The terrifying moment a cyclist is rammed by a furious motorist

The driver immediately points to a place behind both of them -- suggesting that the cyclist had previously done something offensive to provoke the attack.  Just a rude gesture can infuriate some people.  The court judgment would have been based on all the facts, not just a video, and would presumably be appropriate. Provocation is a defence.

Cyclists can be very arrogant and irritating -- drunk on testerone at times.  I wouldn't do it myself but I would like to see more of them knocked off their bikes.  It may be what is needed to restore civility and consideration of others to some of them


SHOCKING dashcam footage has been released of the moment a Victorian man rammed his 4WD into a cyclist before getting out of his car to scream at him.

The clip was posted to YouTube on Saturday but was actually taken during an incident that occurred in November last year.

According to the YouTube user, “the owner of the video only decided to post it” over the weekend.

The video, titled “A cowards attack on a vulnerable road user”, shows a man pedalling in the cyclist lane, beside a 4WD on a suburban street in broad daylight.

About 10-seconds into the clip, the 4WD swerves deliberately to the left, hitting the innocent cyclist and sending him flying off his bike and on to the pavement.

Seemingly in shock, the cyclist stands up, checks his pockets and starts feeling his shoulder for injuries.

But by this time, the motorist has already pulled over and is stalking over to the cyclist, yelling and jabbing his finger towards him.

Barely able to contain his rage, the motorist picks up the cyclist’s bike and throws it into the bushes as the cyclist stands and watches helplessly.

The clip was accompanied by a caption condemning the motorist’s actions. “There is nothing that can justify this type of driving, even though it is nearly a year old, it is still a shocking insight (into) those that road rage,” the caption read.

“There is no reason, no law … that could possibly justify the actions of this driver.”

It is understood that the driver was charged by police with Reckless Driving Causing Injury and fined $1000.

The clip has been seen more than 10,600 times, with people furious that the motorist got off with such a lenient penalty.

“Driver should have been jailed for assault with a deadly weapon. Never to have a license again on release,” Geoff Semon wrote.

Another user, named Stewart, wrote that charge did not suit the attack. “If instead he had been charged with assault (and assault with a deadly weapon) then the punishment could have been much greater,” Stewart said.

“Given that this occurred late last year, it is overwhelmingly likely (that) Mr Road Rage is back behind the wheel already”.

SOURCE 






William Shakespeare is slammed as a racist who helped spread 'white supremacy' on Q&A

Sheer ignorance. Has she ever studied a Shakespeare play?

English playwright William Shakespeare has been described as a 'whitesplainer' and a product of 'white supremacy' on the ABC's Q&A program.

Audience member Katriona Robertson started the discussion by asking how The Bard, often described as the greatest English language writer of all time, could be relevant in the 21st century.

'What kind of influence can a 454-year-old dead white guy have on Australia's varied cultural landscape without whitesplaining things?' she said.

Indigenous actress Nakkiah Lui, 27, answered by suggesting there was a racist element to Shakespeare's writing. 'I'd like to be able to call Shakespeare 'white classics',' she said. 'We identify that the canon in which we draw so much of our culture is actually racialised.'

Lui, who has previously featured in an ABC indigenous comedy skit describing white people as 'c***s', disputed Q&A host Tony Jones's suggestion that Shakespeare's writing on the human condition was 'beyond race'.

'I don't think bringing up race is a bad thing. Let's talk about race when it comes to whiteness as well,' she said.

'One of the reasons Shakespeare is so prolific is because he was a white guy.

'Because white supremacy is something that has been very prevalent around the world. Part of that is bringing in culture and Shakespeare's part of that.'

The theatre-special panel show in Sydney was discussing how Shakespeare had written about a black general in Othello.

Elements of the arts community use the term 'cultural appropriation' to disparage the idea of Europeans writing about ethnic minorities.

Lui, a co-writer of the ABC series Black Comedy, suggested telling the modern stories of racial minorities.

'I would like to see the way that we all still continue to embrace Shakespeare is to start to embrace the stories of people who aren't Shakespeare: the people who are young, who are people of colour, gender,' she said.

'People who don't necessarily fit the role or who don't come from the culture Shakespeare came from.'

Shakespeare died at age 52 in 1616, 172 years before the British First Fleet sailed into Sydney Harbour.

The bard who penned masterpieces Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing and the Merchant of Venice died 150 years before the Industrial Revolution began, leading to Great Britain embarking on imperial expansion.

SOURCE 






Trad 'mock outrage' over 'racist' comment

Queensland treasurer Jackie Trad has been accused of "mock outrage" after calling on the opposition's deputy leader to resign for his "racist" comparison of her to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's former propaganda chief.

Tim Mander likened Ms Trad, who is of Lebanese background, to "Comical Ali" while slamming her economic credentials at state parliament on Tuesday.

Comical Ali was the nickname of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, the spokesman for the Hussein regime during the 2003 Iraq War who frequently claimed Iraq was winning as coalition forces won battles.

Ms Trad said Mr Mander's comments were "deeply alarming and personally offensive".

"There are so many other references Tim Mander could have chosen to make his point but he chose a racially-based reference in relation to my background," Ms Trad said.

She called on Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington to sack Mr Mander if he didn't stand down.

Ms Frecklington cancelled a scheduled press conference and a statement was issued on behalf of Mr Mander, saying he didn't believe Ms Trad's concern was genuine.

"Labor's mock outrage today at my statement about their economic incompetence shows how out of touch Annastacia Palaszczuk's government really is," he said.

It is not the first time Ms Trad has been the target of racially based slurs from the LNP.

Member for Oodgeroo Mark Robinson called her "Jihad Jackie" on social media earlier this year.

Mermaid Waters MP Ray Stevens also called Ms Trad "Jihad Jackie" a number of times while the LNP were in office between 2012 and 2015.

SOURCE 






Foreign threats to free speech at Australian universities

The growing concern about academic freedom and free speech on university campuses typically relates to illiberal student activists shutting down debate. But there is potentially a more subtle threat to free speech in higher education coming from foreign governments, especially China.

At a CIS breakfast on Monday, NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes outlined his concerns regarding Australian universities being too reliant on international students — to a point that undermines academic independence.

“When academics who criticise certain countries are hauled before senior diplomats to explain themselves, or when universities self-censor by using teaching materials that conform with foreign government propaganda so as to not upset international student cohorts, we have a duty as educators to speak out”, he said.

This may be controversial in some timid quarters but it shouldn’t be. To be clear, no one is suggesting that having large numbers of international students in Australia is a bad thing. Education is Australia’s third-largest export, and international students are an essential part of our higher education sector and university culture.

But given recent cases where academic independence appears to have been undermined on topics regarding Chinese politics, we should be vigilant.

Of course, some people will argue this problem at universities is imagined or exaggerated. Is there any concrete evidence of widespread political interference from China in Australian higher education? Surely, the more fee-paying international students studying here, the better for our economy? And shouldn’t we be far more concerned about attempts by local university student activists to restrict free speech?

Even if we concede the sceptics may have a point, one thing is certain: this is an issue worth debating. We can’t be afraid of identifying potential overseas threats to our universities’ independence out of fear of upsetting foreign governments.

Kudos to Minister Stokes for kick-starting the debate.

SOURCE 






Institute of Public Affairs blasts Australian goverment's  'un-Liberal' energy policies

IPA’s John Roskam says government should ‘stop all subsidies to coal, wind and anything else’

The Institute of Public Affairs has blasted the Morrison government’s “big stick” in energy policy – a threat to break up energy companies in a bid to lower prices – accusing it of breaching Liberal values and endangering investment.

The IPA executive director, John Roskam, told Guardian Australia that “heavy-handed intervention” was “positively un-Liberal” and would open the door for Labor to campaign on policies bashing big businesses – which are “simply responding to the policy settings the government itself has created” to make a profit.

Roskam also warned against any form of subsidy for electricity generation including renewables subsidies, underwriting new power generation and indemnifying coal power against a possible future carbon price.

The intervention from the influential rightwing thinktank exposes divisions in the conservative side of politics on energy policy. Some, including MP Craig Kelly and former prime minister Tony Abbott, have called for an end to renewable subsidies and withdrawal from the Paris agreement, in line with demands from the IPA.

The Morrison government has indicated it wants to preserve popular solar subsidies and to stay in Paris while it pushes ahead with competition measures to lower price in the absence of a policy to reduce emissions by 2030.

Roskam said breaking up energy companies “continues the trend of targeting particular industries” as the Coalition did with the bank tax in the 2017 budget and would “further confuse Australians” about what it stands for.

“The idea that the government would determine the shape and size of the industry in this way cuts across every principle of the Liberal party,” he said. “If you want a guarantee that nobody will ever invest in Australia again, this is how you do it.”

