ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG has actually found something to laugh about in Australia's present political gridlock.






Queensland good to conservatives

Queensland's dramatic rejection of the Gillard government in Saturday's election was less a backlash against Labor and more about the state returning to its natural conservative mode, according to some political commentators.

As voter patterns from the past 15 federal elections show, Queenslanders only occasionally vote to install a Labor prime minister - and if they do, the ALP is virtually guaranteed the keys to the Lodge.

Since 1972, Coalition parties have claimed the majority of Queensland seats in 11 of the 16 federal elections. When Labor has managed to win the majority of federal seats in Queensland, the party has always claimed power nationally.

As soon became clear when booths closed on Saturday, that wasn't the case this year, with Labor looking at losing seven seats in the sunshine state.

Queensland has long been seen by other states as more conservative - due in part to the politics of our longest-serving premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and One Nation founder, Ipswich's Pauline Hanson. Brisbane might currently be trading off its image as an upbeat 'New World City', but experts say the reality is that a majority of Queensland voters remain conservative.

Australian psephologist Malcolm Mackerras told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed the move against Labor by Queenslanders signalled a "normal return to conservatism", as well as a rejection of the ALP. "It's rare for Labor to do well [federally] in Queensland. Queenslanders will vote for Labor in execptional times, like in 2007 [when Kevin Rudd claimed power from John Howard]."

Dr Ian Ward from the University of Queensland's School of Political Science agreed the state had always been "naturally conservative". "We are intrinsically a more conservative state even though we claim to be the birthplace of Labor with the Tree of Knowledge," he said.

"The Labor vote in Queensland has always been a few percentage points behind what it has federally. "I think there’s been just three occasions where Labor has got more than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote [in Queensland in a federal election]."

While Queenslanders have shown themselves open to voting for Labor premiers, Dr Ward said they tended to be more conservative than those in other states. "Even when we’ve had Labor government at state level they’ve been essentially conservative. There's been nothing like Don Dunstan [the progressive former premier of South Australia]," he said.

"Historically we’ve been more decentralised, we’ve got a larger non-urban population than other states. [And] Queensland is the one state in which the National Party has been the dominant conservative party."

However he stopped short of predicting a swing against Anna Bligh at the state election. "What I think these federal election results show is that things are very fluid. "If the poll had been held the week after the election was called Labor would have won, if it had been held in the second week [Labor] would have lost."

Mr Mackerras said while Kevin Rudd's removal seemed to him a good idea at the time, Queenslanders clearly disagreed. "Queensland has objected to the removal of Rudd and the rest of Australia hasn't," he said. "The Labor powerbrokers really should have thought through what they were doing. "However I think if Kevin Rudd was still prime minister Labor would have lost anyway."

SOURCE






Australian Muslims Push for Islamic ‘Perspective’ in School Curriculum

Recently the Australian Curriculum Studies Association and the University of Melbourne’s Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies issued a booklet, “Learning From One Another: Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools,” which maintains that “every Australian school student would be taught positive aspects about Islam and Muslims — and that Australia is a racist country.”

Presumably every Australian child should be taught about the fabled past of Islam and imagine the worst of Australia in order to avoid the challenges Islam poses to this peacefully integrated nation.

The report contends that there is a “degree of prejudice and ignorance about Islam and Muslims,” conditions that Australian students should oppose as they embrace diversity as the standard of civic duty. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are mentioned as famous names synonymous with traditional Islamic ideas, but there isn’t any reference to terrorism.

The truly remarkable dimension of this report is that a largely immigrant community, comprising a small minority, is demanding that classes be taught from its perspective rather than the perspective of the nation to which most chose to come. Australia is demonized as racist while the real challenges posed by Islam are overlooked. Moreover, it is precisely the communal values and institutions in Australia that made it a worthy destination for immigrants in the first place.

Most tellingly, Australia’s so called “racist impulses” were fomented by radical Islamists responsible for the death of 100 Australians in Bali and terrorist plots in Australia itself in which at least twenty people have been jailed.

According to the report, “most Muslims are outspoken in their criticism of terrorism regardless of the perpetrator. This is because Islam only allows for a just war. … From their perspective, the enemies of Islam are the terrorists and they are the warriors of the faith.” In addition, the authors of this booklet contend that “morally, Australia is not a good place to rear children,” citing as evidence drugs and illicit relations. They argue that these conditions militate against integration. It is also an argument employed for their own system of law, sharia.

What this adds up to is a minority intent on changing the environment in which it finds itself rather than seeking an accommodation with the prevailing norms. It seems to me the authors of the report have failed to address several obvious questions: If Australia is an undesirable place to raise children, why emigrate there in the first place? If sharia is the legal code you prefer, why not move to a nation where this code is in place? Why should the Australian school system comply with the requests of this Muslim minority?

It seems to me imprudent that the demands in the booklet are made at all. Suppose a Jewish minority in Iran argued that Talmudic law should be introduced across the board for this group. By any reasonable standard this request would be rejected. There simply is no reason for the Australian government to balkanize itself and, in the process, legitimate a minority hostile to law, custom, and tradition.

That integration of minorities may tolerate a degree of loyalty and affection for the “old country” is understandable. But there isn’t any justification for altering the school curriculum in the adopted nation. If anything is the case, Muslim students will be handicapped if, by virtue of a diversity standard, they learn about Islam but remain ignorant about the nation in which they reside.

