we develop technologies that are “under development” or yet to be invented.
Czech-Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil is the author of 40 books mainly focused on outlining complex realities and dilemmas. His 2022 book How the World Really Works contains bad news for those climate activists who just want to “do something” about climate change and believe the solution is easy – just decarbonise.
“The real wrench in the works,” warns Smil, is that “we are a fossil-fuelled civilisation whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years.”
He is not a complete pessimist, just anchored in the reality: “Complete decarbonisation of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near miraculous technical advances.”
This is because we rely on fossil fuels not just to generate most of our electricity but to fuel our road, rail, air and sea transport, heat homes, power industry, mine minerals, create chemical and plastic products, manufacture fertilisers and grow food. While wealthy countries such as ours can make some expensive changes to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, more than half of the world’s population is still racing to get the energy it needs, massively expanding global energy demand.
“Annual global demand for fossil carbon is now just above 10 billion tons a year,” writes Smil, “a mass nearly five times more than the recent annual harvest of all staple grains feeding humanity, and more than twice the total mass of water drunk annually by the world’s nearly eight billion inhabitants – and it should be obvious that displacing and replacing such a mass is not something best handled by government targets for years ending in zero or five.”
Other practical realities deepen the dilemma. The challenges for renewables relate largely to scale and efficiency. Smil again: “Large nuclear reactors are the most reliable producers of electricity, some of them now generate it 90-95 per cent of the time, compared to about 45 per cent for the best offshore wind turbines and 25 per cent for photovoltaic cells in even the sunniest of climates – while Germany’s solar panels produce electricity only about 12 per cent of the time.”
Other researchers have tried to quantify the mineral resources needed to manufacture enough turbines, solar panels, batteries and electric engines to get to net zero.
In his paper Mining for Net Zero: The Impossible Task, Alan G. Jones finds we will have to dramatically increase the mining effort, which is already higher than at any time in history.
“For example,” Jones writes, “one estimate is that there needs to be as much copper mined over the next 20-25 years as has been mined to date.”
Another geoscientist who has been based in Finland and Australia, Simon Michaux, has warned about the scale of replacing fossil fuel energy with renewables and hydrogen. “So, we are discussing bringing in a power system significantly larger than the one we have now,” Michaux reminds us, “with power systems that are not as effective and more expensive.”
Michaux has run detailed calculations on all the key resources such as lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt required globally, and the amount we are capable of extracting. The results are sobering.
“We don’t have enough mining production or mineral reserves to manufacture the first generation of renewable technology,” he finds.
But it is even worse than that because, as he points out, all the kit, from wind turbines to solar panels, from electric engines to batteries, will have to be replaced within 10 to 25 years, and again and again.
Chris Greig, a senior research scientist from Princeton University in the US, has costed the transition for Net Zero Australia. “Such is the level of investment required to build out new-generation storage facilities such as batteries and pumped-hydro, and transmission lines, that up to $1.5 trillion will need to be deployed by 2030 to put Australia on track to meet its 2050 commitments,” declares the study he co-authored. That is an amount proximate to the size of our entire GDP to be invested over just the next six years. Good luck.
And if the resources, innovation and funding required do not make this all fanciful enough, try considering the land, approvals and practicality of installing it. Bowen has boasted about needing to install 22,000 500-watt solar panels every day for eight years, as well as more than one 7-megawatt wind turbine every day connected by at least 10,000km of new transmission lines across the same period.
Most of this will be in regional and coastal communities that do not want them. And all of it, spread diffusely across the country, will be vulnerable to disruption by storms and bushfires.
Yet they seriously try to argue that nuclear power, sited compactly on existing industrial/generation sites, requiring no additional transmission lines, will be too slow and expensive.
It is time to take the ideology and fantasy out of energy policy and address the reality.
The climate and renewables zealots are in denial.
*******************************************
‘Extreme Risk’: Australia’s Oldest Hot Water Company Says Grid Not Ready for Net Zero
One of Australia’s oldest manufacturers of hot water system suppliers, Dux Hot Water, has warned a Senate inquiry that demand for electricity will increase faster than projections, meaning moves to shut down coal-fired power stations are too risky for the stability of the grid.
When it was acquired by Noritz in 2015, the Japanese company said Dux had an annual turnover of around $70 million (US$45.8 million).
It is the oldest water heater manufacturer in Australia, and provides a full range of electric water heaters encompassing electric storage, gas storage, gas continuous flow, solar, heat pump, and commercial water heaters.
In its submission to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into Residential Electrification, Dux said it “fully supports the government’s net zero emissions by 2050 target” but it believes the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) estimate for how much electricity the country uses is too conservative.
It points out that since the AEMO study in 2002, the Victorian government has banned gas connections in new homes and apartments this year. Victoria is Australia’s largest gas-connected market.
“Supply chains are shifting to electrical appliances sooner than was previously expected. The market is aware of a clear signal of electrification,” Dux said.
“Australians already have an incredibly high demand for electricity. In November 2022 ... an International Energy Agency report show[ed] Australia to be the world’s second-largest [per capita] consumer of electricity in 2020. Australia’s demand for electricity will accelerate with the replacement of gas appliances.”
As a result, the government should be wary of closing coal-fired electricity generation stations too soon, the company said, pointing out that Australia is still very reliant on electricity from that source.
In 2023, at least 50 percent but typically over 60 percent of the National Energy Market was powered by coal.
Closing Coal Power Stations Has Pushed Prices Up: Dux
“Electricity producers and their stakeholders are motivated to close coal-fired power stations and justifiably reluctant to invest capital into their maintenance,” the company said. “Hazelwood power station in Victoria closed back in 2017 resulting in a huge spike in wholesale electricity pricing.”
It quotes the Australian Energy Regulator (AER): “In Victoria, average spot prices for 2017 were up 85 percent on 2016, and up 32 percent in South Australia for the same period. New South Wales and Queensland were up 63 percent and 53 percent respectively.”
Further closures will only exacerbate the issue, Dux said.
“Liddell power station in NSW closed in April 2023. Origin has provided the required regulatory notice to close Eraring power station in August 2025. This is Australia’s largest power station supplying 25 percent of NSW’s electricity.
