Australian Politics
Monday, June 16, 2014
Gillard’s union history is embarrassing on a global scale
“AUSTRALIANS have to worry,” said Tanya Plibersek this week, that Tony Abbott will be “embarrassing us on the world stage”.
The Oxford Dictionary says to embarrass is to “cause someone to feel awkward, self-conscious, or ashamed”. When I think about the possibility of being asked to give a summary of Australian politics “for the world stage”, here is what I am embarrassed about.
I am embarrassed that, despite her strong protestations of innocence, this week’s evidence in the royal commission directly contradicts Julia Gillard’s version of events. If investigators don’t eventually turn the torch on Gillard, well and good, but if they do, some of us will disregard fact and law and cast the matter as misogynistic persecution of an innocent woman and spread this perception across the globe. This immaturity is embarrassing.
In the conversations of some, comparisons between the incarceration of Pauline Hanson and any future prosecution of Gillard are being had now.
Commentators are already saying the royal commission into unions is just a mechanism to “get Gillard”. That we live in a country that is so willing to accept wrong-doing provided that wrongdoing is done in the course of politics embarrasses me.
I am embarrassed that the Labor Party allowed Gillard to become leader in the first place. The set of circumstances that led to her leadership were shameful. In June 2010, our prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was flicked out of his job as casually as a chess piece is taken off a board. As people abroad expressed bewilderment, asking how a prime minister can just be sacked, we Australians had no choice but to grit our teeth, duck our heads and bear it. We were powerless chumps at the mercy of the AWU faction. This was, I found, embarrassing.
I am embarrassed at how improper it was that a select bunch of union people with knowledge of damaging information on Gillard were allowed to rob our democracy, set an appalling precedent in our history and install her into the highest office in the land. When Australians awoke one morning to a new prime minister, not enough of us thought it outrageously improper that a bunch of people who might have something very big over someone might put that person into a position of power and be able to exercise control over that person, to the detriment of the country.
When a few people within the Labor party, union movement or media twigged and raised this objection, they were ignored, ridiculed or cruelly silenced. This is embarrassing.
I am embarrassed that the Labor Party thought we were all so stupid (and perhaps we are) that early last year, they were still putting Gillard up as leader for re-election into the role of prime minister even though they knew she was embroiled in an investigation by the Victorian Police Fraud Squad. The evidence of this investigation was there for all to see, but many in our media refused to cover or acknowledge it.
Indeed, some in the media spent considerable time denying the investigation was even occurring, and then when it was no longer deniable, admitted it was occurring but just wasn’t looking at the activities of Gillard.
I am embarrassed that in May last year, when a search warrant issued to Victoria Police named Gillard and authorised police to enter her former workplace to seize her employment records, somehow the general public didn’t become widely aware of it.
Gillard’s personnel files, the record of interview on her separation from Slater and Gordon and a raft of documents pertaining to her legal work for her boyfriend Bruce Wilson, the former AWU chief, were all seized. On this very day, when the implications of the warrant would have hit home, Gillard cried in parliament, and no one thought she might have been partly crying because unsavoury events long suppressed were finally being brought to light.
Finally, I am embarrassed that even after everything, when this week in a royal commission, witnesses have under oath given evidence with alarming implications for Gillard and the person being now put up as the alternative prime minister, there are still people in positions of influence, who instead of exhibiting desire to discover fact are trying desperately to avoid it.
SOURCE
Why did the ALP government give channel 7 $250 million?
A lot of criticism has been directed at the ABC and Fairfax Media and others for bias in regards to their reporting. Whether that is true or not could and should be debated but the worst of all, Channel 7 has been badly missed. Channel 7′s corrupt conduct involves hundreds of millions of dollars being stolen from the tax payer to boost the profitability and value of Channel 7.
So when you wonder why there is so much corruption and fraud and theft in government and why the media like Channel 7 fail to report a lot of it, why we have to now work to 70, why we have to pay for doctors and why pensioners have to tighten their belt etc.? One reason is to keep the likes of Channel 7 filthy rich.
Last year I wrote:
2010 Election Year Media Bribe
In February 2010 the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy announced a temporary reduction in “licence fees networks pay by 33 per cent this year and 50 per cent in 2011″.
“The issue has begun to gain traction in the electorate, as Senator Conroy has declined to discuss how his department came up with the formula that will generate at least $250m for the networks at the expense of taxpayers, and amid ongoing revelations about his private meetings with Seven Network executive chairman Kerry Stokes.”
Only a month before this was announced in 2010 Stephen Conroy met Kerry Stokes at Beaver Creek Ski Resort in Colorado USA for a meeting and a few ski runs, as you do when on holidays. Also “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a previous recipient of Mr Stokes’s hospitality, staying in Mr Stokes’s mansion in Broome, WA, last year“.
Eventually the reduction was made permanent and in 2013 the license fees were decreased by another 50%.
“The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013 halves the annual license fee for commercial TV networks, making it a maximum of 4.5 per cent of gross earnings.”
“It passed the lower house unanimously.”
So the real reduction (money taken from tax payers) is probably valued at around $400 to $500 million. I know some educated guesses have it at $600 to $700 million.
I wrote at the time:
“It is not just Kerry Stokes who benefits from the reduction in licence fees, Channel 10 and Channel 9 do as well. But the reduction seems to have been driven by Mr Stokes in 2010 at least and most likely again now. If the government are trying to buy better election coverage, Mr Stokes and Channel 7 would be the target as they are unlikely to get better election coverage from Channel 10 with Gina Rinehart on the board. Ms Rinehart is well-known to dislike the Labor Government and apparently helped Andrew Bolt get his own show on Channel 10 which seems to spend most of its time attacking the Labor Government. Channel Nine did the infamous Mark Latham report on Sixty Minutes before the 2010 election which embarrassed the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, so one can hardly say they took a bribe then, although they now have new owners who might be swayed.” (Click here to read more)
Channel 7 and the AWU fraud cover-up
A prime example of Channel 7 taking a bribe for better coverage for the Labor Party is the AWU fraud which Channel 7 has been extremely quiet on overall. In fact Channel 7 used its current affair program to attack Ralph Blewitt who is one of the key witnesses against Julia Gillard. That would be ok if they had also reported in a balanced way the evidence against Julia Gillard but they did no do that. It was almost like they were on the Labor Party payroll which given the reduction in TV fees they were on Labor’s payroll. Or as Abbott said they had taken “an election year bribe”. Channel 7 in effect tried to help the Labor Party cover-up the AWU fraud.
It is time for Channel 7 to pay their share
Channel 10 is almost bankrupt and Channel 9 are newly listed on the stock market and I do not know if they make a profit. But I believe Channel 7 do make a profit and could and should pay their share of taxes.
Everyone knows that large foreign companies pay very little tax in Australia and the government are planning on doing something in the near future to rectify it. Prime Minister Tony Abbott was reported on Wednesday while in the US as saying:
“Prime Minister Tony Abbott has given the US notice that he is serious about leading global efforts through the Group of 20 to stop tax evasion through profit shifting by multinationals, which would include some of America’s biggest companies.”
“Mr Abbott said international tax rules should be structured to capture income where it is generated – an indirect swipe at Apple, Google and other big companies that license intellectual property to their own subsidiaries to enable them to shift profits to countries with lower taxes.”
Here we are whingeing about foreign companies not paying their fare share of taxes yet the government turns a blind eye to Australian companies such as Channel 7 not paying their fare share. The television fees are a tax and should be increased to where they were previously and then some to make up for the billions of dollars that tax payers have lost since 2010.
I personally do not want to work to 70 just so I can help filthy rich people stay filthy rich. This is an issue that needs driving and I will be doing that.
SOURCE
Be careful what you wish for: bans and censorship tend to bite the hand that voted for them
Freedom is a bit like one of those pesky irregular verbs. I deserve liberty; you deserve a balance of rights and responsibilities; that bloke ought to be locked up. I am a rational autonomous adult; you are subject to external influence; that bloke doesn’t know what’s good for him.
When we seek to ban things, this problem arises acutely. I know when I’ve had enough to drink; you should probably slow down; that bloke can’t be served a neat spirit after midnight, drink from glass, have full strength beer at the footy or buy a round for his mates.
When bans are proposed, be they on pornography, swearing, drug use or the characterisation of certain kinds of people based on race, it’s easy to kid ourselves that any rules we make are for that third group of people. These are not people we usually know by name, they are the abstract theoretical people whom we imagine really do need to be told how to behave. Bans tend to bite the hand that voted for them.
In 1955 the NSW, South Australian and Victorian governments took action to ban comic books, generally blamed for corrupting the morals of the young. Publications were deemed obscene if they “unduly emphasised matters of sex, crimes of violence, gross cruelty or horror”.
Edward Massey, a director of the Institute of Political Science, wrote at the time that these conditions would exclude half the works of Shakespeare.
He further noted there was, “as far as I am aware, no evidence that the reading of books has ever led anyone into a life of crime”.
Few books are censored now and the censoring of literature is properly regarded as philistine. But culture more broadly is still censored and there is still a worthy fight to be had defending artists from the gag.
Earlier this year, ArtsHub reported that a line from Jonathan Biggins’ new play had been cut following complaints on opening night. Reports don’t specify the offensive content but indicate it was a joke whose punch line was “Campbell Newman”.
Whatever one thinks of Newman, the restriction of Biggins’ imaginary citizen’s freedom to say what he pleased about the Queensland Premier should have been anathema to any political descendant of Mill, Locke or Milton.
In the visual arts, leading artists Paul Yore and Bill Henson have been subjected to charges for works depicting children in ways deemed pornographic by police. In both cases, while you might argue for an eternity about the worth of the art, this stretched credulity and in neither case were any children exploited.
The impact of the Henson case was such that in 2011, a work by Archibald Prize winner Del Katherine Barton which depicted a shirtless boy was subject to a similar complaint that saw a $200,000 charity auction cancelled.
In the world of television, comedian Dan Ilic’s commercial for Dick Smith, featuring the cheekily laboured innuendo “I like Dick” was refused broadcast. “Apparently” said Smith, “you can’t have lovely old ladies saying ‘dick’. I’m angry. I don’t like this being censored when it’s just good fun.”