Moreover, since Western nations have made an effort to welcome Islamic immigrants through programs that engender understanding, it seems to me reciprocity is warranted. But is it possible to promote women’s rights in Saudi Arabia? Or does the school curriculum in Pakistan include a history of constitutional provisions? Do Syrian schools incorporate the history of the Kurdish minority into their school curriculum?

What the Australian Muslim minority wants is what Australia can not grant: capitulation to a state within a state. A separate Muslim school system or one that emphasizes the unique aspects of Muslim life would be a first step toward the dissolution of Australia. No wonder there is pushback. Who would expect anything else?

SOURCE






Outdated medical procedure behind catastrophic epidural injury in NSW government hospital

NSW public hospitals seem to be Australia's best at killing and seiously injuring their patients

The medication practice that led to the catastrophic neurological injuries of a Sydney woman, Grace Wang, during an epidural was phased out of other hospitals more than a decade ago.

Ms Wang was poisoned during the birth of her first child in June at St George Hospital when an antiseptic skin preparation was accidentally injected into her spinal canal in place of an anaesthetic. The case has rocked NSW Health and shocked the public.

The two substances - both clear liquids - were placed in separate dishes on a sterile table in the delivery room, the Herald has learned, and were mixed up as a consequence of being unlabelled. Other hospitals insist drugs are drawn by the anaesthetist directly from their original vial or ampoule into a syringe.

The head of anaesthesia at Westmead Hospital, Peter Klineberg, said yesterday the practice of drawing medications from stainless steel dishes was routine a generation ago. "It was identified as being an undesirable and unsafe practice."

The antiseptic infused into Ms Wang's spine, chlorhexidine, has increasingly been used in the past five years in NSW because it mixes readily with alcohol, which accelerates drying and the epidural catheter can be inserted sooner.

The chlorhexidine wrongly injected into Ms Wang, who has suffered severe pain and can no longer walk, is understood to have been mixed with alcohol. Her husband, Jason Zheng, said she was extremely distressed and was vomiting during her labour, and needed pain relief urgently.

The shift to chlorhexidine has been controversial, and a senior anaesthetist told the Herald betadine - the yellow iodine-based antiseptic which is easily distinguishable from clear epidural drugs - was probably safer.

NSW Health's medication policy states that in general "the same person must select a medication, administer the medication and record its administration", but if a nurse prepares drugs the prescribing doctor is responsible for checking them. Someone other than an anaesthetist prepared Ms Wang's drug, the Herald understands.

SOURCE





Are seas the new green battlegounds?

The article below was written by a Greenie so he sees a conspiracy where there are only outraged fishermen who resent being locked out of places where they have been accustomed to fish

In case it passed you by in the recent, just cleared, political blizzard, there's been a shift in our domestic environmental battlefronts, to the sea. After decades as an election cutting point, forests were absent on Saturday. Instead the resource versus protection barney moved to Australia's marine domain. This contest has far to go.

In the past year, a politically sharp, well-funded recreational fisheries lobby has emerged for the first time to take on, and beat, scientists and environmentalists.

It snapped up support from both major parties, and by the campaign's climax had put marine protection on the radar of many politicians whose closest previous dealings with a fish were on a plate.

At the extremes of this argument, some fishers reject any blame for overfishing, while animal activists are opposing cruelty to sentient creatures. But the main game focuses on a national set of marine reserves that until now had bipartisan, if tediously slow, support.

Australia's ocean domain is, at 19 million square kilometres, more than twice as large as its landmass. Our seas range from tropical reefs loved by tourists to frigid deeps.

When Liberal environment minister Robert Hill released the National Oceans Policy in 1998, it claimed to make Australia "the first country in the world to deliver a comprehensive national plan to protect and manage the oceans".

The initial template covering south-eastern waters from Bermagui on the New South Wales south coast, around Victoria and Tasmania to South Australia was finalised years late in 2007. About 7 per cent of this two-million-square-kilometre region is closed to fishing.

Along the rest of the coast other "bioregions" are being studied, but so far the grand total of marine protected areas (not necessarily fisheries exclusion zones) is 765,000 square kilometres, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

States also set up their own marine protection. In NSW, 34 per cent of waters is in "parks", and 6.7 per cent in no-fishing sanctuaries, according to a 2009 count by the Australian Marine Conservation Society. In Victoria, 9 per cent of coasts is in parks and 5 per cent in sanctuaries.

Sound reasonable? Not to recreational fishers alarmed by the "no take" concept. The first sign that this lobby was mounting a serious effort came last summer, over mako sharks.

A ban on fishing for these internationally depleted fish fulfilled Australia's obligation under the Convention on Migratory Species. It's reversal by Environment Minister Peter Garrett met electoral imperatives.

Evidence that the debate was polarising came when shadow fisheries minister Richard Colbeck began to rail against the influence of "extreme" environment groups, such as the Pew Foundation.

Come the election campaign, the Australian Fishing Trade Association also popped up with a boatload of funding, warning fishing voters their children's right to hold a rod was under threat. "Fishing may never be the same again if the Greens or Labor get into power!" said their full-page advertisements.