“Similarly, AGL has announced the closure Loy Yang in Vic and Bayswater in NSW. The NSW and Victorian governments are aware of the heightened supply risk and negotiating for some of these coal-fired power plants to remain open at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Not Ready for a Full Renewable Transition
There were also shortfalls in storage capacity for renewables and in the transmission network.
“Renewables like solar and wind energy are weather dependent, so Australia needs significant firming capacity for when the wind doesn’t blow or when the sun doesn’t shine. Sufficient firming capacity from batteries, gas-fired power stations and pumped hydro doesn’t currently exist,” Dux asserts.
“Australia’s current transmission network, especially in NSW and Victoria is based around centralised power generation in the La Trobe or Hunter Valleys. Renewable energy solar and wind farms aren’t in these same locations.
“They’re located in areas like Central West NSW, New England, Bendigo, Ballarat and require 10,000 kilometres of new 500kV transmission lines to be connected in this decade. Difficult land owner consultations, planning delays, skills and materials shortages have made for slow progress,” the submission says.
The company also complains that conflicting signals from the government have made it very difficult for manufacturers to plan.
For instance, electric storage water heaters are banned in new homes in the National Construction Code 2022 (NCC), despite there currently being no restrictions on their installation in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania.
“I don’t know that you could identify an appliance subjected to the heavy hand of government more than a water heater. In 2007, the Australian government announced a proposed ban on electric storage waters from 2010 in favour of gas.
Electrification of products represents a u-turn in policy direction. Hundreds of thousands of new homes have been built with gas appliances over the last two decades,” said Dux CEO Simon Terry.
Referencing Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s prediction that the energy market will be ready to deliver 82 percent of power from renewable sources by 2030, the submission asks: “If 82 percent of the electricity supply in less than a decade is going to be from renewable sources, why is the installation of electric storage water heaters still restricted in some states” noting that South Australia first outlawed new installations of electric water heaters in 2008, meaning over 95 percent of installations over the last 15 years were of continuous flow gas water heaters.
************************************
4 March, 2024
Sydney University abandons maths prerequisites in diversity push
I think this is a step in the right direction. I was always bad at maths at school but became a capable computer programmer using a demanding language called FORTRAN, which literally means "formula translation". A line of FORTRAN code looks very much like a line of algebra. And I did write programs requiring up to 5-dimensional matrices.
So I was good at something maths-related that would normally have required a maths prerequisite. But I would have been blocked by such a prerequisite these days. Prerequisites are simply too rigid to account for varying patterns of abiity in students
The University of Sydney is ditching the advanced mathematics prerequisites for scores of degrees in response to the declining number of HSC students taking the subject.
Vice chancellor Mark Scott said maths teacher shortages meant too many students could not study the subject in year 12, providing a barrier for diverse students to study at the university.
“Mathematical skills and knowledge are vital for students to succeed at university and thrive in the workplaces of the future,” he said.
“Yet through no fault of their own, many students don’t have the opportunity to take advanced mathematics at school, a situation exacerbated by ongoing maths teacher shortages that affect some schools more than others.”
The prerequisite change, to begin next year, is a reversal of much of the changes brought into effect in 2019 that introduced two unit maths prerequisites for 62 degrees.
That was supposed to address falling enrolments in maths and lift academic standards at the university.
However, the latest data from the NSW Education Standards Authority shows there were almost 10 per cent fewer students taking advanced maths in 2023 compared to 2018.
Scott, a former NSW Education secretary, said the university would provide “bespoke mathematics support” which would include tailored assistance and advice, preparatory workshops and bridging courses to catch students up.
The change will mean degrees including commerce, science, medicine, psychology, veterinary science and economics will no longer require students to have undertaken advanced maths in year 12.
Degrees in engineering, advanced computing and pharmacy will retain the mathematics prerequisite.
From next year, year 12 students who achieve a Band 3 or higher in advanced mathematics will also be eligible to receive an additional point towards their selection rank under the university’s Academic Excellence Scheme.
University of Canberra University associate professor Philip Roberts, a rural education specialist, said a lack of access to advanced mathematics was a huge issue, particularly in regional and low SES areas.
“Our research shows that schools which have larger numbers of low SES students are not studying advanced maths at the same rate as schools which have higher SES students,” he said.
He said teacher shortages were making the issue worse, but that it was also driven by a perception by students they would score better in general maths.
Roberts said even when universities did not have calculus-based mathematics prerequisites, students who did not take HSC advanced maths were still behind their peers who had once they started their degrees.
“Advanced maths also contributes more to their overall ATAR, so a lack of access limits their opportunities of getting into uni,” he said.
University of Sydney deputy vice chancellor (education) Professor Joanne Wright said it was clear it was harder for some students to access higher-level mathematics simply because of where they are from.
“Schools in regional and remote locations are significantly less likely to offer advanced and extension mathematics,” she said.
“Our new approach responds to these realities of the student experience today and ensures we’re better equipping students for their university studies and careers.”
She said new tools were being developed to identify gaps in students’ knowledge, including a pilot of a diagnostic tool designed to match students with the most appropriate learning support services when they enrol.
“Regardless of their starting point, all our students will have the opportunity to complete their studies with the same level of mathematics skills and knowledge,” Professor Wright said
******************************************************
Government silencing Australians in the name of human rights
The Australian Human Rights Commission wants to hear your views on dangerous male sex offenders being allowed to identify as women and be held in women’s prisons. But only if you’re in favour of it…
Our highly paid, taxpayer-funded Human Rights Commission would love to hear your thoughts on males demanding to be allowed to compete in women’s sports. Providing you’re all for it, obviously.
Many would argue that bureaucrats in Canberra have long given the impression that they don’t want to interact with the general public who pay their salaries, but rarely has it been so explicitly spelled out by the bureaucracy.
‘Please note that only subject-matter experts are invited to submit,’ the AHRC specifies in its new consultation about ‘threats to trans and gender diverse human rights’.
‘Please note that we are unable to accept submissions from non-specialists in this area.’
The ‘expert’ category, says the AHRC, includes activists and academics. The AHRC’s ‘non-specialists’ covers women, girls, parents, and anyone not inside the elitist bubble who decided that it’s ‘progressive’ to undermine sex-based rights and the reality of sex.