Good fun also leads to trouble on radio where the biggest category of complaints is bad language, which has made airplay especially difficult for hip hop, an important cultural outlet for young people. And heaven help the kids who sing along with a rude pop tune: Australian laws against offensive conduct generally stipulate that a person who, “sings an obscene song or ballad” near a school, “shall be guilty of an offence”.
Which also means that kids sharing the songs I learned in the schoolyard about sailors going to see, see, see and that limerick-loving man from Newcastle would all be in breach of the law. A defence can be made that the swearer had a reasonable excuse. Sadly for most school kids, the excuses don’t include making your mates laugh.
While a well-placed swear can add sizzle to a pop song, it’s half the steak for many comedians.
Black humour, bad language, and irreverence are stock in trade. Consequently offence is never far away, but if comedians worried too much about it they wouldn’t be very funny. As Ben Pjobe wrote in Meanjin last year: “Everyone has a perfect right to take offence at anything, and I’ll defend that right, but nobody has a God-given right to go through life without being offended.”
I don’t need and certainly don’t demand the freedom to be a racist. But I do want freedom of expression for a lot of people who are often deemed offensive. I struggle to see how one kind of free speech isn’t materially affected by the progress or regress of another.
SOURCE
Leftists think defamation is free speech
It never has been -- in any jurisdiction
Treasurer Joe Hockey’s decision to sue Fairfax Media for defamation over the now-notorious front-page story “Treasurer for sale” raises interesting questions about politicians suing to protect their reputation, allied with the protection of freedom of speech in Australia.
Hockey claims the newspapers in question – The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times – alleged that he accepted, or was prepared to accept, bribes; that he corruptly solicited payments in order to influence his decision; and that he corruptly sold privileged access to businesspeople and lobbyists in return for donations to the Liberal Party.
A debate is underway about the balance between freedom of speech and protection against racially offensive conduct. There similarly needs to be a debate in Australia about defamation law.
SOURCE
Leftists only call for a debate over something when their view is a minority one. Otherwise they try to shut you up
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Multiculturalist "Sam" Ibrahim jailed for making threatening phone calls to former business associate
"Sam" (Hassan) Ibrahim is a Lebanese Muslim, a very troublesome group in Sydney
Underworld figure Hassan "Sam" Ibrahim has been sentenced to at least 16 months' jail for threatening a former business partner and intimidating police.
Early last year the former Parramatta chapter president of the Nomads outlaw motorcycle gang threatened a man associated with Port Macquarie company Silver City Drilling in a number of phone calls.
It is understood Ibrahim had been involved in a business venture with the man.
NSW police arrested 48-year-old Ibrahim in March last year when he attended Castle Hill police station as part of his parole conditions.
On Friday Parramatta Local Court magistrate Georgia Knight sentenced him on two charges of using a carriage service to threaten to kill, and on one charge of intimidating police in the execution of their duty.
The total minimum sentence was 16 months and it will expire on October 12, 2015.
Two unrelated charges against Ibrahim - possessing a prohibited weapon without permit and possessing prescribed restricted substances - were adjourned for a hearing on a date to be fixed.
SOURCE
What royal commission? What union corruption? What claims against Gillard?
I thought the ABC’s astonishing reluctance to cover the allegations against Julia Gillard at yesterday’s royal commission into union corruption could not be matched.
ABC TV’s Queensland and South Australian main news bulletins at 7pm did not cover any of yesterday’s news from the commission. The flagship World Today program also ignored the commission. So did 7.30.
But today an even more startling example of don’t-mention-the-war: today’s edition of The Age, fanatically of the Left, does not have a single word about the royal commission in all its 48 pages.
No, wait: there is one exception: a page three advertisement placed by the commission itself to appeal for witnesses to give yet more evidence that The Age will deliberately bury.
In case you assume that this refusal to report just reflects an absence of any news, here is just some of what the royal commission was yesterday told - but which The Age refused to print:
JULIA Gillard was handed “a large amount of cash” to pay for renovations on her Melbourne home by her then boyfriend, union official Bruce Wilson, a builder who did the work told the royal commission yesterday.
Athol James said during evidence to the royal commission into union corruption that the future prime minister told him during renovations on her house in 1993 that payments were coming from Mr Wilson.
He also saw the Australian Workers Union official give Ms Gillard “wads of notes” on two occasions to cover cheque payments she made to him, he said.
The evidence from Mr James — during the commission’s investigation into a union slush fund set up by Mr Wilson with legal assistance from Ms Gillard that amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars — is potentially very damaging to the former Labor prime minister.
It directly contradicts her claims over the years that she paid for the renovations herself.
Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten was also dragged into the slush fund scandal yesterday when former AWU official and whistleblower Bob Kernohan claimed Mr Shorten was part of an attempted cover-up when he was an up-and-coming official with the AWU in Melbourne in 1996…
“Bill Shorten looked at me, and he said, ‘Look Bob, a lot of people are going to get hurt if this is pursued. No one wants to go any further with this. You know, Bruce Wilson and the others have gone’.
“I said, ‘Gone? Gone with a payout. With their record, they should be bloody well being investigated and locked up for this sort of conduct’.
“And Bill — this is what shocked me more than anything — Bill said, ‘Well, Bob, think of your future, you’re going into parliament shortly’. And by all reasonable chances I would have entered parliament.”..
The Labor leader, who rose to be the AWU’s national and Victorian secretary before entering parliament in 2007, denied through a spokesman in February the claim by Mr Kernohan that he told Mr Kernohan to “move on” from the slush fund issue in 1996…
Wayne Hem, a former AWU official, told the commission yesterday that he paid $5000 into Ms Gillard’s bank account on the orders of Mr Wilson in late 1995… Ms Gillard has said she had no recollection of this deposit.
UPDATE
Hedley Thomas:
These two witnesses yesterday were unhelpful for Gillard’s position that she had never benefited from Wilson’s slush fund. Thousands of dollars in cash from union figures paying off tradesmen at her house could cause the royal commission to see her role in a different light. For natural justice, and to be true to the inquiry’s terms of reference, the former PM will have to be called to respond to these allegations and others.
That would pose a dilemma for The Age. How could it refuse to report even the former Prime Minister in the dock?
This selective blindness seems to be widespread. Even though the print copy of the Couriermail has a big splash, the online version has buried the whole story.
The concerted cover up is quite extraordinary!
SOURCE
Tony Abbott lauds coal during Texas speech, says climate change shouldn’t limit use of fossil fuels
TONY Abbott has visited the energy capital of the USA to insist he does not want the battle against climate change to limit the use of any type of fuel.
Promoting his plan to scrap the carbon tax in front of an audience of energy executives in Houston, Texas, Mr Abbott said he wanted Australia to become a centre of cheap energy.
While he said Australia should look towards new energy sources, he said we should also focus on cheap and reliable energy.
“Affordable, reliable energy fuels enterprise and drives employment,” Mr Abbott said.
“It is the engine of economic development and wealth creation.”
“Australia should be an affordable energy superpower, using nature’s gifts to the benefit of our own people and the wider world.”
The PM defended Australia’s existing energy exports and said we have a long term future exporting black coal, LNG and uranium.
“It is prudent to do what we reasonably can to reduce carbon emissions,” he said.
“But we don’t believe in ostracising any particular fuel and we don’t believe in harming “economic growth.”
“For many decades at least coal will continue to fuel human progress as an affordable, dependable energy source for wealthy and developing countries alike.”
The speech came after Mr Abbott met US President Barack Obama and agreed to disagree on the best way to tackle climate change.
Mr Obama wants a global carbon price while Mr Abbott wants to replace Australia’s carbon tax with a $2.5 billion “direct action” plan that includes paying companies to cut emissions.
Declaring he wanted closer ties with the largest city in Texas, Mr Abbott announced he would appoint an Australian consulate-general to the boom town.
After receiving a gift of Stetson cowboy hat, Mr Abbott let the audience know he felt like an honorary Texan, saying “yee ha”.
Houston is home to more than 100 Australian companies, including BHP Billiton, Woodside, Santos, WorleyParsons, Macquarie Group, Pryme Oil and Gas, Lend Lease and Brambles.
Houston is the largest city in Texas, which has an economy the size of the 13th largest country in the world.
Mr Abbott said the consulate-general Houston would allow Australia to “maximise the two-way trade and investment opportunities of the US energy revolution”.
Mr Abbott will today meet with a business delegations before visiting the Texas Medical Centre — the largest of its kind in the world — to promote his plan for a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund.
SOURCE
Public school exodus starts as early as year 2
Australian parents are keen to escape the disrupted classes that are a frequent feature of State schools
The stampede from public primary schools to private high schools when a child finishes year 6 is a tradition in parts of Sydney, but principals say the exodus now starts as early as year 2 as parents panic they will miss out on their school of choice.
Census data shows that in some of Sydney's most affluent suburbs, especially the eastern suburbs, as few as 20 per cent of students stay in the public system for high school despite booming enrolments in public primary schools.
The president of the NSW Primary Principals' Association, Geoff Scott, said the exodus from public to private schools had traditionally started in year 5 but principals were reporting it now began as early as year 2.
"It's getting younger and younger and we have parents telling our principals, 'Sorry, we love your school but if we want to get our child into a certain independent school we have been told we have to enrol them in year 3,' " Mr Scott said.
"Parents feel, wrongly we believe, that their children will have a better chance if they go to a non-government school, but this is not based on better teachers or a different curriculum because we know parents are very happy with their local government primary school."
The principal of Waverley Public, Glenn Levett, raised the issue of the exodus in a note to parents on the school's website, where he urged them not to judge the school on NAPLAN results alone, especially because so many students leave the public system before the end of primary school.
"Our year 5 group often becomes a small cohort of students as a number of students move on to opportunity classes or private schools at the end of year 4," the school’s website says. "This is common practice in the eastern suburbs as a majority of students in the area attend private high schools."
Nikki Shepherd, who has twin boys Sam and Alfie, and Carol Wade, who has a son Joseph, both enrolled their children in year 5 at Waverley College this year.
The boys, who were young for their year when they started kindergarten at Coogee Public School, are repeating year 5 at the Catholic college after doing year 5 at Coogee last year.
Ms Wade said she had been very happy with their local public school but felt her son would benefit from more routine and discipline by doing year 5 and 6 at Waverley College.