The Coalition has promised policies to encourage new generation – including providing a floor price, contracts for difference and government loans – and has not ruled out using those measures to support new coal-fired power stations.

The energy minister, Angus Taylor, has said the government should address investors’ concerns about “political risks”, in a sign it could also indemnify coal power against future emissions reduction policies such as a carbon price. Taylor has also said there is “no plan” to change the small-scale renewable energy scheme.

Roskam said the government should “stop all subsidies to coal, wind and anything else” because “picking winners should be an anathema to the Liberal party”.

Although the IPA wants to see more coal power, Roskam said the government should “reduce the regulatory barriers to them being funded”, not keep the barriers and overcome them with subsidies.

He said he had “some sympathy” for the idea the government should “compensate coal for the disadvantage they have been put under” by support for renewables, but warned that indemnifying coal against political risk would be a “further distortion” in the market.

Roskam said the Liberal Party is “hopelessly conflicted on climate change” and “riven down the middle”. He warned the party can not appeal both to “rich people virtue-signalling because they can afford to” in the blue-ribbon seat of Wentworth who want emissions reduction, and voters who want lower power prices in Longman in Queensland, both sites of recent byelection defeats.

“Wentworth is not Australia,” Roskam said, echoing conservative commentators who have played down the byelection defeat.

The sentiment is not shared by moderate Liberal MPs who privately note the Liberals hold many seats with a base of supporters with high incomes and progressive social attitudes including Brisbane, Goldstein, Higgins, Kooyong, Warringah, Mackellar and North Sydney.

Roskam suggested the Liberal party should present a “sharp difference” with Labor by exiting the Paris agreement. “You can’t out virtue-signal the Labor party,” he said.

Despite the suggestion emissions and price reductions are incompatible, renewables are forecast to lower prices while coal subsidies would increase energy costs.

On Friday Scott Morrison told ABC’s AM that “all the information before us” is that Australia will meet its emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, particularly due to “increased investment in renewables which is happening as a result of common sense and technology”.

The claim is contradicted by environment department figures showing emissions are rising and advice from the Energy Security Board that Australia will fall short under a business-as-usual scenario.

Morrison said the government needs to prioritise “making sure we’ve got reliable power”.

SOURCE 

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

Hottest October day in 120 years: Queensland swelters as mercury tops 40C for the TENTH day in a row - and it's not over yet

One day is newsworthy? This is just nitpicking.  I have been enjoying springtime in Brisbane for a total of 40 years and the current season seems no different from any other.  We always get some warm days and some cool days and a temperture of 32 degrees C is no outlier for Brisbane.  34C is in fact about the usual summer afternoon temperature in Brisbane

At the time of writing in the afternoon of Monday 29th, it is in fact rather cool in Brisbane for the time of the year. I actually had to put a shirt on.  My thermometer says 22C.  We have just had rather a lot of rain too. It's been raining off and on for the last two days in fact.  No drought in Brisbane!

Monstrous heatwave, my foot


Australia's north is continuing to endure a monstrous heatwave, with no relief in sight.

Central Queensland registered 40C temperatures for the tenth consecutive day on Sunday, but the area will see extreme heat until Thursday. 

The soaring temperatures shattered October records that had been in place for the region for more than 120 years, with one regional town topping out at nearly 44C.

'In Brisbane we'll probably see a few showers develop late this evening, it will be pretty cloudy as well,' Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Chris Joseph told the Courier Mail.

'It will probably be a better chance for showers tomorrow and pretty cool as well.'

The stormy skies in the state capital will come after it too basked in sunshine on Friday and Saturday. Crowds gathered to escape the heat at Streets Beach in the the city's South Bank Parklands as they sweated through temperatures of 32C on Friday.

Australia's major cities also had a dry Sunday, with Hobart the only capital to register any rainfall at all.

'Some locations have had two to three times October's rainfall in a week, but others haven't seen any significant falls. Overall, the cropping season is looking like one of the 10 driest on record,' climatologist Felicity Gamble told Daily Mail Australia.

The record-breaking dry spell could be a sign of things to come.

The Bureau of Meterology has predicted higher than average temperatures throughout the summer months for nearly the entire country.

The heatwave brings with it particularly grim conditions for the country's farmers, who have been suffering through a major drought.

SOURCE 






School bullying costing taxpayers millions in pay-outs to students and teachers who have suffered psychological injury and 'severe psychiatric disorders'

An inevitable result of the Leftist destruction of school discipline

Bullying in schools is costing taxpayers millions of dollars as both students and teachers seek compensation for psychological problems. Claims and out-of-court settlements surrounding bullying and harassment cost the NSW state government more than $7 million between 2014 and 2017. In many cases, the payouts were funded by taxpayers.

NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes conceded bullying has become one of the most challenging issues in primary and high schools.

Another growing concern is the issue not being addressed at home.  'Family structures are changing and becoming looser and in some cases weaker,' Mr Stokes said. 'We need to equip kids to help each other reject bullying because we can't rely on families as much as we have done in the past.'

According to figures from the Freedom of Information laws, compensation payments to 20 students and three teachers averaged more than $300,000 each.

'The consequences of bullying are lifelong and devastating, and also have huge impacts on the health of our society and the productivity of our economy,' Stokes said.

'Bullying has always been a problem but we've never quite understood how much damage it causes and once we have better ways of addressing it, we can build a happier and more confident society.'

Bullying cost the state government $4 million in payouts in 2014, $1.194m in 2015, $984,886 in 2016 and $860,257 last year.

Since axing 'Safe Schools'— a controversial anti-bullying program implemented in 2010, Stokes has been searching for a better remedy to tackle the social issue.

A new anti-bullying video starring kindergarten kids will be launched at an Australian-first anti-bullying strategy conference on Monday.

The conference will hear from leading figures in bullying, aggression and school adjustment from Australia, Canada and Finland. They will also travel to regional areas in Ballina, Dubbo, and Wagga Wagga for additional feedback on the issue.

SOURCE 





'A very, very pleasant island': Tony Abbott claims Nauru is a 'tropical paradise' - as he urges Scott Morrison NOT to remove asylum seekers being held there

Tony Abbott has called Nauru a 'very, very pleasant island' as he urged prime minister Scott Morrison to not relax his government's asylum seeker policies to allow detainees on the island to leave.

His comments come after a Sunday Telegraph poll showed nearly 80 per cent of Australians want children and their families off the Pacific detention centre.

Mr Morrison's government is facing increasing pressure to accept a deal that will see migrants resettled in New Zealand.

Up to 50 children are still on the island and the government has been slowly removing those who need urgent medical attention. 

'Nauru is no hellhole by any means. I’ve been there. If you like living the tropics, it’s a very, very pleasant island,' Mr Abbott told 2GB's Ray Hadley.

He said moving the 'boat people' would be a bad move on policy.  'The people on Nauru and Manus now are nearly all would-be economic migrants. 'And if we give them what they want, we get more of them. That is to say the boats will start up again.'

Despite overwhelming references in the media to poor conditions on the island, Mr Abbot ventured as far to say the children are 'very well looked after.'

'Health services on Nauru for boat people are more extensive than the services a lot of regional towns get in Australia,' he said.

Labor has increased calls to amend legislation that stops those held in the offshore detention centres from coming to Australia. 

Mr Abbott made a call to arms and told the Liberal party to stand strong on its position. 'No government is absolutely perfect ... but the Morrison Government is an infinitely better bet than the Shorten Labor Party, which will be the most left-wing government in our history if we get it.'    

SOURCE 






Climate policy is a wrecking ball claiming PM’s careers

IT’S the uncontrollable wrecking ball of Australian politics which so far has smashed the careers of four prime ministers.

And now it could be swinging Scott Morrison’s way, just as it had towards Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard from Labor, and his Liberal colleagues Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull.

This demolition beast is climate change policy and the inability of politicians to present coherent schemes of their own or to resist misrepresenting those of rivals.

To dodge the ball of policy destruction Prime Minister Morrison is attempting to please everyone.

He wants a system which will lower emissions, encourage coal-fired power stations, force private power companies to divest assets, promote new generating technologies, and cut household electricity bills.

It’s a political strategy more than a global warming response, constructed to appease the array of cemented positions on energy policy within the Liberal Party rather than the wishes of consumers, including business.

It has a touch of former prime minister Tony Abbott’s unsuccessful Direct Action scheme and a taste of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee.

And one of its objectives is to blame the power industry, not government, for everything from electricity reliability, price, and technologies.

Scott Morrison is pushing around power companies, threatening them with his “big stick”, in a way he shrank from doing with banks when he was treasurer.

It’s a way of saying, “It’s not our fault you don’t like your electricity bills.”

Which is the gist of Mr Morrison’s comments on the Seven Network on Friday: “That is why we have to put more pressure on the big energy companies so they are doing the right thing by their customers and we are going to back that up with the laws which will give effect to that.