The effect of this anti-democratic pronouncement is that more than 22 million Australians are being told by the Human Rights Commission we’re neither qualified nor welcome to be involved in their consultation. Never mind that the Commission has a legislated duty to ensure it acts with regard for ‘the indivisibility and universality of human rights’ and ‘the principle that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights’.
Which brings us to the key question: What are these ‘trans and gender diverse human rights’ that the AHRC says are under threat? Do they mean the asserted right for a male to enter women’s spaces or facilities without consent? The AHRC can’t, or won’t, say. They’re asking for a select group of people to tell them about the supposed opposition to human rights, despite not being able to specify what these human rights are. That reveals the activist agenda that is really at play here.
The debate at the centre of gender ideology is a very important public policy matter. Women have long had access to single-sex sports and certain services or facilities that are necessary to protect privacy, dignity and safety. Advocates of self-ID policies argue that males who identify as women must be allowed to access these female spaces, whether or not the women who rely on those spaces consent. Extraordinarily, many of our elites have decided to go along with the fringe idea that women’s consent doesn’t matter in this context.
Since human rights are indivisible, universal, and equally available to all, the AHRC cannot seriously suggest that there is a human right for a specific group of males to enter a space or sport designed specifically for females. So why hasn’t the AHRC made clear in its terms of reference that opposition to males demanding that right is in no way a ‘threat’ to human rights, but in fact a majority-held position that Australians are perfectly free to advocate in a democracy?
The AHRC is a taxpayer-funded body with significant powers and authority. Yet this consultation is straight out of the playbook of hard-left activist groups and media platforms that have actively targeted women for abuse. I’m one of millions of Australians who believes that women and girls should be entitled to single-sex sports and spaces. Because activists and virtue-signalling elites can’t mount a rational argument against this position, they simply scream that anyone supporting single-sex sports is ‘anti-trans’ or an ‘extremist’, or campaigning against ‘trans rights’. It’s a laughably misleading tactic, or at least it would be if it hadn’t been adopted by much of the media and bureaucracy, and in doing so given abusive men the green light to unleash hideous abuse and threats against women. There’s no excuse for the AHRC not to be aware of this, yet now they are adopting the exact same tactics by setting up a witch hunt against Australian women who have stood up for women’s sex-based rights.
Let’s be very clear here: the AHRC is actively seeking input from male activists who have campaigned for the rights of dangerous male offenders like ‘Lisa Jones’. And they are asking for these men to complain how women are a ‘threat to trans and gender diverse human rights’ for pointing out Lisa Jones is actually a dangerous paedophile and repeat sex offender who should never be referred to as a woman by media or placed in a women’s prison.
Worse, the AHRC are actively preventing women from putting in a submission to point out this is exactly what has happened in Australia under the banner of ‘trans rights’. Their terms of reference makes clear that a submission from a female prisoner about the dangers of placing male sex offenders in women’s prisons would not be accepted by the AHRC.
Once again under the Albanese government, the tropes of ‘dis- and misinformation’ are being used to shut down legitimate debate and free speech. When seeking the votes of the Australian people, Albanese himself conceded that a woman is an adult, human female. It is his government’s subsequent efforts to silence Australians, for holding that same position, which is extremist, radical, and a danger to democracy.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/government-silencing-australians-in-the-name-of-human-rights/
*****************************************************Why new green jobs are at risk if old industries die
All the post-pandemic talk of resurrecting Australia’s manufacturing sector and securing local supply chains seems like a lifetime away, amid talk that yet another manufacturer could go quietly into the night this year.
The fate of Qenos’s Melbourne and Sydney manufacturing plants is not yet set in stone, and the fact that the company – owned by China National Chemical – has recently spent money rebuilding a cooling tower at its Botany Bay plastics plant offers hope not all of its Australian facilities will be closed.
But if one or both of the plants are shuttered, they will join a raft of major plant closures since all the hullabaloo about securing domestic supply chains during the pandemic – including Incitec Pivot’s Gibson Island fertiliser plant in Brisbane, Exxon’s oil refinery in Melbourne’s Altona, a similar facility owned by BP in Kwinana, south of Perth, and Alcoa’s alumina refinery also in Kwinana. Similar threats hang over BHP’s nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie and refinery in Kwinana.
All of these plants are old, sub-scale by global standards, and suffer – compared to international competitors – from higher labour, gas and energy costs, and from rising pressure to comply with environmental standards.
But the threat to Qenos’s local facilities is also a timely reminder of the knock-on effects of the closure of manufacturing plants.
Tight gas markets have played a part in Qenos’s troubles – its gas bills reportedly doubled in 2023. But the major cause of its most recent problems was the shuttering in 2021 of Exxon’s Altona refinery, which supplied the LPG used as a feedstock for Qenos’s plastics production lines.
That happened under the previous Morrison government – and amid plenty of warnings about the downstream effects of its closure, including from Qenos, which was forced to close half the lines of its own production facility in the wake of the exit of the Exxon plant.
Any decision by BHP to close its Kalgoorlie nickel smelter will also ripple through the broader WA mining industry. The smelter supplies sulphuric acid, a by-product of its operations, to other parts of the state’s mining industry – and, in particular, to Lynas’s new cracking and leaching plant outside of Kalgoorlie.
As Lynas boss Amanda Lacaze said, the manufacturing and processing industry in Australia is an ecosystem, not a collection of unrelated operations.
And perhaps more important is the loss of the technical know-how that comes with the closure of these type of facilities.
Much is made of the loss of blue-collar jobs in manufacturing. But workers in these types of plants need substantial technical skills to keep these plants open, along with the expertise of chemists and a host of other professionals. And, despite the hype around “green jobs” in energy, hydrogen, lithium and rare earths, it is difficult to build that kind of expertise from scratch.
Companies that rely on gas for power and as an input are caught between the pressure to ditch fossil fuel extraction and the political and commercial cost of requiring gas producers to reserve more production for the domestic market.
Those pressures may mean that Australia is destined to shed the remaining industries that are dependent on petrochemical products as a feedstock.
Saving Australia’s remaining manufacturing and chemicals industries – and building new ones – will take actual policy designed to attract investment, backed by long-term support from successive governments of both political persuasions.
*************************************************
How I found myself agreeing with cash king Bob Katter
Caitlin Fitzsimmons
I’ve found myself in furious agreement with Queensland politician Bob Katter about one issue – that businesses should accept cash.