Both families would have also been unlikely to secure a spot for the boys for year 7 because they are not Catholic.
The acting director of Waverley College's junior school, Greg Harris, said the school had just been through one of the "most difficult" enrolment processes because of the demand for its year 5 intake.
Mr Harris said the school had "well over" 200 applications for 145 year 5 spots next year and one-third of those applicants were non-Catholic.
The trend is not unique to the eastern suburbs.
Inner west mother Elizabeth Luff sent her children to Annandale Public until year 4 but then sent them to St Andrews Cathedral School in Sydney's central business district.
Mrs Luff said she had always intended to send them to St Andrews for high school but thought starting them in year 5 would help them move to year 7 more easily.
SOURCE
Friday, June 13, 2014
ZEG
In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG sees Clive Palmer as a hot-air balloon
Exaggerated claims of racism
So who’s a racist? Not you, of course. Certainly not me. Hey, maybe none of us.
No, that’s not what people were saying this week as the sports commentator Warren Ryan quit his job over an on-air quote from Gone with the Wind that included the word ‘‘darky’’.
Here was another controversy, depressingly fresh on the heels of last year's furore over indigenous AFL player Adam Goodes being called an ape by a young spectator.
It may pay to look at the bigger picture. After all, aren’t we living in a era when evil is an outmoded concept, when there are no bad people, only bad acts? On that basis it seems counter-intuitive and frankly crazy to label people racist on the basis on one or two remarks.
Yes, of course, ‘‘the standard I walk past is the standard I accept’’, to quote another example of vogue reasoning. Sorry but I have walked past it plenty.
I walked past it when a man in Spain told me he was ‘‘working like a black’’, when an old girlfriend asked whether I still ‘‘smoke like a Turk’’ and when a fella in country NSW offered me his ultimate accolade: ‘‘Thanks mate, you’re a white man.’’
Hey, I also walked past it when people assert that Australia is a uniquely wicked racist country. Get real.
Yes, Australian country towns once banned Aborigines from swimming pools. From this came the Freedom Rides led by Charlie Perkins. And the treatment of indigenous Australians by white settlers and government authorities remains unfinished business.
But how many people alive today are honest to god racist? You know, willing to stand at the school gates like a southern US governor in the 1950s and ’60s and say non-white children will not pass? Refuse to shake the hand of a non-white person? Oddly, when Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani failed to offer his hand to European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton, there was not a glimmer of protest. (Rouhani saw fit to shake hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin).
Are white South African migrants to Australia racist? Are black Zimbabwean leaders racist for pushing whites off farms? Considering the hierarchy of oppression that is so fashionable now, are any non-white people racist at all?
Certainly it is much easier then to turn on some middle-aged white bloke for saying something, well, stupid.
For seemingly endless days in May, CNN’s television coverage was obsessed with the Donald Sterling controversy. The billionaire owner of the US basketball team the Los Angeles Clippers was rightly denounced in all quarters for moronic comments about black people. He now has to sell the franchise and will end his days as a pariah. Isn’t that enough? Not for CNN, though that network was not alone. Its anchors weighed every nuance, parsing comments by his wife that Sterling had dementia, interviewing each other endlessly.
For what? Only because there are dollars at stake did Sterling even matter. Otherwise that old man’s thoughts are irrelevant to everyone but him and the nurse with the bedpan. I’d rather ask how healthy it is for any sporting team to be owned by a single plutocrat.
My contention is that people can say racist things because they are afflicted, temporarily or permanently, with stupidity, but that doesn’t make them a racist. Why? Because I don’t believe there are that many true racists. These would be people obsessed with the supremacy of their race to the exclusion of any other topic. Sure they are out there. But their numbers are negligible. And if the best frontman they can present is still Jim Saleam, as John Safran found in Good Weekend last Saturday, they ain’t growing the brand. Pauline Hanson? Sorry. Seriously, no.
I’d wager that the overwhelming majority of us, no matter the colour, are roughly as ‘‘racist’’ as each other. In other words, not really racist at all. It’s just that we sometimes say the stupidest things.
SOURCE
Academic slams tyranny of the greens
Professor Ian Plimer has never been renowned for moderation in his opinions about the extremist elements of the green movement and in this book he launches on them in a full-blooded, broken-bottle attack.
In his own words: “What started as a laudable movement to prevent the despoilation of certain areas of natural beauty has morphed into an authoritarian, anti-progress, anti-democratic, anti-human monster.” That Plimer should attack the greens is no surprise. More impressive is the book’s foreword, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who fully supports Plimer.
He congratulates Plimer for a book that provides a “different . . . and extremely rational look at the agenda of the green movement today”. “In many respects, they have become a combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one,” Moore says.
“There is no better example of this than the fervent belief in human-caused catastrophic climate change.” Moore even rejects the core green belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful.
Plimer’s thesis is that the real agenda of green groups (often registered as charities) is nothing less than the destruction of modern civilisation and that a key aim is to kneecap the global energy industry which provides society with electricity. It has always seemed odd that greens are so hostile to a gas which is vital for the life of trees. As a trained geologist, Plimer is well aware that the planet’s climate has been changing since its birth 4½ billion years ago. “If the Earth’s climate did not constantly change, then I would be really worried,” he says.
What he contests is that manmade carbon dioxide has anything much to do with such change. It must be comforting for left-wingers to blame evil industrialists for destroying our planet, but in fact carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere and man-made carbon dioxide accounts for maybe 4 per cent of that, so Plimer regards the proposition as nonsense.
Also, carbon dioxide emissions do not accumulate quickly in the atmosphere.
After five to seven years, they are absorbed by the oceans, trees or rocks. Plimer believes that for scientists to argue that traces of a trace gas can be the driving force for climate change is fraudulent.
WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE?
Sceptical scientists do not know what causes climate change but it would seem a complex combination of factors. Plimer believes the atmosphere is merely the medium through which climate change manifests itself and the major driver is “that giant fusion reactor we call the sun”.
He says: “It is quite capable of throwing out immense clouds of hot, ionised gases many millions of kilometres into space, sometimes with drastic effects on both the Earth’s atmosphere and on spacecraft travelling outside the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s protective magnetic shield.” Plimer, who is not renowned for pulling his punches, describes green extremists as hypocritical – “a malevolent unelected group attempting to deconstruct healthy societies that have taken thousands of years to build”.
That may sound extreme, but it’s difficult to find an alternative explanation for the change they have forced upon the Drax power station in Yorkshire.
Drax used to boast it was the largest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power station in Europe, generating up to 3960 megawatts. Greens demonstrated against it, saying Drax was the largest carbon dioxide emitter in Europe. So Drax is changing from coal to biomass. Plimer says it intends to import timber from North Carolina for fuel. This is madness, both economically and ecologically. A plant which used to burn 36,000 tonnes of coal a day will instead burn 70,000 tonnes of wood.
Forests will have to be chopped down in North Carolina, which must involve some destruction of native habitats of creatures such as otters and woodpeckers. Habitat destruction kills birds and animals more surely than climate change ever will. The timber will be reduced to pellets in factories fuelled by conventional fuels, then shipped across the Atlantic in diesel-burning boats. Over the 20-year life of the power station, that would involve the destruction of 511 million tonnes of wood.
The energy density of wood is about half that of an equivalent weight of coal, so wood will produce more expensive electricity. Burning wood also releases its stored carbon dioxide.
WIND AND SOLAR POWER UNRELIABLE
The European Environment Agency has ruled that burning wood is carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide will be absorbed over time by the oceans or other trees.
That leaves the EEA in the odd position of believing that a molecule of carbon dioxide emanating from wood behaves differently to a molecule emanating from coal.
The greens, having achieved their aim, have stopped demonstrating although there is a strong argument that the conversion of Drax will make it more, not less, harmful to the planet.
Wind farms and solar power stations are unreliable and totally unable to provide base load electricity.
Plimer gives calculations which show that wind turbines are barely able to generate as much electricity in their lifetime as it takes to make them.
. Even more bizarre was the Spanish solar plant which enjoyed such large subsidies that it could make profits generating electricity at night by shining floodlights on the panels. The floodlights were powered by a diesel generator. These are only three examples of green illogic from a book crammed with them. Plimer has assembled a massive case which needs answers.
Even more bizarre was the Spanish solar plant which enjoyed such large subsidies that it could make profits generating electricity at night by shining floodlights on the panels. The floodlights were powered by a diesel generator. These are only three examples of green illogic from a book crammed with them
SOURCE
Forced redundancies for 70-plus public servants at Australian Valuation Office
More than 70 staff at the Australian Valuation Office will be made involuntarily redundant, according to Senate estimates hearings this week, sparking claims about broken promises regarding natural attrition.
The office's closure was formally announced earlier this year, bringing an end to about a century of history as the Australian government's primary source of advice and information on valuations of real property, intellectual property and non-current assets.
The office ceases to exist at the end of this financial year and the final 100 staff of the formerly 198-strong entity will leave then, or in early July, after loose ends are tied up.
More than 40 AVO staff have taken voluntary redundancies. Another 31 have expressed interest in voluntary redundancies and 10 of the original 198 AVO workforce were contractors whose contracts ended quickly after the announcement of closure. Three AVO employees have swapped redundancies with colleagues in the Australian Tax Office. One AVO staff member has died.
Fraser MP and the opposition's assistant Treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh said ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja repeatedly promised before the election the Coalition would only cut jobs from the public service through natural attrition, not through redundancies.
"We now know that, by the end of the month, dozens of AVO staff will be forced out the door," Dr Leigh said. "How can Canberrans trust anything the Liberals tell them now?"
Mr Seselja fired back by saying the closure of the AVO was a hangover from Labor's long-standing efficiency dividend.
"The former Labor government, which Andrew Leigh was part of, applied efficiency dividends to many government departments," Mr Seselja said.
"These departments in turn reduced their spending on the AVO – like the Department of Human Services, which reduced its spending by 50 per cent.
"Their work alone accounted for 80 per cent of AVO revenues. Andrew Leigh and Labor made a decision, which they did their best to hide, to cut 14,500 public service jobs and these decisions are now flowing through the bureaucracy.”