“As I said, we will take the big stick to the energy companies.”

And the timing is right for this blame shifting as the use of cheaper renewables is starting to lower prices.

The Morrison government will be delighted to take the credit. But it underlines the complexity of the power game here.

Australia alone of developed nations has this preoccupation with climate change as a political battleground.

In Australia we can’t even settle on what is at stake.

Is it what Kevin Rudd called the great moral challenge — which portrayed it as something which can’t be measured by a temperature gauge alone — or is it about using more coal?

The climate change debate here can take many identities as political leaders shuffle around priorities to suit their already-existing positions.

So at one moment it’s not about addressing a changing climate, it’s about the unreliability of renewable energy, or about lowering electricity prices, or about supporting coal resources, or about not being told what to do by the United Nations.

There have been times of confusion as to what was being addressed.

What has been clear is that the task is hugely difficult for two reasons Kevin Rudd recently underlined.

One is the daunting task of convincing a current generation to make sacrifices for a future one.

And because of the technical complexity of the climate change responses, which understandably baffle most people. That’s one reason why the Prime Minister uses the clunky term “fair dinkum power” instead of “dispatchable power”.

Desperation has driven some political leaders to absurd proposals. Remember Julia Gillard’s 2010 “citizens’ assembly”? It was in effect a surrender to the issue and a flick pass to populist opinion.

Stubborn refusal to accept there was a problem at all has clogged policy development. Tony Abbott once declared the science of climate change was “crap” and has only toughened his opinion since then.

And disgraceful political game playing has made it harder for voters to sift the facts from blatant dishonesty.

Barnaby Joyce set the pace by claiming Labor policies would send the price of the Sunday roast to $100. It was of course rubbish.

It’s that political legacy Scott Morrison is attempting to defy, and the real test is whether he can do so and still produce a viable policy.

SOURCE 






Sydney Anglicans ban valorization of homosexuals

The Sydney Anglican clergy are just about the last of the real Anglicans.  Most of the rest are just dressup queens

The Sydney Anglican Diocese has provoked controversy by proposing a policy to ensure that all church property is used in ways consistent with Anglican church teaching.

The proposal vetoed activities such as same-sex marriage receptions, meditative yoga, and indigenous smoking ceremonies, and was intended to extend to some 900 church properties. Parts of the policy — those concerned with smoking ceremonies — were withdrawn following protests from indigenous leaders and school principals. But many were still angry at what the church had proposed.

Religious doctrines often seem bizarre to those who do not belong to the faith community. It can be hard, for example, to see what problem believers have with yoga or hosting wedding receptions.

The Sydney Anglican policy emerged from specific Christian beliefs about salvation, the human person, human sexuality, and freedom. To those who share these beliefs, the policy might well make sense. To those who don’t, the whole exercise can — and did — seem bizarre, and simply another example of the irrelevance of religion to mainstream everyday Australian life.

After a fortnight when religious schools have been accused of wanting to expel gay students and church landlords accused of wanting to do the same to gay tenants, religious freedom is still a hot topic. And the reason is that one of the features of being a citizen in an open and free society is having to figure out how to live with those whose worldviews and beliefs are far removed from our own.

Even if we think they are wrong and that their practices are offensive, we must be sure to allow religious people and communities the freedom to interpret the world and the universe as they see fit. And we must also afford them the freedom to order their affairs — including their property use — in ways that align with those beliefs, as long as they do nothing illegal or harmful to others.

Of course, if we don’t like it — and often there is a lot not to like — we are free to criticise it because we live in a society that tolerates freedom of speech and the frank exchange of opinions. But criticising a church for attempting to implement a policy that could have a substantial impact on non-church people is one thing; it is quite another to tell it how to deal with its own property.

SOURCE 

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

Dutton's department challenges federal court's authority to order Nauru transfers

This is a small local version of a big problem in the USA.:  Does the judiciary have the right to tell the administration what to do?  Or should they stick to saying whether some existing action is legal or illegal? Clearly, they do not have any authority to run the administration but for various reasons  American politicians have not challenged the "Ultra vires" meddling of the courts -- so it is heartening to see the Australian government taking it on


 A child refugee is transferred off Nauru. The rate of medical transfer orders has ratcheted up as the health crisis worsens
The Australian government is challenging the legality of the federal court hearing applications for urgent medical transfers of refugees and asylum seekers held on Nauru.

The move comes amid a rush of transfers, and appears in contrast to claims made by Australian Border Force to those detainees that the delays are due to the Nauruan government.

Should the federal court action be successful it has the potential to void some previous orders, forcing those cases to refile in the high court.

The rate of medical transfer orders has ratcheted up as the health crisis worsens, criticism of the policy strengthens, and the Nauruans appear to have stopped attempting to block departures.

The home affairs department raised the jurisdictional challenge in a case involving a child detainee, her mother and two siblings, Fairfax Media reported.

The family have already been transferred to Australia. But lawyers for Peter Dutton’s department have continued to argue that under section 494AB of the Migration Act, the federal court cannot hear legal proceedings against the commonwealth relating to a “transitory person”. It is believed to be the first time the government has made this argument in about 50 cases relating to the transfer of people from Nauru.

On Thursday two federal court judges ordered both parties to submit their arguments in coming days for a yet-to-be scheduled expedited hearing, expected next week. The child, an 11-year-old Iranian girl, is being represented by the law firm Robinson Gill and the Human Rights Law Centre.

“This has come out of the blue, and there’s a risk it could make it much harder for desperately unwell children to get the urgent, lifesaving medical care they need,” said Daniel Webb, director of legal advocacy at the HRLC.

The challenge appears at odds with the government’s messages to detainees laying the blame for transfer delays with Nauruan authorities. Guardian Australia is aware of ABF writing or verbally suggesting to people or their lawyers that the department had approved their medical transfer but Nauru was holding up cases.

One correspondence said the government of Nauru had to approve all transfers through its overseas medical referral committee, which examined medical evidence and recommendations for treatment outside the country.

The letter claimed that it had “become apparent that the government of Nauru will no necessarily act on the recommendations of the OMR committee. Rather it will exercise a residual discretion which is being referred to as ‘uplift approval’. This discretion is being exercised by the Nauruan Secretary of Multicultural affairs personally.”

The secretary is Barina Waqa, daughter of President Baron Waqa. She was also identified as the bureaucrat who blocked the court-ordered transfer of a detainee last month.

The letter said the Australian government had a presence on Nauru in the ABF, and it was through that which the government “can attempt to achieve your clients’ transfers to Australia”.

ABF was there at the pleasure of the Nauruan government, however, which had “made it clear” it was expected to respect the OMR and uplift approval process.

It said the department would take all reasonable steps to arrange a transfer but ultimately this depended on the Nauruan government.

In many cases, doctors have recommended medical transfers for months or even years. The first known case of Nauru officials blocking transfers was in early September, and Guardian Australia understands that the practice appears to have stopped.

Australia’s government has shifted messaging in recent weeks, responding to criticism of its intransigence to calls for a mass evacuation with the claim that it has brought dozens of children off the island for medical care.

While many of the transfers have been through ABF and the OMR process, or in immediately agreeing to a legal application before it gets to the hearing stages, others have required the intervention of a federal court judge.

“Time and time again we are seeing the government force children at risk of dying to go to court at all hours of the night to get emergency, lifesaving medical care,” Webb said. “We’re talking about 52 kids who have been detained for over five years. They need an urgent, humane resolution, not more political games.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Home Affairs told Guardian Australia the department had been “obliged to raise the matter once it became aware of the jurisdictional issue”.

The challenge had not impacted any medical transfer cases, she said, and all would be dealt with in the usual way until the matter was resolved.

SOURCE 







The annual war on Christmas by spoilsports has begun. Pressure from another Melbourne council forces closure of popular Christmas lights display that has raised thousands for charity over 18 years

Another Christmas lights display in a Melbourne suburb has been cancelled due to pressure from an unhelpful local council.

Despite raising thousands of dollars for charity since 1999, the lights display in St Helena will not be staged this year.    

It comes just weeks after the popular Xmas lights display in Narre Warren was also cancelled by council due to astronomical costs associated with traffic issues.

Frustrated organisers of the Allumba Drive event in St Helena, a suburb in north-east Melbourne, say relentless pressure from Banyule City Council over the past few years resulted in the outcome, leaving the local community seething.

On the event's Facebook page, it is described as one of Melbourne's 'biggest and brightest' light displays which has been running for just under two decades.

The event draws huge crowds each December and has collected almost $20,000 for the Make A Wish Foundation.

An organiser of the light display in St Helena explained why the difficult decision was taken.

'Putting up the Christmas lights is the easy part – dealing with the council and compliance is the difficult part and we just don't have the time or the money to do it any longer,' he told 3AW.