AFTA is composed of recreational fishing trade suppliers who claim to be at the heart of a $1 billion industry. Executive director Doug Joyner said they had up to $450,000 to spend on countering the "Green grab" for 30 per cent plus of the seas.

The Greens do indeed argue for 30 per cent of the seas to go into no-take zones, claiming this is the best insurance policy for fishing in a future where over-fished stocks also face threats from climate change.

The Australian Marine Science Association has much lower ambitions, calling for effective protection of at least 10 per cent in no-take zones. Labor rejected arbitrary targets in the campaign, and pointed out that Commonwealth reserves began five kilometres offshore, beyond the reach of the average shore fisher.

But Liberal leader Tony Abbott immediately grasped the political value of a fishing rod, and now wants to shelve all marine reserve plans. Last week in Narooma on the NSW south coast he said: "I think that it's very important that we immediately suspend this marine protected area process. The fact is that it is needlessly threatening not just the livelihoods of people who live off the sea but it's immediately threatening the entire economy of the south coast."

Whether Labor survives in government or the Coalition prevails, clearly the setting has changed. "I fish and I vote" has become more than a car sticker. Expect to see more of the fishers, and their opponents, from now on.

SOURCE

Single W.A. seat could hold key

What did I say about W.A.?

Interesting point: Ken Wyatt has Aboriginal ancestry. So the immediate future of Australia's government could depend on the vote for a conservative "black" man

FOUR seats remain on a knife-edge after the latest counting. But the West Australian seat of Hasluck could hold the keys to The Lodge for either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.

Last night the Liberals held a narrow lead in Hasluck, putting Mr Abbott within reach of moving to 73 seats and a chance of forming government in the 150 seat House of Representatives. At 73 seats Mr Abbott would be able to negotiate with the three independents, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, to take power with a majority of one.

But if Labor can get to 73 or 74 seats it may be able to govern with the support of the Green member for Melbourne Adam Bandt, who took the seat from the government after the retirement of Lindsay Tanner at Saturday's election.

After counting yesterday, Labor held leads in the Victorian seat of Corangamite, and Lindsay in western Sydney, putting it on track to move to 72 seats. The Tasmanian seat of Denison was also a tight contest between independent candidate Andrew Wilkie and Labor's Jonathan Jackson.

In Hasluck, Liberal candidate Ken Wyatt held a 363-vote, two-party-preferred lead over sitting Labor member Sharryn Jackson. But Labor is not yet ready to write off the seat and is confident of clawing back the Liberals' lead when pre-poll and postal votes are counted over the next 13 days.

Counting continued yesterday after the Australian Electoral Commission tallied a record 11 million votes on Saturday night -- 600,000 more than on election night in 2007. Over the next week, the AEC will concentrate on declaration votes including absentee votes cast on polling day, postals, pre-polls cast outside the voters' home electorate, and provisional votes.

After counting yesterday Labor held 50.67 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote compared with the Coalition's 49.33 per cent. That represented a swing of 2.03 per cent against the government. Labor had suffered a 4.87 per cent swing against in on the primary vote.

In Lindsay, Labor's David Bradbury held a 1017-vote lead over the Liberals' Fiona Scott and in the Victorian seat of Corangamite, Labor's Darren Cheeseman held a 1189-vote lead over the Liberals' Sarah Henderson on a two-party preferred basis.

An AEC spokesman said there were up to 2 million declaration votes for the AEC to scrutinise and count, including up to 1 million postal votes that could be received by the AEC up to 13 days after election day.

A senior Liberal source said up to 10 seats would probably remain in play as postal and pre-poll votes were counted.

The Liberals are looking at a best-case scenario of 76 seats and a worst-case scenario of about 70 seats as counting continues. But it is expected seats will move in and out of contention over the next few days as postal votes are counted.

For example, in Brisbane the Liberals' Teresa Gambaro is leading Labor's sitting member Arch Bevis by 858 votes on a two-party preferred basis. And in Macquarie the Liberals' Louise Markus last night led her Labor rival Susan Templeman by 1338 votes on a two- party preferred basis.

SOURCE






Children 'wrongly diagnosed'

The medicalization of behaviour marches on. We we will all be in some diagnostic category eventually. I wonder what I will be labelled with? "Senile hostility" perhaps?

DOCTORS are being pressured to diagnose children with behaviour disorders to get them extra assistance in schools, labelling many with diseases they probably don't have, researchers warn.

South-western and western Sydney have become hot spots for children, especially boys, being given diagnoses of behaviour disorder and emotional disturbance. The children are then enrolled in special schools and support classes, according to research soon to be published by Macquarie University academics.

Macquarie University researcher Linda Graham said three separate studies pointed to "pressures on paediatricians to inflate diagnoses so kids get support in class".

The research shows enrolments for "behaviour disorder" rose in NSW special schools by 254 per cent between 1997 and 2007, while kids with physical, hearing and visual disabilities fell 60 per cent over that period.

In support classes in regular NSW primary schools, emotionally disturbed diagnoses rose 139 per cent, while in support classes in regular NSW high schools, autism diagnoses grew by 280 per cent, emotional disturbance increased by 348 per cent, and behaviour disorder by 585 per cent during the same period.

Behavioural disorder diagnoses sharply rose from 2002, when NSW began building special schools for children with behavioural problems.