Last month Katter was fired up because a cafe in the Australian Parliament House initially refused to accept his $50 note, telling him it was a cashless business. Katter told them it was too bad for them because cash was legal tender, and they legally had to accept it.
He went on Sky News to explain himself. “If you have a cashless society, the banks control your life, you’re not able to buy a loaf of bread without permission from the banks,” Katter said. “It’s bad enough now but it will become infinitely worse.”
Like most Australians, I lost the cash habit at some point in the past decade, content to tap away to pay for everything from coffee to groceries. I often have no cash in my wallet.
Recently, though, I’ve been trying to change that. I started noticing that more and more retailers, especially cafes and small shops, were imposing surcharges for card payments. Being the former Money editor of this masthead, I knew how quickly little amounts can add up. I’ve also been finding that an increasing number of businesses no longer accept cash. I’ve encountered this several times in the month since Katter’s run-in at the Canberra cafe.
On the Saturday before last, I was unfortunately not at the second Taylor Swift concert, having failed to find tickets. Nor was I at the Bondi Beach Party, murdering the dance floor with Sophie Ellis-Bextor. But I was at the Capitol Theatre, seeing the entrancing Australian Ballet production of Alice with my daughter.
I was surprised to find that the bar at the theatre is cashless. The bartender informed me that this was stated in the terms and conditions of sale when I bought my tickets. The website confirms the policy but does not state a reason.
Earlier in February, I came across the same phenomenon at Spice Alley, off Broadway, where there is a collection of small food stalls and shared tables in a central courtyard. I wanted to give my teenagers cash, so they could go and choose their own meals, but the stalls were all cashless, forcing us to go one by one. One of the stallholders told me that Spice Alley management did not allow them to take cash, but customers could load currency onto a cashless payment card at a central cashier. The Spice Alley website says the policy is to improve “speed of service, safety and hygiene”.
Like Katter, I thought cash was legal tender and that businesses had to accept it. It turns out we were both wrong. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website states that businesses can choose which payment types they accept, but consumers have to be informed before they make the purchase.
Informing customers can be as simple as a sign at the cash register, or a notice on a website, which feels like a loophole. There’s no doubt card payments are convenient, but we’re all paying the price, and we should have a choice.
A cashless society is not a globalist conspiracy, but it is a capitalist one because the banks and other financial institutions are making a fortune from card payment fees.
How much exactly? I’m glad you asked.
Reserve Bank figures show, in the year ended December 2023, there were about 3.6 billion credit and charge card transactions and 11 billion debit card transactions in Australia. The business is charged a merchant service fee every time someone pays with a card. Sometimes they have a package deal, but on average, it ranges from 0.35 per cent of the transaction for eftpos to 1.69 per cent for Diners Card. The merchant acquirer – the big four banks and newcomers such as Stripe – and the card issuer all get a cut.
Businesses are legally allowed to pass on the cost directly to consumers in the form of a surcharge. My hunch that surcharging is becoming more common was on the money: businesses passed on a surcharge to consumers on 7 per cent of transactions in 2022, up from 5 per cent in 2019. The median surcharge was 50c per transaction.
My rough and ready calculation is that Australian consumers are directly paying $511 million a year for the privilege of paying with a card. The rest of the time, the retailers pay instead – and consumers pay indirectly.
Lance Blockley, the managing director of The Initiatives Group, a payment consultancy, estimates that Australian businesses are charged $5.8 billion a year – $3.5 billion for credit and charge cards and $2.3 billion for debit cards.
In Katter’s Sky interview, he made a leap from talking about cash to warning against “intermittent power” aka renewable energy. At this point, he lost me. He’s wrong about renewables, but not about cash.
************************************
3 March, 2024
Fears of ‘mass bleaching event’ at the Great Barrier Reef as 1100km impacted
We get this scare every 2 or 3 years. The fact is that the reef is a living thing that waxes and wanes, as it has done for hundreds of thousands of years. Some recent years have seen record HIGH levels of coral growth
Heat stress is causing widespread bleaching across the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland.
Surveys by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science showed the beaching was “extensive and fairly uniform across all surveyed reefs”.
Corals are a colony of marine invertebrates and they have a symbiotic relationship with algae.
They can turn completely white when water warms or cools dramatically, and they react by expelling the algae.
It doesn’t mean the corals will certainly die, but rather the bleaching makes them more susceptible to disease and hampers reproduction.
However, severely bleached corals are likely to die if the water temperature remains too high for too long. They can recover if the temperature stabilises.
James Cook University (JCU), stated in a press release last week that scientists had spotted the first signs of serious bleaching with “moderate to severe coral bleaching” seen offshore east of Rockhampton at the Keppels.
The bleaching was discovered during routine surveys in the tourist hotspot, which is also critical for recreational and commercial fishing.
Researchers believe fish are becoming less abundant around the Keppels due to factors including bleaching and overfishing.
The Guardianreports that bleaching had been seen across a 1100km stretch of the Great Barrier Reef from the Keppels in the south to Lizard Island in the north.
Of the 27 sites inspected at the Keppels, “most sites showing signs of bleaching”, with only corals in deeper waters unimpacted by the heat stress.
Scientist Dr Maya Srinivasan, from JCU’s Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), said the water temperatures around the Keppels were well above average, hitting 29C on multiple days.
“I have been working on these reefs for nearly 20 years and I have never felt the water as warm as this,” she said.
“Once we were in the water, we could instantly see parts of the reef that were completely white from severe bleaching. Some corals were already dying.”
She observed that the corals could recover if the water cooled. “We did see the temperatures begin to drop towards the end of the trip,” she added.
The Bureau of Meteorology warned in its recent climate outlook that temperatures were expected to be above the median for most of the country over the next few months due to record warm oceans globally and a weakening El Nino.
The current bleaching could be the seventh mass bleaching event to hit the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef in recent history.
Mass bleaching events were observed on the Great Barrier Reef — which is listed as one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World — in 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017 and 2020, CNN reported.
*************************************************
Angry nurses rally at Gold Coast University Hospital, demand jobs back
A vindictive bureaucracy at work. They don't like admitting that they were wrong
Dozens of placard-waving nurses and other healthcare workers took part in the rally outside Gold Coast University Hospital on Saturday.