'On the back of the lack of co-operation from Banyule City Council, we decided we would not submit an application for the Christmas period of 2018.

'We are tired of the drama the (light) display causes and our decision to not go ahead this year is final.'

The organiser did encourage people to continue to donate to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which grants wishes to children diagnosed with critical illnesses.

SOURCE 





No end in sight to electricity consumers paying for poor policy

We were staying in a Queensland country town a few weeks ago. I got talking to the owner of the local bakery. He was looking at his latest ­financial statement that the ­accountant had sent through. And there it was in black and white. His annual power bill last financial year was $114,000. It had been a tad over $30,000 two years before.

He employs 30 people, some on a part-time basis. Business seemed to be brisk but it’s hard to put up the price of pies and buns too much without demand dropping.

It’s easy to concentrate on the impact of rising electricity prices on households. And let’s be clear on that score. In real terms, the ­average retail price of electricity over the 10 years ending in 2017-18 rose by 51 per cent and the average retail bill rose by 35 per cent (people have used less electricity, in part because of the higher prices).

But for many small and med­ium-sized businesses, the increase in their electricity bills has been higher again. Many are exposed to the full variations in wholesale ­prices, which have risen from less than $40 a megawatt hour to more than $100/MWh before settling around the $70 to $80/MWh mark. This threatens the viability of a number of businesses.

It’s hardly surprising the federal government has decided to focus on getting electricity bills down. Let’s be clear about reduced emissions and the commitment the government has made to the Paris climate agreement — the target in respect of electricity will be met by the early 2020s. Every participant in the industry ­acknowledges this.

It’s one of the reasons why the emissions reduction target that was part and parcel of the now ­defunct national energy guarantee was superfluous. Note also there was considerable manipulation going on of the precise details of this target to suit the activist ambitions of those promoting the NEG. The only part of the NEG now worth saving relates to the ­reliability obligation, which is ­likely to become binding much sooner than generally expected.

For those who complain about a decade of energy policy paralysis, the truth is there has been a constant and active government policy position over that time. Renewable energy sources have been massively promoted, favoured and subsidised.

The renewable energy target, which remains in force until 2030, has spun off subsidies to renewable energy generators to the tune of about $80/MWh (the value has been higher in the past) through large-scale generation certificates. The value of these LGCs is expected to drop but not for several years.

In addition, there have been the interventions of reverse auctions run by state governments and the ACT that provide guaranteed cash flow for renewable energy projects. There are also the rules in the National Energy Market that give preferential dispatch to renewable energy generators. And there are the mountains of subsidies available through bodies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Estimates put the value of the subsidies paid to the renewable ­energy sector at between $2 billion and $3bn a year, paid by consumers and taxpayers. That’s not policy paralysis; that’s policy promotion of a particular sector. If we ignore the decimation of the business models of dispatchable power generators and the much higher electricity prices we have had to pay, arguably the policy has worked. It is estimated that $2bn was invested last year in renewable energy generation — a record amount. And this year the boom has been even bigger.

The Clean Energy Regulator has released information that 34 renewable energy power stations with a combined capacity of 667MW were accredited last month, which was the largest single month of solar and wind ­capacity since April 2001. Nearly 2800MW has been accredited so far this year, compared with the previous annual record set last year of 1088MW.

The CER also notes about 1600MW of rooftop solar will be installed this year — the six panels every minute scenario mentioned by Audrey Zibelman of the Australian Energy Market Operator — which is up 44 per cent on last year. There are now more than three million small-scale installations. Note there are also about 40,000 commercial solar systems.

Now, if renewable energy could provide reliable electricity at ­affordable prices, these trends would be great. But even on the most optimistic estimates of the boosters of renewable energy, wind can produce at most 50 per cent of the time and solar at 30 per cent. This produces a very large shortfall that has to be covered by firming capacity. Batteries and pumped hydro don’t come close to filling the gap and are unlikely to do so for many years.

And here’s another thing that needs to be considered when ­observing the boom in renewable energy investment: 10 coal-fired power stations with a total ­capacity of more than 5000MW have left the grid since 2012. None of these stations has been replaced.

What is beginning to emerge is a crisis affecting the grid that makes up the National Electricity Market, which covers South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT. This is being recognised by AEMO, which worries about the reliability of the grid in general and the possible shortfall of power in South Australia and Victoria at certain times during the coming summer.

The NEM electricity grid has always been long and skinny. It is now longer and skinnier, with far too much unreliable renewable energy and far too little firming ­capacity. This is the principal reason why federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is so focused on getting more firming capacity into the system to back up the runaway ­investment in renewable energy.

It is also why he has decided to take a resolute line with the large “gentailers” — think AGL, Origin and Energy Australia — whose ­behaviour has contributed to the growing fragility of the system as well as to rising prices. The companies are quite capable of manipulating the market while promising to invest in firming ­capacity but never quite following through with their plans.

Of course, in a normal competitive market government should always refrain from intervening to force down prices. But the electricity market is not a normal market. Apart from the fact electricity is an essential service, the high ­degree of market concentration almost certainly means prices are higher than they should be. The egregious behaviour of the retail divisions of the gentailers, by dudding loyal customers in particular, indicates they cannot be trusted. Just ignore their howls of complaints about the downsides of regulation. By setting a reference price for standing offers, this will force down prices more generally, and the companies know it.

By bringing more dispatchable power into the system as quickly as possible — another focus of Taylor — wholesale prices will hopefully fall, bringing further price relief for customers. The truth is the gentailers have been feasting on high wholesale prices. Surely no one will complain if the government offers the same cost of capital to new dispatchable power plants that is available to ­intermittent ­renewable energy plants?

With all this new renewable ­energy coming into the market, there is a real question mark over the commercial viability of some of the projects. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, wholesale prices can be driven to low levels. Clearly, the backers of these projects are basically betting on the election of a Labor government to impose a higher emissions reduction target and a reinstituted RET. In this scenario, we would expect electricity prices to resume their upward trajectory.

The NEM is in disarray, but let’s not kid ourselves that this is because of policy paralysis. This is because of incredibly poor policy where the consequences in terms of price and reliability were completely foreseeable. The challenge for the federal government is how to pull us back from this abyss.

SOURCE 





From a safe distance we’ll watch Tasmania’s gender folly fail

When it comes to Tasmania’s plan to become the first state to erase a baby’s gender from a birth certificate, please doff your cap to our federalist forefathers. They deserve more credit than we often give them. The federal system set down in our Constitution means one state can conduct a social experiment while the rest of the country looks on and learns.

The federal structure has the other added bonus of offering a shorter distance between the rulers and the ruled, at least on matters reserved to the states. That won’t save a state from foolish politicians, but as a matter of democratic will we cannot fault the gender-bender politics of Tasmania’s parliament. If most voters cannot agree on who should govern their state, instead opting for a motley crew of politicians more interested in social experiments than economic policy, well then, that’s democracy.

People get the politicians they deserve. And in Tasmania, the Liberal Hodgman government relies on the casting vote of a Speaker elected to the position with Greens and Labor support. The original bill is sensibly aimed at ending the need for transgender people to divorce before they can change their gender on official documents. The Greens and Labor then went further, pushing for amendments to remove gender from birth certificates, with Speaker Sue Hickey’s support.

If the bill passes, watch that other magnificent part of democracy: blowback from voters when politicians overstep the mark. And people in mainland states have the luxury of watching this social experiment unfold and the chance to harness sensible arguments so we do not follow Tasmania’s folly.

Where do you start when it comes to talking about sex and gender? I tried delving into the academic world for some clues. That was a mistake. I discovered a morass of ivory tower posturing, confusion and weird new words meant to uncover some old and apparently persistent evil. Calls to erase sex and gender as a way to topple the white/cis/hetero/patriarchal supremacy and normativity sound better suited to a horror movie than reasoned argument.

I bumped into feminists who think that transgender people who alter their gender reinforce sexist gender roles. And others who say that transgender people challenge oppressive gender norms. I found some academics who think that if you were a man, you experienced male privilege, so it is impossible for you to be a real woman. I found mind-numbing academic references to phallocractic technology and “the transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist”.

I discovered intra-feminist conflicts between women, including lesbians who feel threatened by trans activism. And I was struck by the many, many accusations of transphobia by those who brook no disagreement with their activism and their agenda.

After that entanglement with feminist theories and trans activism, I was still interested in trying to work through Tasmania’s dalliance with sex and gender politics. So, I headed closer to the ground. I read hundreds of comments from readers of this newspaper that followed the report that Tasmania may expunge gender from birth certificates. Most of the readers expressed tolerance, respect for human dignity, thoughtful ideas, a real distaste for discrimination and a great deal of common sense.

Their sentiments exposed a glaring chasm with the unintelligible tosh and intolerance common to many academics. So allow me to mention what Edmund Burke night call the gritty wisdom of unlettered men and women.