The Coalition went to the last election promising 12,000 public service job cuts through natural attrition. It has since said it has parked that policy after finding 14,500 "hidden" cuts Labor were making – a claim backed up by the finance department's David Tune but disputed by Labor. The Coalition has since committed to a reduction in the bureaucracy of 16,500.
Earlier, public servants about to be dumped from the office were gagged from venting their feelings to reporters or on social media amid the political row over the office's closure.
SOURCE
AWU official told to keep quiet by Shorten
WHEN a senior official raised concerns about a union slush fund and dodgy dealings he was told by a young Bill Shorten to think about his future, a royal commission has heard.
Robert Kernohan was in 1996 also bullied at the Australian Workers' Union, a union corruption inquiry has heard.
He was sent three bullets in the mail and bashed by at least three men when it became known he was planning to go to the police with concerns about union bank accounts and the sale of a property.
"Keep your f****** mouth shut. Stop talking to the press, you grub," the men yelled during the July 1996 beating, Mr Kernohan said in his statement to the royal commission into union corruption.
Mr Kernohan's worries began earlier in 1996 when he was served with a subpoena to attend the Federal Court in Sydney as one of 20 defendants in an action launched by the AWU.
He had accepted $6500 in a meeting that "took no more than 30 seconds" from notorious union figure Bruce Wilson, to help with AWU election costs.
Mr Kernohan said he rang Ian Cambridge, then an AWU official investigating irregularities in the union's accounts, "and told him the genesis of the $6500."
"I told him that a lot more has been going on than I have been made aware of and I'm the (AWU) president (in Victoria)," he said.
"I also told him I would be going to the police."
Mr Kernohan said his friend and campaign manager Bill Shorten had at the time told him he was "lined up to take a safe Labor seat of Melton in the Victorian parliament."
When he raised concerns about the Sydney court proceedings, Mr Shorten said "Bob, think of your future," according to Mr Kernohan.
"If you pursue this, a lot of good people will get hurt and you will be on your own."
Mr Kernohan said that was the end of his political ambitions.
"Any chance I had of entering parliament ... I knew that had evaporated the minute I walked away from Bill Shorten," he told the commission.
Outside the commission hearing on Wednesday, an angry Mr Kernohan continued to slam the AWU.
"A fraud, a cover-up, a scandalous cover-up that resulted in Nicola Roxon, Bill Shorten, Stephen Conroy ending up in the Gillard cabinet," he told reporters.
"People have got to ask themselves would that cabinet have been constructed the way it was had this been properly investigated all those years ago and, more importantly would Julia Gillard have become prime minister?"
Mr Kernohan said Mr Shorten, who has said police and not a royal commission were the best way to investigate union fraud, would never be prime minister.
"Once this matter is properly investigated and recommendations are handed down by this royal commission Bill Shorten will be exposed for what he is, just another key player in the cover-up over all these years."
Mr Kernohan said current AWU secretary Bill Ludwig was the "most powerful ALP figure in this country".
"It was Bill Ludwig who installed Julia Gillard into the prime ministership of this country. Bill Ludwig knew full well about the scandal ... and for that he should be condemned," he said.
Mr Kernohan said there were "two frauds perpetrated." "The first was on the Australian Workers' Union and its members. "The second was on the Australian people."
SOURCE
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Palmer puts single condition for backing carbon tax repeal
Prime Minister Tony Abbott's ''pledge in blood'' to repeal the carbon tax seems all but assured after Clive Palmer put a single condition on his party's support: that all energy savings flow back to consumers.
The government has already tasked the consumer watchdog, with ensuring that energy companies pass on the estimated 9 per cent saving on electricity bills and 7 per cent on gas bills that should result from abolition of the carbon tax.
The Abbott government has promised a $550 a year saving for each household if the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission delivers.
After a tense few weeks in which he has threatened to stymy the government's agenda, Mr Palmer released a statement outlining the price of his party's support.
"If the Palmer United Party senators are to support a repeal of the carbon tax it will be under the proviso that the savings, by law, are transferred into lower energy costs for everyday Australians,'' he said.
"Only on these terms would we support repealing the carbon tax because of the benefits it would offer the people as well as the economy through the abolition of an artificial cost on business which was hampering our international competitiveness."
Mr Palmer's statement made no mention of his previous demand that the carbon tax be repealed retrospectively. Under that scenario, the mining magnate would potentially have been let off the hook for a disputed carbon tax bill of more than $6 million.
The Coalition needs six votes of eight votes from the crossbench to pass legislation through the new Senate from July 1.
Senator-elect Ricky Muir has pledged to vote in tandem with the three members of Palmer United.
NSW senator-elect David Leyonhjelm and Family First's Bob Day are economic dries who have already pledged to back the repeal of the tax, giving the government has the numbers if Mr Palmer is good to his word and satisfied consumers will benefit to the full extent promised.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt welcomed the news saying the government was legislating to guarantee price relief.
A spokesman for Mr Hunt said: ''The independent regulatory authorities are already showing two prices for energy - one with a carbon tax and one without - we know the relief will be there. As [ACCC chairman] Rod Sims said what goes up will come down.''
Greens leader Christine Milne renewed her call for all PUP members to abstain from any vote on the carbon tax due to the potential conflict of interest posed by Mr Palmer's mining riches.
In his statement, Mr Palmer restated his party's opposition to a repeal of the mining tax unless the Abbott government backed down on plans to cut welfare payments to orphans of soldiers killed or badly injured during service.
SOURCE
Defence seeks to push Japanese submarine deal
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
Defence Minister David Johnston hopes to advance talks on buying Japanese submarine technology during a visit to Tokyo this week but strenuously denies such co-operation will anger China.
Senator Johnston told Fairfax Media by phone that discussions with his Japanese counterpart Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera will aim at deepening security ties through sharing technology and boosting joint exercises.
He stressed the closer ties were not in any way aimed at Beijing and revealed that Australia had in fact helped pave the way for China to take part - for the first time - in the large-scale "Rim of the Pacific" naval exercises, which start in just over a fortnight.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will meet with counterpart Fumio Kishida. The "2+2" talks follow Prime Minister Tony Abbott's recent successful meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe - as well as Mr Abe's significant speech 10 days ago in which he signalled a stronger security role for Japan in the region.
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia's buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
Senator Johnston said he would look to cautiously press ahead with talks over submarines.
"The Japanese are very interested in our Wedgetail (airborne radar) and . . . we're interested in some of the technology they've got round the submarine, so it cuts both ways. But there's no formal basis for that exchange and we're looking to put the nuts and bolts of that sort of formal basis together.
"I'm hoping to visit one of the Japanese submarines on Friday. It's on the cards that I'll get to have a look and I'm quite excited about it."
Experts and some Defence insiders say there are still considerable obstacles to Australia's buying Japanese submarine technology, notably Japan's post-World War II pacifist constitution and its strict limits on arms exports. But co-operation is being given impetus by Mr Abbott and Mr Abe's enthusiasm for some kind of deal.
Mr Abe has been making moves to relax arms export rules and his recent speech at the Shangri-La dialogue signalled a strong willingness to work with partner countries in the region on security - widely seen as a way of countering China's recent assertiveness in the East China Sea and South China Sea.
Senator Johnston acknowledged that Prime Minister Abe's enthusiasm could smooth the way for any deal.
"It potentially does, but of course this is a matter for the Japanese. We are very sensitive to those issues, to the constitutional disposition and the domestic political situation. So we're very respectful of that.
"We'll be guided by his enthusiasm as we go forward."
He stressed that Australia was equally looking at French and German diesel-electric submarine technology.
He also swiftly rejected any suggestion that there was a tacit move to pressure Beijing, or that Australia's talks with Japan should be negatively viewed in China.
He revealed that Australia had helped pave the way for Beijing to get involved in the RIMPAC exercises. In an historic moment, Chinese navy ships set sail for the exercises this week.
"That's a very significant event and Australia's very pleased to have played a small role in securing their attendance. We encouraged them," he said.
He added that Canberra was balancing its security ties by also engaging Beijing and said he would be visiting China later this year.
But he also said that Japan was a natural fit for Australia's security interests.
"There's a synergy of values and a synergy of interests in security and defence ties being further expanded. I think we both feel very comfortable with each other."
SOURCE
Tony Abbott considers importing US-style school program with private industry involvement
Tony Abbott is considering an unprecedented Americanisation of the school education system with radical changes that could see HECS-style fees introduced into new continuous school-and post school diplomas, and private industry playing a heavy role in course design and production.
Visiting the P-TECH school in Brooklyn on his final day in New York, the Prime Minister praised the IBM-connected Pathways in Technology Early College high school, which offers a new model of education spanning grades 9 to 14 – that is with an extra two years bolted on in which the students gain a "associate in applied science" degree.
Under the arrangement operating at the Brooklyn school, IBM guarantees graduates at least an entry-level interview, putting them at the head of the line in a competitive labour market. The company and other industry partners can also provide mentors for each student.
"I belive this is is an innovative and valuable education model for us to consider in Australia," Mr Abbott said.
"So many young people get to the end of their time at school wondering what they are going to do for the rest of their lives, what job they are going to do the day after they leave.
"On the other hand, so many people who run businesses complain they can't find people to work in their business. "These are the sorts of issues we are wrestling with in Australia.''
The P-TECH model is being rolled out across New York's five boroughs.
Under the framework in the US, the government still pays for the education but industry partners provide advice, mentoring, and support.
Mr Abbott conceded details were yet to be finalised but one option would be to charge students delayed fees for their extra education through HECS loans.
The government plans to clarify matters within months.
Mr Abbott said it was not inconsistent to be cutting money to the CSIRO while proposing to spend more money on this form of education and training.
"We can be strongly focused on science without spending more on particular institutions that are this space,' he said.
Mr Abbott arrived in Washington over night before a busy day of meetings with senior congressional leaders, including Democratic minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, Republican majority leader Eric Cantor, and Speaker John Boehner.
He will meet President Barack Obama on Thursday.
SOURCE
Bruce Wilson handed 'wad of notes' to Julia Gillard, says builder
A builder has told the royal commission into trade unions that former prime minister Julia Gillard paid for renovations at her house by personal cheque, despite allegedly receiving cash for the work from her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson.