Children are "being diagnosed with things they don't have", Dr Graham, a fellow with the Centre for Research into Social Inclusion, said. . South-western Sydney, which accounts for 17.5 per cent of total enrolments in NSW government schools, has 26.5 per cent of enrolments in special schools and support classes, while western Sydney accounts for 13.7 per cent of total school enrolments but 17.8 per cent of enrolments in special schools and support classes.

Northern Sydney, with 11.5 per cent of school enrolments, has only 5.7 per cent of children in special schools and support classes.

Australian Medical Association paediatrics spokesman Choong-Siew Yong said he was not surprised at the disparity: parents in wealthier suburbs could afford non-government assistance for struggling children.

Dr Yong said sometimes schools will tell parents their child's behaviour "matches other kids with particular problems" and recommend they take the child to see a paediatrician to seek a diagnosis and therefore see if the child is eligible for special education funding assistance.

But Dr Yong said only a very small number of parents come looking for a particular diagnosis for their child and that paediatricians were "not placed under undue pressure". "I don't think people are lying and ripping off the system," Dr Yong said.

While parents are increasingly clamouring for greater funding for assistance, the researchers have shown special education costs rose from 7.2 per cent in 1997 of NSW government school recurrent payments to 12.8 per cent in 2007.

NSW Teachers Federation deputy president Gary Zadkovich said there was "no clear outcome" in the debate over whether too many children are being diagnosed or overmedicated. "I can say unequivocally more students are presenting in Australian schools with special education needs just because of developments in medical science," he said.

SOURCE






Big ripoff in school building

Because both the Federal and State government were asleep at the helm

MORE than $24 million in management fees were pocketed by six construction firms under the controversial federal Building the Education Revolution program in Queensland.

The stunning scale of how lucrative the program has been so far has been revealed for the first time in documents released by the Education Department. The documents also reveal the State Government has been paid almost $20 million in administration fees through July.

BER is due to deliver about $3.1 billion worth of new buildings for Queensland schools, but only 60 per cent of projects have been completed on time.

Department officials defended the fees as being within Commonwealth program guidelines and necessary for the program's success.

But LNP education spokesman Bruce Flegg said it was a waste to pay hefty fees to the states and to major companies that didn't actually do the work. "There have been fees upon fees," he said. "Many of these projects could have been planned by the schools themselves."

He said the major contractors getting the fees "were by and large very close to the Government".

The documents show $24,466,549.93 in management fees was paid to construction companies Hansen Yuncken, Abigroup, Watpac, Laing O'Rourke and to Leighton – along with its subsidiaries Theiss and John Holland – up to July this year. Leighton, Theiss and John Holland received the most management fees through July – just over $10 million. Hansen Yuncken received $3,588,237.22.

Leighton and Hansen Yuncken said they were unable to comment and referred questions to the Department of Education.

The State Government had received $19,891,453 to administer the program up until July, records show.

SOURCE






Hazy truth about organics

ENTHUSIASM for "clean, green" food is being tempered by confusion about what constitutes organic, with shoppers often not getting what they pay for.

Australians spend about $1 billion a year on organic food and other products, paying up to 50 per cent more than for conventional produce.

Yet there is huge confusion about what the label "organic"means. There are now calls for the introduction of better industry standards.

Industry expert Joanna Hendryks from the University of Canberra, said that from a consumer's point of view "it's a dog's breakfast". "Consumers need to be incredibly motivated to tell if something is organic just by looking at the label."

Chairman of the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA), Andre Leu, said shoppers deserve a better deal. "Consumers find it very hard to decide what are genuine organic products," he said.

The fact there are seven separate organisations that certify products as organic, each with a different logo, adds to consumer confusion.

In 2008, OFA commissioned research to find out how well understood the logos were. It found that even the best recognised symbol, which belongs to the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia, was recognised by only 28 per cent of regular organic shoppers. Only 5 per cent of regular organic buyers recognising the other logos.

There is even confusion among the various certifiers about how to define a product as organic.

One of the certifying bodies, Demeter, will only put its logo on food that has been grown using "bio-dynamic" principals, including the application of fermented cow manure that has been buried in a cow's horn.

Assistant professor Hendryks said shoppers gave a variety of reasons when asked why they buy organic. "For some consumers it is about taking back control and being able to make a difference to the environment in their own way," she said. "For others it is about the health benefits - or perceived health benefits, as the studies to date are still contradictory on whether there are or aren't benefits. "Then a lot of people swear by taste, particularly when they are talking about things like organic chickens and tomatoes."

Research shows shoppers are often casual when selecting what they assume is organic food - some believe chicken labelled free-range is also organic. "In my research, many people assumed Lilydale chicken was organic," Professor Hendryks said. "If you look at their packaging they don't anywhere say they are certified organic - and I'm not wanting to imply they are deceiving consumers - but there is a lot of confusion. "People will also assume that what is being sold in a farmers' market is organic when that's not necessarily the case."

A popular range of skin and haircare products is not certified as organic, despite having the words "Nature's Organics" on the label. A spokeswoman for the Melbourne company admitted many customers probably assumed the products were organic. "It is as natural as we can make it at this point," she said.

Until late last year there was no legal definition of the word "organic". As long as a product was not labelled "certified" organic, a manufacturer or grower could imply that it had been produced organically.