One reader, Pamela, said this is another step to take away identity — and notice it is by those people who routinely sup at the table of identity politics. She said she struggled to understand people who wish to dominate others. “If some wish to omit gender of their child (from a birth certificate), OK, but others should be allowed to do what they wish.” Many many readers echoed Pamela’s belief in freedom of choice for parents of newborns.

Many recognised the difference between sex as a biological reality and gender as a social identity that for some will differ from their chromosomal mix. One writer suggested that we keep sex on birth certificates but discard gender. That was echoed by Sandra, who suggested we “send ‘gender’ back to the grammarians and the ‘gender studies’ departments in the ivory towers”.

Gizelle saw the bright side to expunging gender from birth certificates: “this could be the end of the virtue-signalling for female quotas”. Dream on. More likely the same people who want gender banned are likely “the same people, in a different forum, calling for gender-related targets for business and politicians as well”, said another reader.

Here we go again, said Howard. “A vocal minority not satisfied with their win on same-sex marriage.” Barbara agreed, asking: why must we strip the majority of people of an important part of their identity to accommodate the agenda of a tiny minority? They both have a point.

The plan by the Greens and Labor to erase gender from birth certificate is part of a broader plan to erase gender identity altogether, or at least make it mighty difficult to include mention of gender if you are just a woman or a man.

The proposed amendments will prohibit the registrar of births, deaths and marriages from including information about the gender of a child, unless required by a court or an applicable federal law. A person over 16 may record their gender by statutory declaration. A child under 16 years of age would need a declaration by at least one parent and the child’s own express wish, with a magistrate deciding any disputes.

The public reasons from LGBTI activists for these changes do not match their private agenda. What LGBTI advocate Rodney Croome fails to explain is how it is discriminatory to offer parents a choice to record the sex of their newborn on a birth certificate.

Banning gender on a birth certificate does not encourage tolerance and inclusion, but stripping people of their gender at birth cements a social experiment aimed at encouraging gender fluidity.

Tasmanian Greens leader Cassy O’Connor said the current laws require that transgender people undergo invasive reproductive surgery if they want to change their birth certificate to reflect their identity.

If that is the case, have a debate about that rather than using a legal sledgehammer to remove gender from all birth certificates.

Transgender activist Martine Delaney says removing gender from birth certificates won’t harm anyone.

How can she know that? If a man is able to pass himself off as woman using a genderless birth certificate to gain entry to women’s spaces, or ends up in a women’s prison, how can Delaney know there are no risks to women’s safety?

In the debate over sex, gender and the law, women’s groups are increasingly arguing for caution and consideration of all groups, not just a transgender minority.

Delaney’s intervention is a neat reminder of her illiberal approach to open debate about same-sex marriage when she raced off to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner because she was offended by a pamphlet from the Catholic Church that set out its teaching on marriage.

Expect the same intolerance with more confected claims of hurt feelings, hate speech and transphobia. That is the experience from Britain where far-reaching changes allow for self-identification, possibly with no time periods or medical advice needed. If John wakes up one morning and decides he is Jane, he can self-identify as a woman for legal purposes before the sun sets. None of this is to mock the vast majority of transgender people who endure excruciating mental and physical anguish about their sex and their gender. But to suggest there are no dangers in a radical social shift is like believing in pixies.

To shut down those who wish to raise questions, now a routine tactic among some trans activists in Britain, is worse than ignorance. It is intolerance. Writing in The Spectator earlier this year, Judith Green from Woman’s Place UK outlined physical threats, social media harassment and hate-based vilification aimed at her group and any venue where they meet to discuss the consequences of new gender laws on women, children and society as a whole.

Last week, the Speaker of Tasmania’s lower house, who will decide whether gender is erased from birth certificates in that state, said the world is changing. Hickey said we need to be open to considering things that might discriminate or harm someone. It works both ways. As one reader of this newspaper wrote last week in response, “in the not too distant future I can imagine a world where it will be almost impossible to get through a day without offending someone, or some group”.

Note again the contrast between the live-and-let-live sentiments of many readers of this newspaper and the freedom-loathing agendas of academics, bureaucracies and politicians.

Language police in Victoria ­expect public servants to use gender-neutral pronouns. Language police in the ACT Labor caucus want to remove all references to Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms in parliament. In some Australian primary and secondary schools, social media activists funded by Facebook are instructing students that gender identity exists on a ­spectrum.

And now social engineers in Tasmania want to erase gender altogether from birth certificates: no choice, no freedom to differ, just one-size-fits-all genderless babies.

These days, the political divide is less about Right and Left and more about those who believe in greater freedom and those who don’t. History reminds us that human dignity rests on people having more, not less, freedom.

SOURCE 

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

Australia's economic 'lucky streak' jeopardised by political infighting, reliance on China, report warns

This is a repeat of Donald Horne's old jaundiced claim that Australia does well only because it is a "lucky" country. 

But it's not luck and never has been.  The Australian continent is resource-rich but so is the African continent.  Need I say more on that? Australia is very similar to the USA in its economic and cultural arrangements so gets prosperity by its own doing, just as the USA does. 

Past Prime Ministers, Hawke, Keating and Howard all instituted economically rational policies which have been very beneficial to prosperity and the present conservative government even seems to have reined in the debt splurge inflicted on Australia over six years from 2007 to 2013 by the Rudd/Gillard Leftist government

As to the threats enumerated above, political infighting among the conservatives has been deplorable but nonetheless has seen economically constructive policies adopted throughout.

And the idea that problems with China will be anything more than superficial is absurd.  What end would it serve for them to restrict the major inflows of coal, iron, copper, wool and dairy products that they presently get from Australia? 

Australian mines and miners are very efficient and Australia is located only a short shipping distance from the major Chinese ports so they can buy from Australia very cheaply, often cheaper than they can buy from Chinese sources


Australia has an "enviable economic record" but its "lucky streak" could come to an end due to domestic infighting and an over-reliance on Chinese trade, according to a report published today.

Political infighting and a revolving door of PMs has become a cause for concern

The report, written by The Economist's Asia editor Edward McBride, says Australia has one of the "world's top economies" based on its steady economic growth and relative resilience during two financial crises.

It adds that no other wealthy country has had comparative economic growth when looking at the stable increase of wages in contrast to widespread global wage stagnation.

McBride attributes this to reforms made 30 years ago by former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating — who floated the Australian dollar and deregulated the financial sectors — as well as the more recent diversification of the economy at the end of the resource boom.

Speaking to the ABC, McBride said Australia's 27 years without a recession and affordable health care and pensions were some of the key reasons for Australia's position.

However, the report says Australia's reliance on Chinese trade, as well as domestic infighting, has the potential to destabilise policies which have underpinned the country's economic success.

A Beijing boycott would shake Australian livelihoods
China is Australia's largest bilateral trading partner with imports and exports worth some $183 billion last year, according to the Australian Trade and Investment Commission.

The second biggest trading partner is now Japan at $71 billion after it took over the United States last year.

But China is Australia's largest buyer of iron ore, copper, wool and wine, and it also provides 16 per cent of Australia's tourists.

In his report, McBride says a potential economic boycott by Beijing could have a significant impact on Australia.

"Should Chinese tourists disappear, or Chinese drinkers stop slurping Australian wine, many Australians would lose their livelihood," he writes.

A boycott situation would not be beyond the realms of possibility as similar events have happened in the past. Last year Beijing orchestrated a boycott against South Korea due to Seoul's decision to allow the installation of an American anti-missile system.

However, Hans Hendrischke, a professor of Chinese business at the University of Sydney, said the trade relationship was reciprocal.

"The problem with this scenario is that any unilateral reduction of trade links between China and Australia would cause immediate economic harm for no as of yet evident political benefit," he said, adding both sides provide goods and services the other does not have.

Minister for Trade Tourism and Investment Simon Birmingham told the ABC Australia would continue to support the multilateral trading system, and it was "opening new doors" for Australian businesses through trade deals with Indonesia, Hong Kong, and the European Union.

"We have strong trade and investment ties with China, the United States, and many other countries," he said in a statement.

"I continue to urge all parties to respect the long established rules of international trade and to avoid action that could ultimately damage their economies and those of other nations."

Domestic politics 'a cause for concern'

In another key finding, the report says while the Australian economy "is without equal in the rich world … its [domestic] politics are a cause for concern".

But the infighting within Australian political parties has impacted businesses to the point of being a cause for concern not only for the economy, but also for diplomatic relations.

The report says Australia's recent fast turnover of prime ministers has created feelings of disillusionment towards future policies.

"That is especially alarming because the trend of rising incomes which marks Australia out from the rest of the rich world is running out of steam, and the consensus around policies that underpinned it, such as openness to immigration, is eroding," the report says.

If politicians do not sort themselves out, the report adds, Australia risks becoming as troubled as everywhere else.