Athol James, who completed a series of building jobs at Ms Gillard's Abbotsford house, including the installation of bi-fold doors, said she had told him Mr Wilson was paying for the work.
He told the royal commission on Wednesday that on two occasions he saw Mr Wilson "hand over a wad of notes".
In a sworn statement, Mr James said he was never paid in cash and that Ms Gillard told him that "as Bruce brought her the cash she would pay me by cheque".
"I never was paid in cash and I don't know what happened with the cash Bruce handed her," Mr James said in a sworn statement.
Wayne Hem, a former records keeper for Australian Workers Union, told the royal commission Mr Wilson gave him $5000 in cash and told him to deposit it into Ms Gillard's bank account. He said Mr Wilson gave him a Commonwealth bank account number on a piece of paper.
"I said I need the account name because they wouldn't accept it down at the bank. So it was Julia Gillard and I said OK," Mr Hem said.
Mr Hem said at the time he "did not know if the account was her private account or business account or a Slater&Gordon account".
Mr Hem said he presumed the money was for payment of work done at the Abbotsford house because renovations at Mr Wilson's Kerr Street property in Fitzroy had been completed and he presumed the work had been paid for.
Mr Hem also recalled visiting Ms Gillard's Abbotsford property with Bill Telikostoglou where he saw some painters that he had previously seen working at Mr Wilson's property at Kerr Street. In a sworn statement to the commission, Mr Hem said "I had not seen the painters before".
He said Mr Telikostoglou, known as "Bill the Greek" handed an envelope to one of the painters which he assumed contained money.
"I saw Con the builder in the kitchen and it looked like he had finished doing some tiling work," Mr Hem said it a sworn statement.
Mr Hem said he did not know the builder Con's surname.
Another builder, Konstantinos (Con) Spyridis told the royal commission he and his subcontractors had completed tiling work on Ms Gillard's verandah and her front picket fence, but he had never been inside the house.
He said he invoiced Ms Gillard $3500 for the work and she had paid it in two instalments. He said he went to her home in 1995 and handed her a second invoice.
"Sometime later, I recall receiving one bank cheque in the mail and later a second bank cheque in the mail for the outstanding amount for my work at the Abbotsford property," he said.
Mr Spyridis said he also received a cheque from the Australian Workers Union for $15,000 for work he completed at the union's Carlton office.
Mr Spyridis said he did not do any work at Mr Wilson's Kerr Street property.
Ms Gillard has said she was confident she had paid for the renovations on her house.
SOURCE
Prime Minister Tony Abbott's ''pledge in blood'' to repeal the carbon tax seems all but assured after Clive Palmer put a single condition on his party's support: that all energy savings flow back to consumers.
The government has already tasked the consumer watchdog, with ensuring that energy companies pass on the estimated 9 per cent saving on electricity bills and 7 per cent on gas bills that should result from abolition of the carbon tax.
The Abbott government has promised a $550 a year saving for each household if the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission delivers.
After a tense few weeks in which he has threatened to stymy the government's agenda, Mr Palmer released a statement outlining the price of his party's support.
"If the Palmer United Party senators are to support a repeal of the carbon tax it will be under the proviso that the savings, by law, are transferred into lower energy costs for everyday Australians,'' he said.
"Only on these terms would we support repealing the carbon tax because of the benefits it would offer the people as well as the economy through the abolition of an artificial cost on business which was hampering our international competitiveness."
Mr Palmer's statement made no mention of his previous demand that the carbon tax be repealed retrospectively. Under that scenario, the mining magnate would potentially have been let off the hook for a disputed carbon tax bill of more than $6 million.
The Coalition needs six votes of eight votes from the crossbench to pass legislation through the new Senate from July 1.
Senator-elect Ricky Muir has pledged to vote in tandem with the three members of Palmer United.
NSW senator-elect David Leyonhjelm and Family First's Bob Day are economic dries who have already pledged to back the repeal of the tax, giving the government has the numbers if Mr Palmer is good to his word and satisfied consumers will benefit to the full extent promised.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt welcomed the news saying the government was legislating to guarantee price relief.
A spokesman for Mr Hunt said: ''The independent regulatory authorities are already showing two prices for energy - one with a carbon tax and one without - we know the relief will be there. As [ACCC chairman] Rod Sims said what goes up will come down.''
Greens leader Christine Milne renewed her call for all PUP members to abstain from any vote on the carbon tax due to the potential conflict of interest posed by Mr Palmer's mining riches.
In his statement, Mr Palmer restated his party's opposition to a repeal of the mining tax unless the Abbott government backed down on plans to cut welfare payments to orphans of soldiers killed or badly injured during service.
SOURCE
Defence seeks to push Japanese submarine deal
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
Defence Minister David Johnston hopes to advance talks on buying Japanese submarine technology during a visit to Tokyo this week but strenuously denies such co-operation will anger China.
Senator Johnston told Fairfax Media by phone that discussions with his Japanese counterpart Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera will aim at deepening security ties through sharing technology and boosting joint exercises.
He stressed the closer ties were not in any way aimed at Beijing and revealed that Australia had in fact helped pave the way for China to take part - for the first time - in the large-scale "Rim of the Pacific" naval exercises, which start in just over a fortnight.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will meet with counterpart Fumio Kishida. The "2+2" talks follow Prime Minister Tony Abbott's recent successful meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe - as well as Mr Abe's significant speech 10 days ago in which he signalled a stronger security role for Japan in the region.
A key element in greater defence co-operation between the two countries is the prospect of Australia's buying Japanese submarine technology to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet at a cost of up to $40 billion.
Senator Johnston said he would look to cautiously press ahead with talks over submarines.
"The Japanese are very interested in our Wedgetail (airborne radar) and . . . we're interested in some of the technology they've got round the submarine, so it cuts both ways. But there's no formal basis for that exchange and we're looking to put the nuts and bolts of that sort of formal basis together.
"I'm hoping to visit one of the Japanese submarines on Friday. It's on the cards that I'll get to have a look and I'm quite excited about it."
Experts and some Defence insiders say there are still considerable obstacles to Australia's buying Japanese submarine technology, notably Japan's post-World War II pacifist constitution and its strict limits on arms exports. But co-operation is being given impetus by Mr Abbott and Mr Abe's enthusiasm for some kind of deal.
Mr Abe has been making moves to relax arms export rules and his recent speech at the Shangri-La dialogue signalled a strong willingness to work with partner countries in the region on security - widely seen as a way of countering China's recent assertiveness in the East China Sea and South China Sea.
Senator Johnston acknowledged that Prime Minister Abe's enthusiasm could smooth the way for any deal.
"It potentially does, but of course this is a matter for the Japanese. We are very sensitive to those issues, to the constitutional disposition and the domestic political situation. So we're very respectful of that.
"We'll be guided by his enthusiasm as we go forward."
He stressed that Australia was equally looking at French and German diesel-electric submarine technology.
He also swiftly rejected any suggestion that there was a tacit move to pressure Beijing, or that Australia's talks with Japan should be negatively viewed in China.
He revealed that Australia had helped pave the way for Beijing to get involved in the RIMPAC exercises. In an historic moment, Chinese navy ships set sail for the exercises this week.
"That's a very significant event and Australia's very pleased to have played a small role in securing their attendance. We encouraged them," he said.
He added that Canberra was balancing its security ties by also engaging Beijing and said he would be visiting China later this year.
But he also said that Japan was a natural fit for Australia's security interests.
"There's a synergy of values and a synergy of interests in security and defence ties being further expanded. I think we both feel very comfortable with each other."
SOURCE
Tony Abbott considers importing US-style school program with private industry involvement
Tony Abbott is considering an unprecedented Americanisation of the school education system with radical changes that could see HECS-style fees introduced into new continuous school-and post school diplomas, and private industry playing a heavy role in course design and production.
Visiting the P-TECH school in Brooklyn on his final day in New York, the Prime Minister praised the IBM-connected Pathways in Technology Early College high school, which offers a new model of education spanning grades 9 to 14 – that is with an extra two years bolted on in which the students gain a "associate in applied science" degree.
Under the arrangement operating at the Brooklyn school, IBM guarantees graduates at least an entry-level interview, putting them at the head of the line in a competitive labour market. The company and other industry partners can also provide mentors for each student.
"I belive this is is an innovative and valuable education model for us to consider in Australia," Mr Abbott said.
"So many young people get to the end of their time at school wondering what they are going to do for the rest of their lives, what job they are going to do the day after they leave.
"On the other hand, so many people who run businesses complain they can't find people to work in their business. "These are the sorts of issues we are wrestling with in Australia.''
The P-TECH model is being rolled out across New York's five boroughs.
Under the framework in the US, the government still pays for the education but industry partners provide advice, mentoring, and support.
Mr Abbott conceded details were yet to be finalised but one option would be to charge students delayed fees for their extra education through HECS loans.
The government plans to clarify matters within months.
Mr Abbott said it was not inconsistent to be cutting money to the CSIRO while proposing to spend more money on this form of education and training.
"We can be strongly focused on science without spending more on particular institutions that are this space,' he said.
Mr Abbott arrived in Washington over night before a busy day of meetings with senior congressional leaders, including Democratic minority leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, Republican majority leader Eric Cantor, and Speaker John Boehner.
He will meet President Barack Obama on Thursday.
SOURCE
Bruce Wilson handed 'wad of notes' to Julia Gillard, says builder
A builder has told the royal commission into trade unions that former prime minister Julia Gillard paid for renovations at her house by personal cheque, despite allegedly receiving cash for the work from her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson.
Athol James, who completed a series of building jobs at Ms Gillard's Abbotsford house, including the installation of bi-fold doors, said she had told him Mr Wilson was paying for the work.
He told the royal commission on Wednesday that on two occasions he saw Mr Wilson "hand over a wad of notes".
In a sworn statement, Mr James said he was never paid in cash and that Ms Gillard told him that "as Bruce brought her the cash she would pay me by cheque".
"I never was paid in cash and I don't know what happened with the cash Bruce handed her," Mr James said in a sworn statement.
Wayne Hem, a former records keeper for Australian Workers Union, told the royal commission Mr Wilson gave him $5000 in cash and told him to deposit it into Ms Gillard's bank account. He said Mr Wilson gave him a Commonwealth bank account number on a piece of paper.