Only goods destined for export had to meet a minimum standard set by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. "On domestic markets there has been no legal requirement at all," Mr Leu said. "It's been at best a gentlemen's agreement that products on the market are certified but [there] has been no law to say that.

"We always felt that was a bit of a problem because people could make organic claims when they haven't had anyone to accredit them or certify them as genuinely organic."

A new voluntary domestic Australian organic standard that, among other things, bans the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and genetically modified material was introduced last October.

It will be up to the ACCC to prosecute producers who fail to comply under trade practices legislation. The OFA is pushing for the seven certifiers to accept one standard logo.

Professor Hendryks said the move would be a great boost to consumers: "I think with a big education campaign it will definitely solve a lot of the confusion.".

SOURCE

My home State did its bit for conservative policies

As it has often done in the past. Queensland is also a big mining State and Labor hostility to mining would have been a factor

IN the end, Queensland did matter. The bloodbath in New South Wales turned its focus north and it became a juggernaut. A sizeable swing south of the Tweed River was always probable but when it arrived it wasn't quite as large as many, including those in the LNP, thought.

But the smash-up in Queensland arrived fast and furious - a vote of 38 per cent mid-week was not just endorsed but dumped to 33 to 35 per cent. In terms of seats, Queensland will offer up more seats than New South Wales - now nine against four or five - which is many more than imagined.

And it foretells a serious problem for Anna Bligh as Queensland Premier - there is a reckoning coming for her as there was for federal Labor at the weekend.

Right now, this means there is almost no chance of Labor framing its own majority - there's a new Greens MP in Melbourne and a greenish MP in the Tasmania - and someone will have to negotiate a workable majority.

The nastiness is all around: there's no majority for Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard but there is a strong anti-Labor message.

Regardless, this is now a victory for Tony Abbott. He has not just exceeded expectations but has made himself the most likely leader of the country.

SOURCE





The independents set to hold the balance of power

RURAL Australia and disgruntled former members of the National Party have won enormous sway over national affairs, with up to four rural independents set to win the lion's share of the balance of power in the lower house.

But two left-leaning MPs - a Green and a former Greens candidate - will also need to be factored into the calculations of any party that hopes to form government.

The horse-trading has begun already, with a number of the new independents saying they had already been approached by major party representatives late last night.

There has not been a hung parliament in Australia since 1940.

The characters in this drama are rural independents Tony Windsor and Robb Oakeshott from NSW, Bob Katter from Queensland and, possibly, Western Australian National Party MP Tony Crook, who has vowed to act as an independent if he succeeds in knocking off the Liberals' Wilson Tuckey in the seat of O'Connor. Given the independents' backgrounds with the Nationals, it is more likely they would side with the Coalition, but it is not certain.

On the left are the Greens' new member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, and Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, a whistleblowing former intelligence analyst who ran as an independent, but who, in 2004, ran in the seat of Bennelong for the Greens. Mr Bandt has already vowed to back Labor in the event of a hung parliament.

Mr Katter is a former federal MP for the Nationals, while Mr Oakeshott was a Nationals member of the Queensland Parliament. Mr Windsor turned independent after being passed over for preselection by the Nationals. All three were returned last night with comfortable majorities.

All three now have a combative relationship with the Nationals, but also hold seats that require them to be committed to regional infrastructure and primary industry. Last night they were all keeping their cards close to their chests.

Mr Windsor said he had received a phone call of congratulations from Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and a phone message from opposition treasury spokesman, Joe Hockey, asking him to "call him".

Mr Oakeshott told The Sunday Age he had already held "informal" talks with both major parties. He said he would spend today with family but planned to head to Canberra tomorrow. He also said he would make no decision until he had spoken with the other independents and Mr Bandt. He did say, however, that his decision about which side to deal with would not necessarily be influenced by who had won more seats.

Mr Windsor echoed Mr Oakeshott's comments, but also said one of the most important considerations would be who would provide the most stable government. Other considerations could be who won the most seats, who got the most votes and what would be good for rural Australia. He has experience with being in a hung parliament - he entered the NSW Parliament as an independent in 1991 and gave then Liberal Premier Nick Greiner the extra vote he needed to form government.

Mr Katter said last week he held no allegiances and would give his support to whoever gave more to rural communities.

Analysis for The Sunday Age of the last parliament by the Parliamentary Library shows that Mr Oakeshott voted on second reading legislation (the most accurate measure of support) with the Labor government on 28 occasions and with the opposition on nine.

Mr Katter, the least likely to support Labor, voted with the Labor government five times, and with the opposition eight times. Mr Windsor was the most even-handed, siding with the government 19 times and with the opposition 16 times.

In Western Australia, Mr Crook was well placed to claim Mr Tuckey's seat on the back of Labor preferences, ending the combative Liberal MP's 30 year stint in parliament.

Mr Crook's party, the WA National Party, has vowed not to join either the Liberal or the mainstream National parties unless they agreed to a special funding deal for WA's regions based on the mining royalties generated by the state. It's a deal that both the Liberals and Nationals around the rest of the nation have until now vowed not to accept.

Mr Wilkie, a former intelligence analyst who blew the whistle on dodgy Iraq war intelligence, was another surprise package last night. Polling more than 20 per cent of the primary vote, he was looking a strong chance to win the Tasmanian seat of Denison, after preferences.