"I'm surprised by how few Australians seem to realise how much their country stands out, not just in terms of how long it has gone without a recession, but also in terms of income growth, immigration and economic reform," McBride said.

"It's an amazing record, and one that is important not to jeopardise."

SOURCE 







'Knuckle-dragging philistines': Labor targets Liberals for blocking arts grants

So we have a Leftist party wanting to transfer taxpayers' money to middle-class ivory-tower types.  That leaves the conservatives as defenders of the workers' money.  Something wrong there?

My own first degree was an Arts degree but I think the argument in favour of Humanities involvement is greatly over-egged.  I am not sure that any arts and humanities courses should be publicly funded.  There is very little evidence that they do any good.  All we get are high flown assertions to that effect

I myself greatly enjoyed my studies of Homer, Thucydides, Chaucer, Tennyson, Wordsworth, Hopkins, Goethe, Wittgenstein, Schubert, Bach and Beethoven etc. and still do -- but I can't see that I needed to go to university to acquire that familiarity


Labor has accused former education minister Simon Birmingham of pandering to “knuckle-dragging rightwing philistines” by blocking 11 Australian Research Council grants in the humanities totalling $4m.

Senate estimates hearings on Thursday revealed that Birmingham blocked $1.4m of discovery grants for topics including a history of men’s dress from 1870-1970, “beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China’s gender norms” and “post orientalist arts in the Strait of Gibraltar”.

Birmingham, now trade minister, also blocked $1m of early career awards announced in November 2017 including a $330,000 grant for research into legal secularism in Australia and $336,000 for a project titled “Soviet cinema in Hollywood before the blacklist”.

Two further grants announced in June 2018 were also blocked: “The music of nature and the nature of music” ($765,000) and “writing the struggle for Sioux and US modernity” ($926,372).

The grant projects were proposed by researchers at universities including the Australian Catholic University, the Australian National University as well as Sydney, Melbourne, New South Wales and Monash universities. All grants were independently approved by the ARC.

Labor’s innovation spokesman, Kim Carr, accused Birmingham of judging research on its title and targeting the humanities because no research in other disciplines such as science were blocked.  "He’s pandering to rightwing extremism in an attempt to peddle ignorance,” Carr told Guardian Australia. “There is no case for this blatant political interference to appease the most reactionary elements of the Liberal and National party and the shock-jocks.

“These are grants in arts, culture, music and history which somehow or other in his mind are not acceptable … what is his research expertise to justify interventions of that type?”

Carr said that when the former education minister Brendan Nelson vetoed humanities grants in 2004-05 there was “outcry from the Australian research community”.

When in government Labor instituted a protocol that blocking research required a special declaration so the decision was public, which Carr said the Coalition had rescinded.

Birmingham responded on Twitter: “I‘m pretty sure most Australian taxpayers preferred their funding to be used for research other than spending $223,000 on projects like ‘Post orientalist arts of the Strait of Gibraltar

In a statement the Australian Academy of the Humanities expressed “shock and anger” that the minister intervened and called for the $4m of funding to be restored.

The academy president, Joy Damousi, said Australia’s research funding system “is highly respected around the world for its rigour and integrity”. “Political interference of this kind undermines confidence and trust in that system,” Damousi said.  “The rigour of that system and the competition for funding means that only exceptional applications make it through the process.

“A panel of experts have judged these projects to be outstanding, yet that decision has apparently been rejected out of hand by the former minister.”

SOURCE 






Australia: King coal surges 60pc as ministers agree to work on reliable power

Coal has emerged as the nation’s most valuable resource commodity — increasing in value by almost 60 per cent over the past five years — as states and territories agree to a December timeline for a deal to make electricity supply more reliable.

Following a meeting with his state and territory counterparts yesterday, federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor said progress had been made on a key element of the now-scrapped national energy guarantee, the “reliability obligation”. The obligation, to be implemented by mid-2019, would help to shore up stability of the ­energy system by requiring retailers to contract ahead to guarantee supply during forecast shortfalls.

State and territory energy ministers used the Council of Australian Governments’ Energy Council meeting in Sydney to agree to consider a draft bill in ­December establishing the new obligation amid concern about the security of supply over summer. “The reliability obligation is absolutely crucial,” Mr Taylor said. “We know this summer we’re facing some real challenges.”

Australian Energy Market Operator chief executive Audrey Zibelman briefed the ministers on preparations to buttress the security of supply in the national electricity market over the Christmas holiday period. AEMO warns of the need for “additional measures” to guarantee greater reliability.

Its warning coincided with the release of a new data series from the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday showing that coal mined in Australia in 2017-18 was valued at $65.6 billion, up from $41.4bn in 2013. “This is the first time that statistics for output (by commodity) and intermediate use of inputs have been published for the mining industry,” the ABS said.

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Ian Macfarlane said the data showed the mining industry added 8.8 per cent of the value of the Australian economy in the past financial year compared with 4.7 per cent in 1994-95.

“In 1994-95, Australian coal production was worth $8.8bn, compared with an incredible $65.6bn in June this year,” he said.

Gas production also increased dramatically over the past five years, rising from $22bn in 2013 to $46.5bn in 2018. In 1994-95, gas production was worth $2.6bn.

Resources Minister Matt Canavan seized on the results, saying it was “another reminder that Australia’s mining industry remains crucial to our nation’s wealth”.

“Fossil fuel exports from ­Australia are helping our economy maintain positive growth and get the budget back into surplus,” he said. “Just in the past two years, coal and gas exports have surged by $50bn — that’s equal to our ­entire exports of agriculture.”

The growth coincides with a debate over a new government plan to shortlist a “pipeline” of ­potential baseload power generation projects, including new clean coal stations, by early next year. The projects would be eligible for government assistance under a scheme being designed. Mr Taylor has signalled the government could potentially indemnify a new coal project against the risk of a ­future carbon price.

A government plan to establish a “default market offer” against which energy retailers would set their prices was also discussed at the Energy Council meeting. The ministers agreed on the “need to develop a reference point/comparison rate against which all ­offers could be measured”, for consideration in December.

SOURCE 






Challenging the Campus Rape Narrative in Australia

written by Bettina Arndt

What do senior university administrators chat about when they attend overseas conferences with others of their kind? Surely when vice-chancellors hobnob with American college presidents the conversation must sometimes stray to their troubles—particularly the costly business of managing the so-called “campus rape crisis.”

So how come these smart leaders from the Australian higher education sector haven’t twigged to the dangers ahead? Ripples from the fallout of the campus rape frenzy on American college campuses have travelled across the world. Back in the 1990s, there were campus protests with furious young women brandishing placards claiming one in four students are raped. The alarmist 2015 propaganda movie The Hunting Ground was screened across the country, showing serial rapists preying on college women. By 2011, the activists had achieved their main goal, with Obama requiring all publicly-funded universities to set up tribunals for determining sexual assault cases.

So American universities got into the criminal investigation business, with lower standards of proof greatly increasing the chances of conviction in date rape cases. Such cases remain a stumbling block in the highly successful and much needed feminist push for justice for rape victims. Rape allegations are now treated far more seriously, convictions are more common and attract far higher penalties. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, in my own state of New South Wales, numbers of sexual assault convictions have almost doubled since 1995, and over 50 percent of such convictions receive prison sentences compared to about 10 percent of other crimes.1

But in he-said, she-said cases, often involving intoxicated youngsters, juries are notoriously reluctant to send young men to jail, particularly when they don’t know who to believe. The American college tribunal system lowered the bar, requiring lower standards of proof, with the accused not protected by lawyers, often denied full access to allegations, and lacking other legal rights available under criminal law. It’s led to a steady stream of young men (and occasionally women) being suspended from college, their lives derailed by this “victim-centred justice.”

That’s proved a mighty costly exercise for the American university system, particularly with a number of these accused young men and their families winning legal cases and receiving substantial payouts from colleges that failed to protect due process rights. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against universities alleging such violations. In most cases, judges have ruled in favor of the accused student and there has been increasing public disquiet about the unfairness of these kangaroo courts. In a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University, a US district court judge wrote:

If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favour a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.

All of this has played out publicly on the world stage. Yet, despite all the warnings, Australian universities are cheerfully bounding down the same road. What is quite astonishing is that here they are doing in the face of solid evidence that the campus rape crisis simply doesn’t exist.

In August 2017, the Australian Human Rights Commission released the results of a million-dollar survey into sexual assault and harassment on university campuses, following years of lobbying by local activists. Designed to provide proof of the rape crisis, it proved to be a total fizzer. Only 0.8 percent per year of the 30,000 surveyed reported any sexual assault, even using the broadest possible definition including “tricked into sex against your will” and sexual contact with a stranger on the bus or train trip to university. In response, the activists immediately shifted ground, issuing alarmist warnings about high levels of sexual violence which was actually low grade harassment, including staring, sexual jokes or comments.