"I said I need the account name because they wouldn't accept it down at the bank. So it was Julia Gillard and I said OK," Mr Hem said.
Mr Hem said at the time he "did not know if the account was her private account or business account or a Slater&Gordon account".
Mr Hem said he presumed the money was for payment of work done at the Abbotsford house because renovations at Mr Wilson's Kerr Street property in Fitzroy had been completed and he presumed the work had been paid for.
Mr Hem also recalled visiting Ms Gillard's Abbotsford property with Bill Telikostoglou where he saw some painters that he had previously seen working at Mr Wilson's property at Kerr Street. In a sworn statement to the commission, Mr Hem said "I had not seen the painters before".
He said Mr Telikostoglou, known as "Bill the Greek" handed an envelope to one of the painters which he assumed contained money.
"I saw Con the builder in the kitchen and it looked like he had finished doing some tiling work," Mr Hem said it a sworn statement.
Mr Hem said he did not know the builder Con's surname.
Another builder, Konstantinos (Con) Spyridis told the royal commission he and his subcontractors had completed tiling work on Ms Gillard's verandah and her front picket fence, but he had never been inside the house.
He said he invoiced Ms Gillard $3500 for the work and she had paid it in two instalments. He said he went to her home in 1995 and handed her a second invoice.
"Sometime later, I recall receiving one bank cheque in the mail and later a second bank cheque in the mail for the outstanding amount for my work at the Abbotsford property," he said.
Mr Spyridis said he also received a cheque from the Australian Workers Union for $15,000 for work he completed at the union's Carlton office.
Mr Spyridis said he did not do any work at Mr Wilson's Kerr Street property.
Ms Gillard has said she was confident she had paid for the renovations on her house.
SOURCE
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
ZEG
In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is amazed that Pauline Hanson seems to have become something of an elder stateswoman
In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is amazed that Pauline Hanson seems to have become something of an elder stateswoman
Tony Abbott seeks international alliance to restrict climate policies
Tony Abbott is seeking a conservative alliance among "like-minded" countries, aiming to dismantle global moves to introduce carbon pricing, and undermine a push by US President Barack Obama to push the case for action through forums such as the G20.
Visiting Ottawa for a full day of talks with the conservative Canadian Prime Minister and close friend Stephen Harper, Mr Abbott flagged intentions to build a new centre-right alliance led by Canada, Britain and Australia along with India and New Zealand.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper both say there is no need for carbon pricing to combat climate change.
All five Commonwealth countries now have "centre-right"-leaning governments but it is Mr Abbott's personal and philosophical closeness to Mr Harper that the Prime Minister regards as most important.
The combined front would attempt to counter recent moves by the Obama administration to lift the pace of climate change abatement via policies such as a carbon tax or state-based emissions trading. It is a calculated attempt to push back against what both leaders see as a left-liberal agenda in favour of higher taxes, unwise interventions to address global warming, and an unhealthy attitude of state intervention.
Mr Abbott's first visit to the US has begun on a shaky note after he characterised Mr Obama’s new push to reduce carbon pollution as a copy of "direct action" being pursued in Australia. Mr Abbott is due in New York on Monday local time.
Speaking at a media conference on Tuesday from the Canadian capital Ottawa along-side the anti-carbon tax prime minister Stephen Harper, Mr Abbott said the he was encouraged at the new US approach of requiring coal-fired power stations to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, because it did not place a price on carbon but used regulation to cut pollution.
"We think that climate change is a significant problem, it’s not the only or even the most important problem the world faces but it is a significant problem and its important every country should take the action that it thinks is best to address emissions," he said.
"I am encouraged that President Obama is taking what I would regard as direct action measure to reduce emissions, this is very similar to the action my government proposes in Australia."
He said it was import that policies to address output did not "clobber the economy" while not helping the environment.
The comments were immediately backed up by Canada with Mr Harper declaring there was no chance of any country acting for the planet if it involved costs to its economy. "It's not that we don't seek to deal with climate change," he said. "We seek to deal with it in a way that enhances our ability to create jobs and growth, this is their position.
"No country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately harm jobs and growth in their country, we are just a bit more frank about that than other countries."
The uncompromising attitude of both leaders suggests neither is inclined to yield to pressure from the US to revive the issue of climate change ahead of next years’ climate summit, nor back any international coordination such as additional regulations or a trading scheme.
Last week, Mr Obama flagged regulatory changes aimed at influencing US states to adopt aggressive market interventions to address global warming - a move that has attracted criticism on the right that Mr Obama is acting now only because he is not seeking re-election.
US officials have also been pushing Australia - so far unsuccessfully - to include climate change on the agenda for November's G20 meeting in Brisbane.
In a statement certain to raise eyebrows in the US, Mr Abbott, who is to meet Mr Obama in the White House later this week, underlined his opposition to carbon pricing. "There is no sign - no sign - that trading schemes are increasingly being adopted," he said. "If anything, trading schemes are being discarded, not adopted."
Before leaving Australia, Mr Abbott said the G20 summit in November was primarily about economics and the United Nations was the place to discuss climate change.
"I'd be surprised if climate change doesn't come up as part of the G20," he said, though climate change will figure in discussions about energy efficiency.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten took aim at the Prime Minister's "flat-Earth views", accusing him of being out of touch with Australians and world leaders such as Mr Obama. He told Fairfax Media that climate change was "not just an economic issue, it is a security issue and it is absolutely an economic issue".
But Mr Shorten said that Mr Obama, along with other world leaders, had clearly recognised that clean air, low pollution and new technologies would be good for the global economy and job creation.
He said Mr Abbott "shouldn't shirk the issue when he meets President Obama later this week, and he shouldn't shirk the issue at the G20 later this year".
While mooted as a potential member of Mr Abbott's new coalition, British Prime Minister David Cameron has been vocal about the need to tackle climate change, describing it in February as "one of the most serious threats that the world faces". Britain, through membership of the European Union, and New Zealand both have emissions trading schemes in place.
SOURCE
NSW Nationals agree to plan for partial privatization of electricity infrastructure
The New South Wales Nationals have signed off on a deal to back the Baird Government's plan to partially sell off the state's electricity infrastructure.
The Nationals have agreed to a partial privatisation provided the company Essential Energy is kept out the mix.
National and Liberal MPs were bunkered down for hours of separate discussions this morning, ahead of joint party room meetings this afternoon.
The ABC understands the Nationals party room meeting was heated, but they were offered a trade-off for their support.
It is understood a separate meeting of Liberal MPs offered no opposition to Premier Mike Baird's plan.
Mr Baird says 49 per cent partial privatisation will unlock $20 billion for infrastructure, extensions to WestConnex and a second harbour rail crossing.
He says the transaction would raise around $13 billion and attract $2 billion in funding from the Federal government.
We’ve outlined our vision for NSW. We now need a mandate to go ahead with the transaction.
"The NSW Liberals and Nationals have agreed to lease poles and wires so we can continue rebuilding NSW."
The Government has also announced it will construct Sydney Rapid Transit (SRT), a 30-kilometre rail line to speed up travel for commuters, and three new underground stations in the Sydney CBD.
It says SRT will see 60 per cent more peak-hour trains, allowing an extra 100,000 people to travel per hour.
The Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner says $6 billion of the transaction will be allocated to projects in the regions, such as improving water security and roads.
"We can fix the roads that currently when it's wet are impassable to removing (whether it's) stock or other agricultural commodities," he said.
"We can fix the roads that are currently killing people at a frightening rate."
The State Opposition leader John Robertson says Labor will not be backing the plan.
"Anyone who believes that they're only going to sell 49 per cent and the rest isn't going to be sold is living in a fool's paradise," he said.
"We all know, everyone knows that once privatisation starts in a sector it doesn't stop until it's finished."
Anyone who believes that they're only going to sell 49 per cent and the rest isn't going to be sold is living in a fool's paradise
NSW Opposition leader John Robertson
"I can understand why Nationals MPs have said they don't want Essential Energy sold," he said.
"That's because they've got real concerns about the proposal.
"But if it's OK for Essential Energy to be exempted, then why should we be selling Endeavour, Ausgrid and Transgrid?"
Sydney Business Chamber spokeswoman Patricia Forsythe says it will benefit businesses across the state.
"The announcement from the Premier is exactly what business has been seeking," she said.
"We would say it's exciting and it's visionary and it does show the benefits that will flow if the Government is successful with the partial sale of the electricity transmission network."
SOURCE
OECD boss praises Australian budget for gradual return to surplus
The head of the world's leading economic agency, Angel Gurria, has praised the Federal Government's recent budget, calling it a 'sustainable, durable solution' to deficits.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's secretary-general says that the budget highlights a serious commitment to maintain Australia's stable government finances.
"We have seen with very great interest, and I think really with great expectations, that they are dealing very directly and decisively with the budget deficit," he told ABC television's The Business program.
"Mr Hockey has gone for a surplus in 2023, giving himself 9-10 years for a surplus. I think it's good timing, in a sense not overloading or frontloading too much at a time when recovery is still firming up."
Mr Gurria also praises the Federal Government's preference for spending cuts over tax increases in its first budget since taking office last year.
"You [Australia] went for 80 per cent cuts, one-fifth tax increase. We're always saying you should at least keep it balanced, this is a more sustainable, more durable type of solution. Once you cut the expenses it stays low, with taxes there are certain temptations," he said.
"It also tells the economic agents that in the medium and long term this situation moving into a balanced budget, or somewhat surplus budget, will allow Australia in the presence of growth to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio."
Mr Gurria forecasts Australia will see a growth rate of about 2-2.5 percent this year, moving towards a 3 per cent growth rate next year.
The most recent official figures put Australia's growth for the year to March 31 at 3.5 per cent, while the Reserve Bank's latest forecast is for 2.75 per cent growth in 2014.
The OECD says the eurozone is improving overall, but is fragile with the downside risks still there.
"2014 is going to be better, and 2015 we have forecast it's going to continue to reaffirm this trend, but all modestly better, a modest improvement, nothing to write home about," added Mr Gurria.
For emerging economies, the situation has reversed, with countries including Brazil, South Africa and Mexico slowing down, and China holding at about 7.5 per cent growth.
SOURCE
Helmets for everyone!