It followed fury this week after The Courier-Mail revealed leaked Queensland Health emails telling a veteran nurse that “we are unable to re-employ any staff who were officially terminated” for refusing the jab.
Queensland Health boss Michael Walsh said the edict was incorrect and wrote to all hospital and health services in the state on Friday telling them there was no directive not to reinstate sacked workers.
Health Minister Shannon Fentiman this week repeatedly denied there were any barriers to hundreds of workers who refused to comply with the vaccination mandate from returning to work.
But nurses protesting on the Gold Coast said they were still struggling to get their jobs back.
They included 23-year veteran intensive care nurse Michelle Williams, who said she tried to reapply at the major hospital she was sacked from in 2021 but was told there were no vacancies - only to see a job ad for a position.
“It’s frustrating, it’s really frustrating,” she said. “Patients are suffering and they’ve got very junior staff looking after them. “There’s so many of us with so much experience and our experience is just going to waste.”
Ms Williams said Ms Fentiman needed to “stop lying to us”.
“We want to come back to work, we’ve done nothing wrong except not follow this one (vaccine) direction,” she said. “We’re not criminals. We’re people who love our jobs, we love looking after patients and we just want to help people. “We just want to come back to work and do what we love doing, and that’s helping people get better.”
Ella Leach, secretary of the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, said Ms Fentiman had not responded to an invitation to attend or at least endorse the rally.
Ms Leach said the minister had been sent the names and experience of 350 sacked health care workers who wanted to return and “Shannon should be reaching out to them directly” instead of making them reapply.
“There’s just zero excuse … we want her to take some actual action,” she said.
“These people were born to be nurses and health professionals - they want to work. It doesn’t make them happy hearing that the system’s crumbling, it makes them desperately angry and upset. “All they want to do is work.”
Ms Leach was herself sacked from Queensland Children’s Hospital for refusing the vaccine - in January this year, four months after the mandate was lifted, and despite being seven months’ pregnant. She launched unfair dismissal action against Queensland Health.
Ms Leach said many sacked healthcare workers who had reapplied for jobs with Queensland Health were still being rejected because of their “disciplinary action history” in refusing the vaccine.
“These people have decades of experience and they are desperately needed,” she said.
Ms Leach said 6000 nurses were predicted to retire in 2024 but Queensland Health was hiring nurses from interstate or overseas, with incentives of up to $70,000.
****************************************************
The incorrectness of clothing
To cope with the outrageous creep of authoritarian behaviour and inescapable globalism, sometimes citizens of the West refer to themselves as ‘peasants’. Call it a bit of lingering British gallows humour.
Increasingly, that is exactly how the Labor Party views Australians – as the ‘peasantry’. Our ancestors, who lived under the thumb of feudal lords and warring barons, paid less tax. You, and your family, are among the highest-taxed people to live and it is about to get worse.
No matter how hard Australians work, Labor’s greed has erected a perspex ceiling on wealth which it lowers a notch every year, pushing the middle and working classes down.
When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talks about ‘closing the pay gap’ between men and women (gendered terms Labor can only define when there’s an election on the horizon), it is being done by making both poorer.
Equality in poverty, that is the mantra of socialism – Labor’s eternal paramour.
The beauty of capitalism has meant the creation of cheaper markets and cut-price products. These have helped to maintain a level of comfort in challenging economic times. Selling these cheap, admittedly inferior, products has kept a generation in work and the economy ticking over. It’s not perfect, but it is better than looking down over the edge of the gulag, shovel in hand, dirt blowing in your face.
As long as there is a free market, there is hope for recovery. There is hope for freedom.
While these markets make our lives livable, the World Economic Forum (and the ‘desperate to please’ political leaders hanging on their every word), have decided that this cheap capitalism is a threat to the planet because it creates ‘evil carbon emissions’.
I suggest it is a threat to their political power.
The list of carbon restrictions grows every day. Last week we learned that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has found a new capitalist foe to conquer – fast-fashion.
Alarm bells first rang at the World Economic Forum with the headline, Suits you – and the planet: Why fashion needs a sustainability revolution. It was a report based on the moaning of two ‘experts’ who insisted that 20 per cent of wastewater is produced by the fashion industry and 10 per cent of global emissions. These statistics rather miss the point that something, somewhere, will always be responsible for emissions. Humans need to wear clothes and the Australian Union movement made it impossible to manufacture them domestically where we’d have more control over the environmental result. Instead of regulating China, they are coming after Western retailers.
‘We cannot afford the trajectory of fashion increasing to maybe as much as 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 … how do we take out fossil fuels from the fashion industry?’
Of course, the ‘change needs to be radical … we have to reduce production and consumption of fashion by between 75 and 95 per cent. We’re not talking about snipping a bit off’.
The report is casually talking about destroying the fashion industry that keeps the clothes on your back.
That report was written in 2021 and subsequently ignored during the Covid years when the imminent threat of the evil fashion industry vanished for a while.
The ‘burn it to the ground’ rhetoric of the WEF has since camouflaged itself as ‘Fashionomy’, wearing the sheep’s wool of the new favourite buzzword ‘circular economy’.
‘Sharing the circular economy knowledge and the negative impact of the fashion industry will help people to be a part of the second-hand clothes cycle, and clothing repair shops can become the new option to encourage customers not to waste their money. If the community reduces textile waste, makes savings in the family economy, and helps the growth of the local economy, we will see an impact on the development of a sustainable lifestyle, helping mitigate climate change, and supporting sustainable cities.’
Notice the change in language? If the government knocks 95 per cent of the retail industry out, and all those jobs along with it, we won’t see a ‘growth in the economy’.
With no original ideas, Ms Plibersek has warned the clothing industry – one of the largest employers in Australia – that it must ‘turn its back on fast-fashion’ and if it doesn’t mend its ways, well, the ever-loving State will be forced to intervene.
‘Government is not sitting on our hands on this issue. The federal government has put the fashion industry on a watch list,’ said Ms Plibersek.
A watch list? Like a Stalinist watch list where government critics were lined up and quietly disappeared?
Her speech was a regurgitation of the World Economic Forum’s statistics from 2021, which is no doubt where Labor sourced them.