The results were in, but I was the only journalist writing in mainstream media that day to celebrate our safe campuses. My news story included data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics showing campuses are about 100 times safer than the rest of the community for young women.2

Across the country, vice-chancellors kowtowed to the feminist activists with endless displays of virtue-signalling, promising to tackle the sexual violence with 24-hour help lines, sexual assault and harassment units, and sexual consent courses. I wrote to all our major universities posing a series of questions about why our cash-strapped universities are choosing to lie about the safety of our campuses, and risking scaring off Asian families from sending their daughters to study in this country. The result was endless weasel words from University media units—not one acknowledged that the whole thing is a farce.

The emperor has no clothes. This was the image that inspired me. Our pompous vice-chancellors parading before us, totally naked, whilst the entire university sector, including eminent social scientists, cowered in silence, denying the solid research evidence of safe campuses. That is what led me to embark on a campus tour, seeking out student groups to invite me onto campuses where I could discuss the illusory rape crisis and the related push for university involvement in adjudicating sexual assault. My background as one of Australia’s first sex therapists with a long history of writing about gender issues made this process easier.

The results have been pretty much as expected. My first talk, scheduled for August at La Trobe University in Melbourne, was suddenly cancelled when university administrators claimed it didn’t align with the values of the University. Following media pressure, the university backed down—but only after a conversation with one of the administrators who suggested they may need to offer counselling to students attending the talk. The event went ahead, despite protest demonstrations and a very noisy crowd of protesters bashing on the doors to the venue, shouting into megaphones and doing their best to drown out our discussion.

At Sydney University, the protests were far more alarming. Here, the University insisted on charging the student club hosting the event a security fee of nearly $500 for guards who had no authority to remove the aggressive mob of abusive protesters who blocked the corridor leading to the venue, preventing my audience from accessing the room and roughing up anyone who tried to get through. The escalating violence and abuse led the guards to call in the riot squad, who removed the protesters, allowing the event to proceed.

I’ve asked the university to take action against named key protesters for breaches to the University’s code of conduct and bullying/harassment regulations. An investigation is currently underway. Yet it seems unlikely that the University will act. Last year, the University’s own workplace disputes consultants recommended the key organiser of my protest should receive a suspension for misconduct because she had subjected an anti-abortion group on campus to all manner of abuse, including exposing her breasts to them. Yet still the University failed to follow through. Charges were dropped, without any explanation.

We are taking further action following up on the vice-chancellor’s decision not to fully refund the security fee. (Some was returned due to an administrative error leading to overcharging.) Vice-chancellor Michael Spence declared the guards had fulfilled their protocols, despite the riot squad being required for the talk to proceed. Sydney University has long been allowing a heckler’s veto to flourish on campus, whereby conservative student groups are charged prohibitively high security fees to protect them from violent radical protesters.

The whole fracas has proved quite a tipping point for community frustration over the failure of universities to protect free speech. All manner of eminent people spoke out, including former High Court chief justice Robert French, who warned that universities were risking their reputations by restricting speech on campus. They should “maintain a robust culture of open speech and discussion even though it may involve people hearing views that they find offensive or hurtful,” he suggested. The newly appointed Federal Education Minister has been raising the issue with vice-chancellors, Senators are grilling bureaucrats in parliamentary committees, and there’s been much public discussion about the need for our universities to sign up to a Chicago charter.

The free speech debate is encouraging but it’s not my main game—which is exposing the false campus rape narrative and the related push towards university-based justice for sex crimes. It is proving mighty difficult to break the stranglehold of the activists silencing my attempts to call attention to this dangerous trend. Just this week, the student group hosting my next talk told me we couldn’t mention a “rape” crisis in a poster because it might trigger rape victims during their current exams.

Meanwhile, Australian universities are already caving to pressure to get involved in sexual abuse investigations. Last year, I spent eight months helping a PhD student at Adelaide University ward off a university committee which was investigating a sexual assault allegation from another student. I found a criminal barrister set to give him pro bono advice, and eventually the university dropped the charges but only after a long and stressful battle. That committee had the power to withhold the young man’s PhD unless he cooperated.

Across Australia, universities are introducing regulations to support such investigations, whereby the lower standard of “balance of probabilities” will be used to decide sexual assault matters. At UTS in Sydney, the committee investigating sexual assault includes students amongst its members.

How is it possible that all this is happening just when the Trump administration has announced changes to the tribunal system to wind back victim-centred justice and protect due process rights for the accused? Earlier this year, over 150 American criminal lawyers, law professors and scholars signed an open letter denouncing the victim-centred investigative practises which flourished under the Obama system:

By their very name, their ideology, and the methods they foster, ‘believe the victim’ concepts presume the guilt of an accused. This is the antithesis of the most rudimentary notions of justice. In directing investigators to corroborate allegations, ignore reporting inconsistencies, and undermine defenses, the ‘believe the victim’ movement threatens to subvert constitutionally-rooted due process protections.

Last year, a series of UK rape cases collapsed following revelations of deliberate withholding of key evidence by prosecutors and police, part of the same victim-centred justice. In the ensuring scandal which followed, the former Director of Public Prosecutions stepped down and it was decided that key rape and serious sexual assault cases should be reviewed. The Metropolitan Police have now announced that they are ditching their previous practice of “believing all victims.”

The evidence is there for all to see. Our Australian universities are on a hiding to nothing by surrendering to the bullying tactics of a small group of feminist activists and agreeing to get involved in the criminal justice business. The sensible majority need to speak up and give them the courage to withstand this dangerous nonsense.

SOURCE 

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

The Morrison government gets realistic on the drivers of electricity costs and is told about "The ‘hoax’ Australians have been sold on electricity

A comprehensive investigation of the drivers of electricity costs reveals that Greenie costs are not the only driver pushing costs upward.  Electricity firms are also making a motza. So PM Morrison takes modest measures to rein in those profits.  So the Left praise him for that?  Leftists don't like big business. 

But, no, Morrison is "hypocritical" for doing that.  He said that enironmental costs were a big driver of costs so he should stick to that only apparently. He is not allowed to look at more than one cost driver at a time, apparently.  He'll get no logic or reason from Leftists, just hate. I suppose in the simplistic Leftist mind, things CAN have only one cause


WHEN the Abbott Government first romped to victory in 2013 on its promise to axe the carbon tax, it was to address one key issue — the rising cost of electricity.

Addressing climate change was costing too much, Australia’s future prime minister Tony Abbott argued, and was impacting people’s power bills.

Five years later and despite dumping the so-called tax, people’s power bills have still skyrocketed but it’s not for the reason they think.

As ABC finance analyst Alan Kohler highlighted in a series of graphs, electricity prices have jumped by 55 per cent since 2007.

The reason? While climate change policies have played a part, they were not the biggest factor and an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) report released in July gave an interesting insight into why prices had risen.

Mainly it’s because of network costs (which added 4 cents per kilowatt hour), the cost of wholesale electricity (2.8 cents), environmental costs (1.6 cents), retail margin (1.4 cents) and retail costs (0.8 cents).

Most of these terms mean nothing to average consumers. To simplify it, the climate change impact can be attributed partly to the lack of a good policy, which means there has not been an “orderly” transition to cleaner energy sources.

Big coal-fired power stations like Northern and Hazelwood have closed without much notice, making it difficult for the market to find alternatives. The closures have also driven up wholesale prices partly because there is less supply and competition. Gas prices also jumped up after the resource started being exported and this has also contributed to higher prices in Australia.

Meanwhile, there’s little incentive for companies to invest in new sources of electricity when the closures mean they can instead charge more for the energy they are already generating.

The ACCC also found “network costs” had driven up prices the most. In particular, in NSW, Queensland and Tasmania, there has been over-investment in networks, the so-called “poles and wires”.

But one of these figures have escaped much of the scrutiny applied to the others: retail margins.

For those not familiar with the jargon — this is the profit that electricity companies make. And this has grown by 1.4 per cent.

As Mr Kohler noted, selling electricity has become so profitable in Australia, retail margins are now the highest in the world.

The government focus has now turned to cracking down on retailers for confusing customers, price gouging and unfair late payment fees.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced measures to bring down prices, including that it ask the Australian Energy Regulator to put in place a “price safety net”, which is essentially an electricity price cap, something Australia used to have and then got rid of in 2007.

While the crackdown on retailers is in line with ACCC findings, some have noticed the government’s approach now appears to fly in the face of its previous scaremongering.

The new Morrison Government is trying to break the link between carbon emissions reduction and rising power prices, saying it will “comfortably” meet Australia’s Paris agreement targets while at the same time lowering prices.

It’s something that 7.30 host Leigh Sales questioned Energy Minister Angus Taylor about last night and the lack of response was telling.