Mr Bandt, who ended a century of Labor rule in finance minister Lindsay Tanner's seat of Melbourne, becomes the second Greens member to win a seat in the lower house.

Further complicating the situation, there was an outside possibility that Greens member Sam Byrne might pull off a shock victory over Labor minister Anthony Albanese in the Sydney seat of Grayndler.

SOURCE




Lots of uncertainty in Western Australia with many votes still not counted

WA's marginal electorates are looming as crucial as the federal election heads towards a nail-biting finish. In at least two crucial electorates, Greens preferences could decide the result, while the nation's longest serving MP looks likely to lose his seat.

With about 69 per cent of the WA vote counted, there has been a swing away from Labor on primary votes of 5.5 per cent, though much of that has been picked up the Greens. On a two-party basis, the Coalition has garnered a swing of 2.55 per cent.

In O'Connor, Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey is having a tough battle against Nationals challenger Tony Crook, with Mr Tuckey holding a narrow lead on primary votes, but his challenger drawing ahead on preferences. Labor preferences could yet decide the seat, and it has preferenced Mr Crook ahead of Mr Tuckey, an MP for 30 years.

A close race looms in the state's most marginal seat, Hasluck, where Liberal challenger Ken Wyatt is bidding to become the first indigenous MP in the House of Representatives. Early results have a 1.6 per cent swing to Mr Wyatt on a two-party preferred basis, but with 67 per cent of the votes counted, the Greens preferences look likely to be crucial to sitting MP Sharryn Jackson.

Mr Wyatt told ABC Television he would only be confident after seeing the final figures. "I think we will fall over the line," he said. If elected he would feel as though he had broken the "brown glass ceiling".

Ms Jackson told Radio 6PR the race was still too close to call, although if she got 70 per cent of the Greens preferences, as she did in 2007 she would expect to get up. However, she believed a high level of pre-polling and postal voting in the seat could still decide the result. "It's been a tough fight for me in Hasluck in every election but I'm in no way at a point to concede," she said.

Despite a big effort, high-profile Labor challenger Alannah MacTiernan is likely to just miss in Canning, with sitting MP Don Randall, even with the help of Greens preferences. Ms MacTiernan has gained a swing of 2.8 per cent on a two-party basis, with the Greens getting about 8 per cent of the primary vote.

Ironically, the Greens showing is one of the party's poorest in the metropolitan area. It has 13 per cent of the statewide vote.

Mr Randall is likely to be the beneficiary of the Christian Democratic Party and Family First preferences, which combined are about half the Greens but with 73 per cent of the vote counted have him just in front. He has also been polling better than Ms MacTiernan in the most recent booth counts.

A seat that is notionally Labor but is actually held by the Liberals is Swan, where sitting MP Steve Irons has garnered a swing of 3 per cent against Labor challenger Tim Hammond and looks likely to hold the seat.

The previously marginal Liberal-held seats of Stirling and Cowan look likely to re-elect Michael Keenan and Luke Simpkins with sharply increased majorities.

While Labor would need to lose 13 seats to lose its absolute majority after the electorate redistribution, effectively it would lose the balance of power if nine MPs fall.

With the overall result still close to call, Foreign Minister and Perth MP Stephen Smith said three seats could decide the result. Mr Smith told ABC Television Labor had "clearly lost" six or seven seats, and was at risk in 10 or 11 more. "We could end up looking at how we go in Hasluck and Swan and Canning as being really crucial," he said.

"On all the available evidence you would proceed from the starting point that we would just fall below (a majority). "Those three (seats) may end up being quite crucial to the overall complexion of the night."

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, who looks certain to be re-elected as a WA senator, told Radio 6PR there could be a party room of 10 in Canberra.

SOURCE




Vocational colleges to offer degrees

More attempted verbal magic that will just downgrade all degrees. Will it get to the point where you get a Ph.D. for being able to read and write? That's the direction of travel

TAFE institutes are to offer bachelor degrees and could compete with universities for students under a bold plan aimed at combating skills shortages.

The government-owned institutes want funding from next year to offer degrees in areas such as accounting, community services, finances and information technology.

In February next year, TAFE's Sydney Institute will begin offering a bachelor of design through its Enmore Design Centre. More bachelor degrees are expected to be offered by TAFE's Northern Institute and Western Institute in 2012.

NSW TAFE was last month accredited by the state government, under national guidelines, to become a higher-income education provider, allowing it to follow Victoria's TAFE, which is already offering a limited number of degrees.

The head of TAFE in NSW, Pam Christie, said she was reluctant to name specific degrees because the board had yet to approve those that would go ahead.

TAFE wanted to extend opportunities to all communities to gain the sorts of degrees industry was demanding, she said. "We're not trying to compete with universities; we're trying to build relationships with them," she said.

This would include associate degrees offered in conjunction with universities across many of TAFE NSW's 10 institutes and 130 campuses, as well as bachelor degrees.

TAFE bosses in Victoria say enrolments so far are small, and their ability to offer a wider range of degrees to more students is being stymied by a biased funding system that means TAFE students pay more for their degrees than university students - the federal government subsidises only university degrees.

TAFEs say they have also been approached by industry to provide degrees in areas such as optometry, psychology, dentistry, project management, architectural design, technology, social work and aviation.