‘It’s the responsibility of government and the fashion industry to examine how we can be more sustainable in design, the materials used, and the role of the circular economy in extending the lifespan of the garment.’
Well, it’s only the ‘role of government’ to interfere with business if we’re talking about a fascist regime. I will leave you to decide if that describes Labor’s choice of words.
‘As an industry, there needs to be environmental sustainability of business models and the way products are marketed.’
This speech was part of Ms Plibersek’s ‘ultimatum’ to the fashion industry, although One Nation does not remember the Labor Party mentioning these demands during their election campaign. It’s an urgent ultimatum created five seconds ago – a doomsday that didn’t exist until Ms Plibersek decided it did at the launch of the Australian Fashion Council’s new initiative ‘Seamless’, which is another hopeless layer of bureaucracy we believe will punish and micromanage Australia’s fashion industry. A group of busy-bodies with infinite demands.
‘Seamless’ wants its members to pay a 4-cent contribution to the program for every item of clothing imported or created. According to the ABC, this is worth $36 million a year – and $60 million if they get their wish and make the clothing tax mandatory. Every single cent of which has been taken from the retail industry.
‘Improved affordability of clothes is a good thing. Parents shouldn’t have to choose between a new pair of school shoes and paying the electricity bill.’
What was that, Ms Plibersek?
Is the Environment Minister aware that the cost of school shoes isn’t the problem – it’s the nearly doubled cost of energy thanks to … Labor’s ‘green’ energy agenda? Australian parents know exactly what’s causing the cost of living crisis. Don’t blame the fashion industry for Mr Bowen’s expensive errors. If kids don’t have shoes to wear to school, you can thank the high priests of Net Zero.
But why this sudden assault on one of Australia’s most important industries?
We may speculate that this is Labor pivoting from electric vehicles after it became obvious that Europe – and thus Australia – will not be transitioning to ecars. Labor is desperate for a distraction to stop the press from calling them liars, so why not attack retail?
Well, there are good reasons to leave retail alone.
The clothing industry in Australia is worth $23.2 billion. It employs (directly) 121,000 people – and probably another 100,000 in industries dependent on its success such as IT, transport, storage, cleaning, accounting, training, surrounding cafes … the list goes on.
There are more than 16,300 businesses, most of them small to medium, many run by family entities. As of August 2023, fashion retail was paying out $4.9 billion in wages.
Which, we must remind Ms Plibersek, is heavily taxed and helps top up the coffers of the State.
The fashion industry was severely damaged by government interventions during Covid. Countless generational family businesses closed. People ended their lives having seen their life’s work evaporate overnight on the whim of health advice. The margins which used to drive a healthy industry have been cut by greedy shopping centres, excessive power costs, increased wages, and the introduction of impossible Fair Work complexity – not to mention rising manufacturing costs, fuel costs, and green tape. All of these things have meant that businesses in the fashion industry are barely scraping by. That said, the fashion industry is trying, so hard, to survive.
A sensible government would be desperately searching for ways to salvage those businesses that survived the great Covid culling. Perhaps they might consider cutting the excess taxes, or tearing up red tape?
Instead, Ms Plibersek has put her high heel on the head of Australia’s fashion industry and pushed it down under the surface of Net Zero to suffocate on bureaucracy.
‘If it’s the fashion industry that makes the profits, then it must be responsible for doing better by the environment.’
That’s a very communist-style thing to say. Does Ms Plibersek apply that rule to the renewable industry as it cuts down our old-growth forests, rips apart private farmland, and clogs up our seas with cement and steel? Or does the government hand out billions in subsidies?
‘And for those who manufacture in Australia, it means thinking hard about what they can do to create and sell products that have a longer shelf life, while still being affordable.’
Spoken by someone lacking experience and understanding regarding how the price of a clothing item is created.
How does Ms Plibersek expect the (very few) Australian fashion manufacturers to pay their staff more, cover excessive energy prices, pay additional taxes, pay more for transport, more for rent, more for storage, more for materials, more for IT services, more for accounting services, more for HR bureaucracies, and additional costs for the environment – all while lowering the cost and eventual sale price of the product?
If Ministers cannot understand basic maths they should not be proposing complex policies with the ability to decimate one of the most important industries in this nation.
The unintentional consequences of this cannot be overstated.
It is reckless, cheap, and nasty politics aimed at painting the fashion industry as the new climate criminal. An industry that Labor has been desperately trying (and failing) to unionise against the wishes of family-run entities and small businesses.
What is Ms Plibersek’s end result? An Australian industry dominated by union workhouses with a ‘Net Zero’ sticker on the front where citizens can choose which hessian bag they want to wear?
‘I have suits from an Australian designer that uses lots of remnant fabrics that would otherwise end up in landfill,’ said Ms Plibersek.
Has she walked down the poorer end of George Street where fast-fashion is packed wall-to-wall? There she would see students and the elderly picking out jeans for $5 and jackets for $12. Those customers know these aren’t the best clothes around, but fast-fashion allows them to have a wardrobe of sorts to distract them from the otherwise nightmare reality of surviving Labor’s Net Zero revolution.
If those stores vanish, people may be able to afford one pair of jeans – jeans with patches and repair marks – the same set of clothes worn until they fall to rags like the peasants of old living in a threadbare world.
‘I repeat what I said in June last year: I am watching. If I’m not happy with industry progress, I will step in and regulate.’
Did you hear that? That government is watching. The government is threatening you. The government will come after you.
Keep that in mind when the next election rolls around.
Ms Plibersek is coming for the clothes on your back
**********************************************
Vilifying Israel is the left’s new form of anti-Semitism
The Left actually hate us all. Jews are just a scapegoat
Henry Ergas
When the crowds, wearing keffiyehs and waving Palestinian flags, gathered in Sydney immediately after October 7, their chant wasn’t “where are the Zionists?”; it was “where are the Jews?”. Nor were the writers and artists whose names and details were recently “doxxed” by Hamas’s local supporters targeted for being Zionists; they were targeted for being Jews.
And if angry protesters surrounded Raheen in Kew the other night, it wasn’t because it was a Zionist hub; it was because it is owned by Jews.
Now, as we reel from the news that a pro-Palestinian militant in Melbourne allegedly kidnapped and tortured a man, there can be one question and one question only: How has it come to this?