To those who have experienced the sense of freedom and the exhilaration of breeze in their hair, riding a bicycle—how confining and claustrophobic the idea of a helmet! But cycling without a helmet is something about which Australians only can dream. “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet ...” remarked a leading British neurosurgeon at the 2014 Hay Festival in Wales, UK.
Our public health authorities regard cycling as inherently dangerous and risky. Every transport jurisdiction obliges cyclists to wear a helmet, although the Northern Territory exempts those over the age of 17 on footpaths and cycle paths. States introduced mandatory helmet laws in the early 1990s in exchange for ‘black spot’ road funding from a Federal Labor government.
The Queensland government’s recent response to its Parliamentary Inquiry into cycling epitomises a prevailing wisdom about Australia’s helmet laws. It rejected a series of its Inquiry’s modest recommendations to relax them, including a 24-month trial along the lines of the Northern Territory’s model with an exemption in streets with speed limits up to 60 kph.
Australia’s helmet laws are unique—apart from New Zealand’s which followed Australia’s in 1994. In most countries, use of bicycle helmets is voluntary or applies only to children; although laws with exemptions apply in some North American state and provincial jurisdictions and in Finland and Spain.
Epidemiological evidence of the impact of helmet laws on head injuries is doubtful. Despite a similar hourly risk of death from head injury for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, only cyclists must wear head protection. So far as the effect of Australia’s helmet laws deters cycling, they reduce the health benefits that come with cycling.
Analysis of data after helmet law was introduced in NSW revealed that head injuries fell 40%.It is impossible to determine, however, whether this could be attributed to increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the helmet law.Non-head injuries fell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main explanation was reduced cycling.
Helmet laws impose costs on cyclists associated with purchasing helmets and the inconvenience of wearing them. A cost-benefit analysis of helmet law analysing injury rates before and after its implementation in New Zealand shows that for adults, helmet costs outweigh the value of health savings.
In the Netherlands, where use of bicycles is the world's highest, helmets are a heresy. In Amsterdam the probability of death from a cycling accident for an average cyclist is once each 63,368 years. Hence, even if it were possible to show that use of cycle helmets may reduce relative risk, absolute risk of mortality without them remains extremely small.
Australia’s regime of mandatory helmet law for cyclists is discriminatory, inefficient and infringes personal autonomy. It is another manifestation of public health zealotry. Apart from violating the principle of personal choice on helmet use, evidence supporting compulsion remains in contention. Many Australians nevertheless are accustomed to accepting encroachments on personal liberty. They have no experience of the alternative.
SOURCE
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Warren Ryan has a point about racism and classics
Ryan was a football commentator for Australia's ABC
If nothing else, Warren Ryan's use of the term "darky" during a football call draws attention to the remarkable power of words.
Ryan's defence that the word appeared in Margaret Mitchell's 1936 novel Gone With The Wind might seem a tad lame at first blush – after all, the sensitivities involved in dealing with racism, especially in sport, would not exactly be news to someone in his position.
But is Ryan a dinosaur that time has left behind? Or are we so worried about even appearing to hold a racist view that we find ourselves "investigating" people for being in the same room as someone who drops a howler?
This is certainly the situation Ryan's co-commentator David Morrow finds himself in.
Ryan has a point, in as much as being vilified for referring to a work of literature takes us into troubling territory.
Such controversies have always been with us – it's the context that changes.
When the Gone With The Wind film appeared in 1939, no one batted an eyelid at words like "darky". The firestorm was over Clark Gable's "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".
In 2014, you wouldn't be arrested for tearing pictures of golliwogs out of Enid Blyton books in Martin Place, screaming "This book is a f---ing disgrace!"
You can't buy golliwog books any more, and it's not just kids' books. Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the Narcissus was on high school reading lists in the '70s. You would be hard-pressed to find a copy in a school library anywhere today.
Our caution about hurting the feelings of others is admirable, and a vast improvement on the self-serving assumptions of the past.
But we must not rewrite history.
Cruel racism is easy to spot and we do give a damn, but by the same token we don't want The Merchant of Venice going the way of The Nigger of the Narcissus.
SOURCE
Qld to absorb pensioner, senior cuts
QUEENSLAND'S pensioners and seniors will be better off after the Newman government backflipped on concessions.
The federal government cut $223 million for water, electricity and rate concessions over four years, and the Tuesday state budget only picked up 10 per cent of the shortfall.
The grey army took the Newman government to task on talk-back radio and on Thursday Premier Campbell Newman announced he'll now fund the full gap.
"We're not only listening to Queenslanders, but we're acting within the space of two days to reinstate the full level of pensioner and senior concessions," he told parliament.
Government backbenchers Sean Choate and Neil Symes Tweeted that Mr Newman had "directed" the treasurer Tim Nicholls to come to the table, but Mr Choate has since said it was a poor choice of words.
Mr Nicholls said he was "absolutely not" overruled.
While the treasurer didn't say when he changed his mind, he had listened to the Queensland Council of Social Services at a breakfast on Thursday morning.
"It is better for us to relieve pensioners and concession card holders of the worry," Mr Nicholls said.
To pay for the shortfall, Queensland would consider withholding or recoup funding from commonwealth programs they ask states to contribute to.
Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said the misstep won't be quickly forgotten. "The ink isn't even dry on this budget and the premier has scrambled to save his own political skin," she said.
"He made a choice in his budget where he could help Queensland pensioners or hurt them. "He chose to hurt them."
The opposition delivered its budget reply speech on Thursday.
Exactly how Labor would pay down Queensland's $80 billion debt won't be revealed until closer to next year's election.
The Newman government has given voters an ultimatum - $33 billion worth of assets must be sold to fund new infrastructure and pay down debt.
Ms Palaszczuk says it is a political strategy tailored to create a slush fund to buy votes. It would lead to higher charges and an "Americanised economy" of low wages and no job security, Ms Palaszczuk said.
Labor would hold onto assets and use their revenue to lower debt and invest in new infrastructure.
But a detailed strategy wasn't released in Ms Palaszczuk's budget reply speech on Thursday. "We will be releasing a comprehensive plan ahead of the next state election to pay down the increase in general government debt under the Newman government," she told parliament.
SOURCE
Bob Hawke and John Howard: former political combatants impart lessons learnt
For a moment there, if you took away the cameras and the lights, they could have been two old codgers, the years having given them a companionable ease, the tough times done, yarning and imparting wisdom on the steps of a small-town post office.
They were instantly recognisable, of course: the two longest-serving prime ministers of Australia's modern era.
Bob Hawke, 84, a bit stooped but still crested with the silver mane; John Howard, 74, still trimmed by dawn powerwalks in a tracksuit, the eyes startling now he's had laser surgery and the spectacles have gone.
There was no need now for the fire that once sparked between them in the theatre of Parliament or on the hustings.
They came from a time when political opponents shared not only regard - regularly invisible, of course, amid the shouting - but a behind-the-scenes friendship of sorts; an era almost unrecognisable these often-hateful days.
Their relationship was rarely better displayed than a night in 1988 when tomfoolery broke out across the Old Parliament House as MPs prepared to move up the hill to the great new monolith.
Prime minister Bob Hawke and opposition leader John Howard threw arms across each other's shoulders and bawled out the old socialist anthem, the Internationale.
"Bob," Howard conceded fondly when reminded by Fairfax Media on Wednesday of that long-ago event, "had the better voice".
Hawke and Howard had given 57 addresses between them to the National Press Club during their long political careers, always separately. In celebration of the club's 50th anniversary, they made their 58th appearance as a duo on Wednesday.
Hawke, ever the larrikin, couldn't resist recalling his rapid rise to The Lodge in 1983, declaring he had enjoyed the ideal period in the worst job in politics: Opposition Leader.
"Three weeks," he cackled. "The only bloody way to be leader of the opposition, I tell you!"
Howard, who was twice opposition leader - once for four years before being ditched by his own colleagues - ruminated that the Australian people almost always got their judgments right about who should be in government.
"I mean, I would say that, I suppose both of us would say that. We would think on some occasions we got it spectacularly right," he chortled, Hawke joining in.
The former combatants weren't at the press club for the wisecracking, however.
They had the indulgence of elders to impart what they had learned.
Hawke worried that today's Parliament was held by the community "if not in contempt, in disdain, and I do think that something ought to be done to lift the quality of performance".
The opposition, he suggested, should support the government without argument on important issues where there was "a degree of consensus".
Howard pointed out that he, as opposition leader, had done just that in the 1980s on the Hawke government's major economic reforms such as floating the dollar and reducing tariffs.
Both agreed the fundamental task of successful leaders was to make their arguments to the people, taking the country with them on the big reforms.
Politics, said Howard, had become less ideological.
"Now, that's good in a way, because one thing I learnt about politics - and I'm sure Bob's experience would have been the same - Australians fundamentally don't like zealots, fanatics. It's part of our deep Celtic scepticism...and long may we remain suspicious of fanatics.
"The bad part of it is that we sometimes lose the capacity to argue the case. We think it's sufficient that we utter slogans. In truth, in politics you need slogans and arguments."
Hawke worried about the future of the world, where technology and science could "either lift the standard and quality of life of all mankind, or, on the other hand, destroy life on this planet as we know it".
His hope was for Australia to help persuade the world to take the former path.
And on they went.
In an era of slogans and shouting, we could have listened to the two old codgers yarning all day. Neither Tony Abbott, who was on his way to Indonesia, nor Bill Shorten attended.
SOURCE
Saudi influence in Australia
While minority Islam continues to spread its influence world-wide, it seems the hard-line Saudis are also behind the proliferation of mosques across Australia. One of which is the proposed Bendigo mega mosque.
Mosque promoters, The Islamic Association’s web page is being administered from Saudi Arabia. The site is Aussiemuslims.com and it solicits donations, however the location of the administrator is listed as Madinah al-Munawarrah (Medina) in Saudi Arabia. Why would a site purporting to be “Aussie Muslims” be run out of Saudi Arabia?
In recent years Saudi Arabia has been pouring money into Australia to establish mosques and Islamic schools. There are reported to be current applications for mosque approvals in 17 major centres across Australia from Horsham to Cairns.
It is widely suspected funds are also being utilised from the Halal Certification protection racket being run in Australia out of Indonesia. This blatant blackmail and extortion racket operating on our food chains has the Federal Government’s approval in the name of “cultural acceptance”.