“This government suggests that emissions reduction, carbon emissions reduction, and power prices are not linked,” Sales said. “If that is true, then you are admitting that your entire anti-carbon tax platform was a hoax because your opposition to it was based on it driving up power prices?”

One of the first things Mr Morrison did when he took over the prime ministership was get rid of the proposed National Energy Guarantee (NEG), which was aimed at reducing electricity prices, providing more stability in the system but also legislating an emissions reduction of 26 per cent over the next 10 years.

Now it looks like Australia won’t have a climate policy and may have to rely on the government topping up the Emissions Reduction Fund, which Mr Abbott introduced to pay businesses, community organisations, local councils or others to reduce their carbon emissions.

The Morrison Government has also left the door open to support new coal-fired power stations and may even protect these investments against the future climate change action.

Mr Taylor told The Guardian the government would look at absorbing the risks for companies, which had found it hard to get finance because they were unable to predict future carbon action, particularly because Australia has not been able to agree to a bipartisan policy.

Asked whether he acknowledged that would expose taxpayers to risk, Taylor said: “We’ll look at the risks and we’ll seek to minimise the risks to the commonwealth”.

SOURCE 





Vice co-founder and leader of 'new right' men's group Proud Boys to bring his 'western chauvinist' views Down Under

I have been watching McInnes since even before he grew a beard.  He is primarily a talented comedian but he turns his comedic gift on Leftist pomposity and stupidity.  And they give him a wealth of material for that

The founder of far-right conservative men's activist group 'Proud Boys' is set to tour Australia next month.

Comedian and co-founder of VICE magazine turned right wing commentator Gavin McInnes, 48, will tour the nation from November 2 to 11.

Mr McInnes, who describes himself as a 'western chauvinist libertarian' has been labelled by critics as sexist, racist and as a white supremacist.

He is the latest far-righter to be promoted by pornographer Damien Costas and will travel to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide for speaking events.    

Mr Costas was responsible for the tours of US right-winger Milo Yiannopoulos last year and former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage earlier this year.

According to the promoters, Mr McInnes is 'known for his raucous and irreverent take on the world and controversial, no-holds-barred opinions'.

The 48-year-old shot to fame in the early nineties as a co-founder of VICE, but after leaving the magazine, he became more well-known for his political commentary.

He frequently appeared on Fox News and TheBlaze - an American conservative news network - and is a former contributor to Canadian right-wing channel Rebel Media.

'Funny as he is controversial, he's famous for his use of humour and satire to lampoon the excesses of political correctness,' the promoter's website states.

Mr McInnes has referred to himself as a 'western chauvinist' and started the men's club 'Proud Boys' who swear their allegiance to this cause, news.com.au reported.

According to their website, The Proud Boys' values centre on minimal government, maximum freedom, anti-political correctness, anti-drug war, closed borders, ant-racial guilt, anti-racism, pro-free speech, and pro-gun rights to name a few. 

The Proud Boys' passionate views have even seen some of its members get caught up in street violent brawls with left-wing Antifa activists, news.com.au reported.

In August, Mr McInnes and his club were banned from Twitter for being 'violent extremists' ahead of the 'Unite the Right' neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville in the US.

While McInnes has denied support of the rally and its organiser Jason Kessler, he previously said Mr Kessler was thrown out of the Proud Boys for his 'racist views'.

Mr Costas said any allegations that Mr Mcinnes was a 'white supremacist' were 'nonsense', news.com.au previously reported.

'These people are not white supremacists, they're western supremacists, they believe in the great values that built the western world,' Mr Costas said.

'Free speech is the cornerstone of western civilisation.'

Mr Costas said words such as 'Nazi' and 'fascist' were often misappropriated and reappropriated by some members of the public to shut down debate.

He said while it's far easier to shut down debate than argue it out, free speech is a minority group's 'greatest ally' against oppression.

'Handing over free speech to the state to determine what's offensive and what's not, or to the left in general, is the biggest slippery slope we could ever hope to go down,' Mr Costas said.

Mr Costas is currently dealing with the financial fallout from his previous tours with Sydney publicist Max Markson, The Australian Reported. 

SOURCE 






University will offer paid leave for transgender staff undergoing reassignment surgery

How is it part of an educational role tosupport mental illness?  Gender dysphoria is a mental illness if ever there was one.  And those who "transition" are rarely happy.  There is a high suicide rate among them. 

I doubt that this policy will be good for the reputation of the university.  Among normal people it could well become known as "the poofter university".  But only in private, of course. There is no free speech in what words you use in public for homosexuals

Aussies at a major university will get paid while undergoing gender reassignment surgery in an Australian first initiative.

The staff of Deakin University will be given just as many days of paid leave to change their gender as they would if their partner has a baby.

Aspiring to be the leading LGBTIQ+ inclusive educator and employer, Deakin is allowing the leave to be used at the staff members discretion.

Deakin University adopts the best practices for diversity and inclusion strategies for LGBTIQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer plus) students and staff.

The 4,700 employees of the Victorian university will learn of the new entitlements on Tuesday.

Chief operating officer Kean Selway told the Geelong Advertiser: 'Under Deakin's existing leave provisions, all staff experiencing exceptionally difficult personal circumstances can, with the support of management, apply for 'special leave' directly to the Vice-Chancellor.'

Deakin launched its LGBTIQ+ 2017-2020 Plan in 2017 and has already started rolling out initiatives to support the inclusion and well being of it's LGBTIQ+ community members.

'The paid leave is backed by a new gender transition policy which provides security and clarity around the process for Deakin staff who are undergoing a gender transition,' Mr Selway said.

'Fostering a genuinely inclusive environment affords all our staff and students a sense of belonging and an equal chance of success whether it be through study or work.'

According to the institute's gender transition procedure, effective from October 19 2018, Deakin will also offer students wishing to undergo sex transition surgery a gender transition plan.

Transitioning students will be given communication assistance, alternative assessment arrangements, longer library loan periods and off-campus library services.

SOURCE 





Tasmania on verge of removing gender from birth certificates

Tasmania is set to become the first state to remove the sex of a child from birth certificates, in a major win for transgender people that has been attacked by critics as “abolishing gender”.

A vote is expected in Tasmania’s lower house next month, as amendments to a bill ending the need for trans people to divorce before they can change their gender on official documents.

While the bill’s central aim has tripartite support, the Liberal government, Christian groups and feminists fear it has been “hijacked” by the transgender lobby via a series of Labor and Greens amendments.

The Hodgman government relies on the casting vote of Liberal Speaker Sue Hickey, who was elected to the position with Greens and Labor support and votes as an independent.

Labor and the Greens both plan amendments to remove gender from birth certificates, while also backing changes to remove the need for trans people to have sex change surgery before switching gender on official documents.

Ms Hickey, a Liberal moderate, said as a matter of policy she did not declare her voting intentions until debate concluded.

She said she was broadly supportive of measures to end discrimination against trans people. “I’ll be listening to every word possible,’’ Ms Hickey said.

“I do think the world is changing and we need to be open to considering things that might discriminate or harm somebody. I’m very open.”

Transgender activist Martine Delaney said removing gender from birth certificates would be a significant win that would harm no one. “It would be the first in this country, although not the first in the world, and an excellent statement by Tasmania to say ‘We have the need to do this and we will not wait for other states to lead’,” Ms Delaney said.

“It is not doing away with gender. That information would still be recorded by the registrar and medical records in the hospital. It just simply wouldn’t be displayed on the birth certificate.”

She said removing sex from birth certificates would negate the need for transgender people to “out themselves” every time they applied for work or sought to prove their identity.

The Australian Christian Lobby said the reforms essentially abolished gender, further “homogenised humanity” and “greatly diminished” the significance of birth certificates.

ACL state director Mark Brown said the changes threatened to destroy the sanctity of women’s “safe places”, from refuges to sports teams. “If you are ­legally a transgender woman, even if you have a penis you can go wherever you want in terms of women’s safe spaces,” he said.

This concern is shared by feminist group Women Speak Tasmania. “If you have birth certificates issued with no sex marker on them, how then are ­female-only services and spaces — like girls’ schools, or the girl guides, women’s domestic violence shelters — able to maintain the female-only integrity of their service?” spokeswoman Bronwyn Williams said.

“It puts female-only organisations and services at risk of breaching anti-discrimination law if they say ‘No, you can’t become a member’.”

Greens leader Cassy O’Connor, whose child, born as a girl called Mara Lees, is now a 20-year-old man, Jasper, said the changes would end discrimin­ation and make a real difference to lives.

“The flow-on effects of being able to have your birth certificate either gender neutral or changed to your correct gender are profoundly life-changing,” Ms O’Connor said.

“At the moment in Tasmania, if Jasper wants to have his birth certificate changed he will need to have a hysterectomy, and that is cruel and unnecessary.”

SOURCE 

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