That Labor is less culpable than the Greens for fanning the flames of hatred is beyond doubt; however, as the party of government, it cannot avoid its responsibility. Anthony Albanese has repeatedly claimed, with palpable sincerity, that the government aims at balance; but whatever its intentions, it has, at best, appeared equivocal – and, at worst, has risked encouraging the rage against Israel that is undeniably a rage against Jews.
Time and again, it has called on Israel to respect international law, with the implication that it hasn’t. Time and again, it has lamented the plight of the people of Gaza while ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been forced to flee their homes by rocket attacks that, starkly violating international law, target schools, hospitals and homes.
But all that is mere kindling. If the fire has burned so high and spread so fast, it is because there is, on the Australian left, a dense undergrowth of anti-Semitism on which the blaze could feed.
That anti-Semitism is not the conventional Jew-hatred that marked the Australian labour movement from its earliest days. Explicitly based on repulsive stereotypes – Jews, wrote the Sydney Worker in 1932, are naturally “unscrupulous, callous, resourceful, insidious and cunning” – the traditional anti-Semitism centred on denunciations of “Shylock” and “the money power”.
Reaching fever pitch in the Depression, which the Labor press blamed on “the London Jews” who “conspired with the Bank of England” to protect their “fat rake-off”, it resurfaced, in the late 1940s, during the battle over bank nationalisation. Discredited by the Holocaust, that anti-Semitism was eventually consigned to a shadowy existence on politics’ lunatic fringe. Yet the underlying pathogen survived. Mutating into a new form, it obtained a fresh lease of life in the intellectual chaos of the 1960s New Left and, later, of Corbynism.
The new form’s essence was simplicity itself: each and every one of the traditional anti-Semitic tropes – Jewish arrogance, vindictiveness, tribalism, unbridled desire to dominate and the global tentacles with which to do so – was projected on to the state of Israel. What could no longer be said directly about Jews could, it seemed, be said with impunity about the Jewish state; and, by implication, about the Jews who were its champions. At the same time, just as traditional anti-Semitism cast Jews as the uniquely evil source of the world’s ills, so this new variant cast Israel not as a complex society with real people embroiled in internal and external conflicts, but as a caricatural representation of all that is illegitimate in the international community.
Responsible, according to prominent British academic Jacqueline Rose, for “some of the worst cruelties of the modern nation state”, the Jewish state stood as a fundamental obstacle – if not the fundamental obstacle – to a better world. It goes without saying that Rose made no attempt to test her contention, as any comparison to historical reality would have demonstrated its complete absurdity. All that mattered, for her countless disciples, was the conclusion that so monstrous an evil could only be cured by being eliminated.
The existential fight to the finish between “the Jew” and the “healthy elements” in society that permeated traditional anti-Semitism was thereby seamlessly transposed into the disease’s new form. There was, however, an additional feature of the variant that became increasingly pronounced as its prevalence grew. In conventional anti-Semitism, “World Jewry” was the West’s mortal enemy.
But in anti-Semitism’s new guise, the Jewish state, far from being the West’s “Other”, was transformed into the distilled, if entirely mythologised, image of what the radicals viewed as the West’s most despicable features. Israel was not the West’s antithesis; it was its apotheosis.
Here, after all, was a country that, in an age of appeasement, rejected fashionable pieties, defending itself from every attack. In a world of disposable selfhood, where you are whatever you want to be, it remained stubbornly attached to an identity gained by birth and forged by faith. And most of all, at a time when the “nowheres” were triumphant and the nation denigrated as a straitjacket, it harboured an intense, widely held patriotism.
There was, however, even worse: like Australia, Israel bore the indelible stain of “settler colonialism”. But rather than cringing apologetically, it celebrated the country the settlers had built: a country that, for all its faults, is a prosperous democracy in a world of tyrants, provides world-class education and healthcare to all of its citizens and that cherishes life, instead of worshipping, as the Islamists do, at the shrine of death.
Little wonder then that it provokes our leftists into uncontrollable fury. Consumed by self-loathing, trapped in a vision of Australia that imputes perpetual virtue to themselves, perpetual guilt to everyone else, they cannot forgive Israelis for standing proud. And when they act out their tantrums, it is not just at Israel that they are shouting. It is at all those who believe Australians too should stand proud, and unashamedly defend the achievements of our country, our culture.
Israel deserves our support. In the end, however, it will take care of itself. As for the Jews, we know hatred. Yet we also know the strength of faith and the power of resolve.
But what about Australia? Each civilisation, said Edward Gibbon, breeds the barbarians it deserves. Ours, brimming with rage, are no longer at the gates – they have stormed the citadel and seized important parts of the commanding heights. Marching arm in arm with the Islamist apologists for terrorism, their calling card is venomous threats and poisonous anti-Semitism.
However, as the incidents accumulate, each more shocking than its predecessors, they may finally have gone too far, inciting the reaction we desperately need to have. Nothing can erase the horrors of recent months. But if we fail to act on their lessons, it is us, not the barbarians, history will call to account.
*************************************************
Nothing ‘false’ about my choice to be a stay-at-home mum
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN
I thought we were done with misery-guts feminism. It turns out not by a long shot. This week prominent director Diane Smith-Gander claimed women were making a “false” choice to stay home to care for kids. She was quoted as saying women were being forced to make this “false choice” by taking on lower-paid work in order to care for children. She bemoaned a society that perpetuated a “gender stereotype that Dad goes out to work and Mum stays home with the kids”.
Reading that took me back to a conversation from my late 20s. Some girlfriends, all young mums of little kids, were hanging about a playground by a Sydney beach one morning. Kids playing, shrieking, grubby little mouths and dirty feet, one kid probably crying because there is always a kid crying.
The young women spoke in hushed tones, swearing each other to secrecy. We agreed never to tell anyone quite how much we loved staying at home caring for our noisy, messy, beautiful little children. The pact was a joke. But only partly.
We knew better than to rave in public about loving being stay-at-home mums – for two reasons. Hanging about playgrounds, wiping little noses and hands and bums wasn’t what we were meant to be doing after graduating from university with fine degrees, suiting up and working hard for big flash law practices and other professional firms. The other reason was we didn’t want our husbands edging us out of a role we loved.