The head of TAFE Directors Australia, Martin Riordan, said TAFE degrees would give poor and regional students better access to higher education. "Many students in TAFE are from low socio-economic areas and are motivated to go beyond a diploma and do a degree," Mr Riordan said. "This is a way to help them get the degrees they deserve."

He said the plan would also help the federal government achieve its goal to increase the number of people aged 25 to 34 with a degree, from about 32 per cent now to 40 per cent by 2025.

Universities Australia boss Glenn Withers said it would be difficult to ensure the quality of a TAFE degree and the sector's fragile international reputation could be damaged.

"We've already suffered enough from problems with colleges collapsing and international student issues," Dr Withers said. "While we support the idea of TAFEs offering degrees to address skill shortages … the quality-assurance mechanisms just aren't good enough yet."

SOURCE





Australian Pacific island RISING, not sinking!

Discussing: Dawson, J.L. and Smithers, S.G. 2010. Shoreline and beach volume change between 1967 and 2007 at Raine island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Global and Planetary Change 72: 141-154.

Background

The authors note that low-lying reef islands are widely perceived to be particularly sensitive to ongoing and projected sea level increases; but they add that "a number of geomorphologists have argued that rising sea levels do not always cause reef islands to erode." For example, they state that "a rise in sea level may promote reef island growth by: i) increasing accommodation space for new sediment; ii) reinvigorating carbonate production on reef flats where further reef growth has been inhibited by a stable sea level; and iii) increasing the efficiency of waves to transport new and stored sediment to an island depocentre (Hopley, 1993; Hopley et al., 2007; Smithers et al., 2007; Woodroffe, 2007)."

What was done

Working on Raine Island (11°35'28"S, 144°02'17"E) at the northwest end of a planar reef on the outer edge of Australia's Great Barrier Reef -- which is one of the world's most important nesting sites for marine turtles -- Dawson and Smithers employed three historic survey maps and five topographic survey datasets of earlier researchers, supplementing them with digital elevation data collected in 1998, 2006 and 2007, to reconstruct a 40-year (1967-2007) shoreline history of the island.

What was learned

The two Australian researchers report that their "detailed quantitative surveys and analyses demonstrate that Raine Island increased in area (~6%) and volume (~4%) between 1967 and 2007," and that "in the 40 years between 1967 and 2007 Raine Island underwent a net accretion of 68,400 ± 6,700 m3."

What it means

In summing up their findings, Dawson and Smithers write that "contrary to perceptions, Raine Island did not erode but instead modestly accreted during the 40-year study period," and they therefore conclude that "future management strategies of Raine Island and other islands of the Great Barrier Reef should recognize that perceptions of reef island erosion can arise from large short-term seasonal and storm-derived sediment redistribution from one part of the island to another or to a temporary storage on the adjacent reef flat," but that these phenomena do not necessarily lead to "a net permanent loss from the island sediment budget."

And considering the similar positive findings of Webb and Kench (2010), it can be concluded that the most likely effect of a rising sea level is to actually add to the area and volume of low-lying reef islands.

SOURCE

Voting day in Australia's Federal election today

I have already cast my vote for Tony Abbott but I live in a safe Labor electorate (Griffith) so it is my Senate vote that could count for something. The polls are divided on who will win but Abbott obviously has a chance.

The Labor party has as usual campaigned on lies and deception -- constantly warning people that Abbott will bring back the unpopular "work choices" laws even though Abbott has emphatically denied any such policy. As Hitler knew, however, lies and deception do sometimes work.




Some people in the Australian Labor Party still put the jobs and wellbeing of the workers ahead of "Green" obsessions

A rather mournful comment from a Leftist writer below

Will Michael O'Connor, powerful forestry division secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, block an effective Australian response to climate change?

It's a worry for our economy because O'Connor is a key figure behind the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and soft left factional allies Martin Ferguson and Penny Wong - who, for one more day at least, control the portfolios that really matter: energy, water and climate.

O'Connor helped both Gillard and Ferguson into Parliament. In her maiden speech, Gillard acknowledged him as her "closest confidante", the "most committed of them all" to her Labor values, going back to her student days.

O'Connor should not be underestimated. If the secret of the Ferguson Left is its willingness to do deals with the Right, O'Connor has a record of going further and abandoning the ALP to support the Coalition. He helped bring down Paul Keating, organising (with the National Association of Forest Industries) the loggers blockade of Parliament House in January 1995 - a bitter protest during the regional forest agreement negotiations.

In an article for The Australian at the time, headlined "Green agenda full of myths", O'Connor railed against the environment movement's campaign to "cripple the forest and forest products industry by denying it access to native forests".

The 350-truck blockade took place just as John Howard was ushered in as opposition leader and helped establish his image as the battlers' friend, according to Australian National University forest economist Dr Judith Ajani, author of The Forest Wars (2007): "Australian voters witnessed the first display of Howard's battlers versus Keating's 'special interest elites': the core of a meticulously crafted election strategy."

O'Connor features heavily in Ajani's book, although he would not be interviewed for it. Others would. At one point, a bitter Keating calls O'Connor a "Labor rat" who should be "excommunicated" from the party.

Asked why he wasn't kicked out, Keating said: "Because people are too gutless, that's why. And nobody these days likes the fights. They all want consensus results. Well you don't get big issues resolved like this, just by consensus."