Bendigo Bank, which was once a boutique alternative to the four majors, is now number five with a sensitive nose for petro dollars.
It has joined with other banks to become a major player in the pursuit of mosque proliferation.
The proposed Bendigo mega mosque is set to destroy the iconic city as a showcase of Australia’s gold rich heritage.
SOURCE
Monday, June 09, 2014
Struggling pensioners opt to leave Australia for a cheaper country
The article below and headline above is another effort from dear little Cosima Marriner, who has a lot of blonde hair but is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The basic datum upon which she relies is that in 2012 a total of 38,000 elderly Italians, Greeks and Kiwis returned to their home countries to spend their retirement. Why that proves anything is anyone's guess and it should be neither surprising nor alarming to anyone. I would have thought that it is the business of the people concerned only
She notes a substantial increase in emigration between 2007 and 2012 but fails to mention that she is referring to the period of the Labor government being in office. So if there is any blame to be handed out, she should be attacking Rudd and Gillard. She in fact mentions only the current government. No prizes for guessing that she writes for the frantically Leftist Sydney Morning Herald!
Age pensioners are moving overseas where they can live more cheaply, as the pension fails to keep pace with the cost of living and their superannuation proves inadequate.
As the federal government moves to extend the retirement age to 70, government data shows there was a 30 per cent increase in the number of people claiming the Australian age pension living overseas between 2007 and 2012. Over the same time, the total number of age pensioners grew only 17 per cent.
There are 2.3 million people receiving an age pension, a figure that is steadily climbing as the population ages. About 3 per cent of these pensioners live overseas.
The government slashed $2.1 billion from pension spending in last month's budget.
SOURCE
Fair work commission: what a misnomer that is
JAMES Bond preferred his martinis shaken not stirred. I prefer my regulators boring not activist. I also prefer efficient not profligate.
Now there are quite a few regulators I could pick on, but recent developments at the Fair Work Commission are right up there when it comes to manipulated processes, inappropriate spending and poor decisions.
In fact, if you go to the revamped website of the FWC, you might initially think you are looking at the site of some low-rent business consultant trying to drum up work. The heading screams: “Creating Fair Workplaces: find information on creating fair and productive work-places and preventing workplace disputes”.
The site has information on the commission’s engagement strategy, stakeholder engagement, workplace engagement, research community, international engagement and workplace relations education. Yes, I can hear you groaning. Please, spare us stakeholder engagement.
And what is the FWC doing spending money on international engagement? Note to Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann: this outfit is clearly overfunded.
Let’s face it – the FWC (and its predecessor bodies) has always been a strange beast. Based on the profoundly mistaken proposition that its findings can somehow overrule market forces, the institution barrels on, seemingly oblivious to the transformation of the Australian economy and labour market.
Most members of the FWC, whose appointments are the result of political and trade union allegiances, live in some sort of parallel world while employers struggle to make payroll and a decent return on the capital and effort involved in running businesses.
While seemingly impossible, the FWC has taken a distinct turn for the worse since the appointment of Labor mate Iain Ross as president in 2012.
Ross was, once upon a time, an assistant secretary at the ACTU, before being appointed to the Australia Industrial Relations Commission in 1994 at the age of 35. He didn’t stay long and opted for a judicial appointment in Victoria where Labor was in office.
Now, like some over-exuberant, newly appointed business executive, Ross has taken an axe to any arrangements at the FWC he disliked, brought in new staff and rejigged processes. The flaunty website is just one manifestation of the new broom.
Amazingly, the politically motivated and partisan way in which the Labor government appointed new members to the FWC was largely ignored by the press. More than 90 per cent of appointees were either former union officials or Labor friends.
Certainly, some of these appointments preceded Ross. There was the convenient appointment of Ian Cambridge, former national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, effectively preventing him from saying anything publicly about the AWU slush fund scandal involving Julia Gillard.
And then there was the very expedient appointment of former general manager of the FWC, Tim Lee, which then prevented him from answering questions before the Senate estimates committee about the unforgivably drawn out FWC investigation of Craig Thomson’s misuse of Health Service Union funds.
The most egregious example of all is the appointment of two new vice-presidents, undertaken at the suggestion of Ross, with union bestie Bill Shorten then as workplace minister, more than happy to oblige.
Not only were their services not needed, their appointment effectively downgraded the seniority of two long-serving vice-presidents (but ranked as deputy presidents), both of whom were regarded with suspicion by the Labor government.
Now one of the new vice-presidents is hogging all the important cases, while other vice-presidents are left twiddling their thumbs. As for those other deputy presidents, they are pushed further down the pecking order.
In an extraordinary development, one of the members of FWC publicly wrote to the president raising concerns about the process of selecting commissioners to deal with significant cases. In typical PR style, the only comment from the FWC was “it is not possible for the commission to comment. It is entirely dependent upon what the author regards as ‘significant’.”
Come on. We have a five-commissioner review of the modern award system and one of the new vice-presidents is given the gig ahead of the demoted vice-president who was involved in the initial case.
And then there has been the complete schemozzle of the review of the default superannuation funds included in awards. Ross has now decided to appoint himself to this panel, further contaminating a completely flawed process. (Note to government: legislate to remove default superannuation funds in awards.)
All the time, the FWC is spending taxpayer money on ‘‘research’’ undertaken by organisations with views in line with the president, while sidelining all other organisations. It is spending taxpayer money on a blatantly slanted workplace relations education series, including lectures and mock hearings.
Now maybe the public might be prepared to tolerate all this superfluous and expensive guff if the FWC did a good job at the main tasks set down in the legislation, but here, it is clearly failing in its main undertakings.
The FWC cannot even get the simple things right. Effectively, the modern awards that the FWC created were simply the result of stuffing together state and federal awards and moving to the highest common denominators.
Modern awards, covering some 16 per cent of the workforce, are badly worded, ambiguous and confusing.
Analysis undertaken by the Fair Work ombudsman found that of the 122 modern awards, 85 per cent do not state clearly when overtime and penalty rates apply. In fact, just five modern awards clearly state when penalty rates apply. Is it any wonder that employers are confused?
The FWC has also handed down a series of quite bizarre and economically irresponsible decisions including: the pay equity determination in respect of social and community service workers; lifting the pay for apprentices; eliminating junior rates of pay for 20-year-olds; and refusing to countenance any serious changes to penalty rates arrangements.
The FWC is a relic of a bygone era in which industries were protected, the financial system was regulated and a majority of workers belonged to trade unions. While its reputation has hit rock-bottom, sadly its decision-making processes roll on, damaging businesses and marginal workers alike.
Ross is proving to be an extremely divisive leader who has effectively politicised the FWC. The government needs to take note. Appointing an appellate body to review the decisions of the FWC is a good first step to taming the beast, but it may not be enough.
SOURCE
Slack Australian ship-builders have finally cut their own throats
THE future of naval shipbuilding in Australia hangs in the balance after the Abbott Government excluded local yards from a major new contract due to poor project performance.
In the first sign that the government has had enough, Defence will go offshore to buy two new replenishment ships for the fleet for $1.5 billion.
News Corp Australia last month revealed that the government was considering a Korean solution for the project to replace the ageing supply ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius and Defence Minister David Johnston announced a two-horse competition between Korean giant Daewoo Shipbuilding and Spanish builder Navantia.
Australian shipbuilders including BAE Systems in Melbourne, ASC in Adelaide and Forgacs in Newcastle have been deliberately excluded by the hard-line move that will place thousands of jobs at risk.
Senator Johnston blamed the “poor performance” of Australian yards working on the $8.5 billion Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) project, but added that the ships at more than 20,000 tonnes were too big for Australian yards.
The prime culprit has been the Adelaide based and taxpayer owned ASC and its teaming partners US giant Raytheon and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO.
“No responsible government could consider providing further work to an industry that is performing so poorly,” Senator Johnston said.
BAE System"s Williamstown dockyard, that has been performing well on several big projects and was a prime candidate for the replenishment ship job, appears to have been caught in the crossfire.
The future of the Melbourne shipyard and thousands of jobs is now uncertain given that the competition for 20 new Pacific Patrol boats will take years to decide.
However, it could be thrown a lifeline under the remediation plans for the AWD project with two ships left to build.
Senator Johnston announced an open competition to supply 20 new steel-hulled Pacific patrol boats job and a $78 million injection for preliminary engineering and design work in Australia for Navy"s future frigate.
He also announced yet another review of naval shipbuilding and the long-term needs of the Navy.
Unions warned that sending work offshore would cost jobs and skills. "If the government is aiming to create a shipbuilding industry that"s up to international benchmark standard, ensuring there is work is a good first step," AMWU national assistant secretary Glenn Thompson said.
BAE Systems said it would be putting a strong case to the Government that it was ready to take on additional work and responsibilities to help deliver the AWD project.
ASC said it was focused on ensuring the global competitiveness of the shipbuilding industry and it welcomed the including of the Korean solution, which it had proposed in 2013, for the replenishment ship project.
"As well as providing the required capability for the RAN, constructing auxiliary ships also provided one opportunity for ASC to maintain our Adelaide workforce," it said in a statement.
SOURCE
Shorten by name, short-sighted by nature
SELLING the Budget should not have been as difficult a task as it is proving to be for the Abbott government.
The fundamentals are obvious to any intelligent person and were obvious to previous Labor leaders, notably those true reformers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.
Both were well aware that no nation could keep spending forever without having to settle the inevitable debts.
This fact of life has eluded Opposition leader Bill Shorten, who for purely political purposes has even reneged on his own campaign pledges to thwart the elected government’s mandate to restore some sanity to the economy.
Shorten by name, short-sighted by nature.
His tactic is reminiscent of the disgraceful decision by former NSW premier Barry O’Farrell, when in opposition, not to support Labor premier Morris Iemma’s 2008 attempt to reconcile the state budget by privatising the power industry.
In doing so, and in refusing to agree to the sale of poles and wires when in office, despite urging from treasurer Mike Baird, O’Farrell stalled the development of much-needed NSW infrastructure.
Baird will reverse that decision, finally, and the state will be better off.
But the Abbott government should have always known Labor would be unlikely to put the national interest first.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