I turned my back on a legal career with a big law firm because I wanted to be at home with my kids. If someone had offered me a heap of money to return to work when they were babies, I would have said “no thanks”. That’s not for me, that’s not what we want for our kids. So I stayed home, had help with the kids, worked from home and earned less.
There was nothing false about these choices. Nothing coerced or unpleasant, which is the underlying message in Smith-Gander’s claim about false choices.
Some years later, I was encouraged by a senior politician to stand for a safe seat in politics. It was flattering. I had the full support of my husband. But I decided against that, too. I didn’t want to be a member of a political party. More important, my kids were moving into their early teens and while they most assuredly didn’t think they needed me at home, I suspected they might. I didn’t want what the books call “quality” time because you can’t pick and choose those moments when kids need you most.
So I remained at home, writing, managing work and deadlines, and being there for the quotidian challenges and enchantments of children pushing the envelope in different ways.
One afternoon, racing to finish some work at home in my office, one child kept coming up behind my chair with questions about sex. That was the inconvenient moment she picked for The Talk. I was busy, so to tide her over I plucked from the shelf beside me a book that I had bought months earlier in anticipation of this moment. The book was possibly meant for an older age bracket.
Being a fanatical reader, she appeared to devour it faster than she did Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Soon enough she was lurking behind my chair again, seeking clarification, stumbling over a big new word from one of the later chapters that I wrongly assumed she wouldn’t get to so soon. I wished my office was not at home.
I was far from the perfect mum, but that’s not the point. Each of us makes deeply personal decisions, tweaking this, changing that, as the years go on. We fumble through, mostly doing our best, in the belief that the decisions we make to work or look after kids, or both, are the best ones.
There are many trade-offs, of course. If we go to work, we miss out being at home with children. The more time we spend at home, the more we trade from our working lives. The sliding scale doesn’t render our decisions any less free, informed – and thrilling.
Many highly educated women I know started out in interesting, well-paying jobs, on paths to stellar, clever careers, but chose to step away. Working long hours in big professional careers, jumping on planes maybe for a meeting here, a meeting there, eating croissants on International Women’s Day with like-minded women, nannies for during the week, and on weekends, is not for everyone.
Many women, including me, would rather wipe the bums of many babies than live like that. My choice to alter the trajectory of my career, trading potential professional success for raising kids, was a no-brainer because raising three children will always be, for me, life’s greatest success.
Not every woman can choose to stay at home with their kids. I freely acknowledge my good fortune in being able to make my choice. There are many women for whom the choice to stay at home to care for little children is much more financially difficult than it was for me. But to demean any of these choices as false is obnoxious paternalism. It’s also deeply insulting to women who would have loved to have had children and would have loved to have stayed home to care for them.
So why does Smith-Gander presume to speak for women? How can she and her ilk possibly know about our lives, our personal decisions, our deepest desires, what we value? It is terrific that this high-profile corporate woman has risen to the top of her chosen fields. Given Smith-Gander is older, perhaps she experienced some big and nasty hurdles to get there. Good on her for pulverising them. I have nothing but respect for her choices. Her views about stay-at-home mothers, well, that’s another matter.
How great it would be if respect were reciprocated. Instead, there is an underlying assumption that caring for kids is a second-rate job, a forced and false choice. It’s a common affliction among gender ideologues to perpetuate miserable generalisations. Their message is that caring for kids is a burden. They never, ever talk about it as a prize.
The Albanese government’s National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality discussion paper, from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, devotes a chapter to women who “bear the burden of care”. The joyless language perpetuates this idea that caring for little children is a rotten choice. It asserts that “patterns of care” are “generally driven by social and economic structures that reflect and reinforce gendered care norms”. Nowhere does the paper mention that many women desperately want to stay at home to care for children. Norms be damned. Many of us make that choice from meandering paths.
I wasn’t mentally prepared to fall pregnant at 27. I thought I had a lingering stomach bug. I fainted with shock when the petite female doctor told me it was a baby. For months I could barely say the word pregnant. I was annoyed at these foreign big breasts that arrived many months before the baby did. Why the rush? My reticence turned into a fierce desire to stay at home to care for our kids.
For some, the deep, primordial tug from a newborn child defies ideology and ambition. It can’t be measured in dollars. We are bombarded with the work side of the equation: we are told women need to work to maintain an identity, to exist on equal terms with men, to support the family and to maintain their own financial independence.
But the culture of “I work, therefore I exist” denies the falling in love with baby so central to most women’s experience. I would have fought off my husband like a banshee if he’d said he wanted to stay at home and care for our kids. He did stay at home for many, many weeks, and those periods were some of the most special times of our lives.
There is a misery to the views of Smith-Gander and other gender ideologues that is untethered from the privilege and pleasure of caring for kids. The ideologues pine for a wretched world where men and women all work exactly the same way and every workplace is made up of equal numbers of men and women, and women’s choices to live differently are demeaned as false.
The other glaring omission from all these discussions about women and work is the wellbeing of children. Back in 2017 there was a kerfuffle when American psychoanalyst Erica Komisar published Being There: Why Prioritising Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters. As The Wall Street Journal reported at the time, one agent told her they wouldn’t touch a book like that. Conference organisers disinvited her because her book, they said, would make women feel guilty.
Alas, as a society, we still don’t seem interested in exploring whether having a mum – or dad – at home in the early years is best for a young child.
The Prime Minister’s Gender Equality paper repeats recent Australian Institute of Family Studies data showing that, as at December 2021, women in 54 per cent of families usually looked after the children, while 40 per cent of families reported equal sharing of responsibility. Only 4 per cent of families reported that a man usually or always looked after the children.
In other words, even with women pouring out of universities at higher rates than men, leaving with more degrees than men, filling the professions in equal numbers, many women continue to embrace what Anne Roiphe in A Mother’s Eye calls the “whole complicated warm messy frustrating dear and dreadful business of raising children”.
Change is afoot, of course. And if gender ideologues treasured the important job of caring for young children instead of treating it as a chore, maybe more men would choose to do it sooner.
For good reasons, Western women have spent years telling the patriarchy where to get off. Why would a man presume to know what we want? It’s time to let that go. Right now, the biggest enemy of women’s choices is a small group of professional women who have the temerity to tell women what we really want.
Is there a polite way to say “f..k the matriarchy”?
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************