O'Connor also helped sink Mark Latham's tilt at federal office in 2004, swinging the CFMEU behind John Howard as the two main parties went toe-to-toe on Tasmanian forests policy. "It is clear that the jobs of workers, the welfare of families and the future of timber communities are to be sold off to appease Bob Brown and the Wilderness Society," O'Connor said of Latham's forest policy.

It was a spectacular betrayal of the party, but Gillard later lined up with O'Connor, saying she was "devastated" by Latham's stance on Tasmanian forests, calling it a "dreadful policy" and a "shocking, shocking error". O'Connor is the type of Laborite who sees the environment as a fashionable obsession of inner-city elites … job-destroyers hostile to the interests of workers. O'Connor calls it "real Labor". "Real Labor doesn't sell out workers," he said once.

In Ajani's telling, O'Connor is one of the forestry union's "economic troglodytes", endlessly perpetuating a false industry-versus-environment movement conflict.

Behind that conflict, according to Ajani, is a deeper struggle of industry versus industry, between native forest logging and the plantation sector which grew so fast between the 1960s and the 1990s that it can now provide all of Australia's sawn timber and pulp and paper needs.

Ajani argues O'Connor and the CFMEU, by fighting trenchantly to protect the old native forest logging sector, have sacrificed workers' long-term interests, which lie in the growth of a sustainable plantation industry. That's the win-win solution - more jobs, and our remaining native forests saved (with all the greenhouse and other immeasurable benefits that entails) - if the CFMEU could see it.

Instead of pushing for the win-win solution, O'Connor fights a rearguard action to preserve native forest logging. For example he fought against the Green Building Council's star ratings system, which gave extra points for use of timber accredited under the internationally recognised Forest Stewardship Council scheme.

He wanted points to be given for timber accredited under an industry-backed scheme, the Australian Forestry Standard, which allows native forest logging. Late last year he got it, calling the decision a "great breakthrough".

His quotes were instructive. "This took four years to achieve. I have little faith in the covenant of the Green Building Council and they have no credibility with us," he told The Australian Financial Review. O'Connor cannot abide a market-based scheme for tenants who want to occupy a green commercial building - or landlords who want to build one - which stipulates no timber from native forests.

O'Connor also has been deputy chairman of the Innovation Minister, Kim Carr's, pulp and paper industry strategy group, which wants to promote burning waste from native forest logging as renewable energy, and is arguing to ensure international carbon accounting rules do not count emissions from native forest logging.

The forest wars have a parallel in the energy sector, where the fossil fuel industry faces competition from an emerging renewables sector. Under Martin Ferguson, over the course of Labor's first term a stream of decisions have favoured the incumbents over the challengers. The saving grace was that the government finally established the 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.

Ferguson sees the parallel, accusing the Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, of "seeking to demonise the coal industry in the same way he has sought to demonise the forest industry".

The pity is that, despite the rhetoric about saving jobs, when these Labor figures are duchessed by the captains of old industry, the result is public handouts to employers, and no focus on retraining or assistance for employees, as we saw during emissions trading scheme negotiations.

O'Connor and his allies will fight tooth and nail for the industries of the past. They do not see the potential of the green industries of the future.

So Gillard has gone out of her way to avoid a mandate for action on climate change, with a deeply cynical platform comprising the citizens assembly (a joke), misleading slogans about "no new dirty coal-fired power stations" and bitsy ad-hockery on renewables, energy efficiency and "cash for clunkers". Her best mandate comes - almost in reverse - from Coalition warnings that Labor under Gillard would bring in a carbon tax "as night follows day".

SOURCE






The major Australian political parties seem agreed on reduced immigration

Elections define nations. This one has already redefined Australia even before the first vote is counted. Indeed, the most important changes could well be the ones that aren't actually on the ballot paper but have already been agreed through political osmosis.

The main political parties entered the campaign with four big, freshly agreed points of concurrence, areas of bipartisan consensus for changes that will shape Australia's destiny for years.

For the first time since 1947, Australia has abandoned its bipartisan consensus in favour of a “big Australia.”

“It started with Kevin Rudd's remark in favour of a 'big Australia'” in October “and though it was off the cuff it started an uncontrollable explosion,” says James Jupp, director of the Australian National University's centre for immigration and multicultural studies. “What we see at this election is a complete reversal of the origins of the postwar immigration program, which was all about a big Australia. Since then, our population has tripled from 7million to 21 million.”

Instead of gearing our population towards a national vision of Australia's place in the world, we have surrendered to the failures of state governments to accommodate growth.

Of the three biggest parties – Labor, the Coalition and the Greens – none will defend the current immigration program, none will defend the current rate of population growth of an average of 2.4 per cent a year over the past decade, and all promise a dramatic cut to the immigration intake.

Tony Abbott's Coalition has pledged to cut the intake from 270,000 last year to 170,000 within its first term. Julia Gillard has replied by saying that the government was already taking the intake to that level or below in any case.

The Coalition promises to slow the rate of population growth to 1.4 per cent. Labor doesn't yet have a target. It has created a Minister for Population, Tony Burke, to think about population policy, in the meantime temporising with Gillard's view that “Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population. We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia.”

With serial and cumulative failures of policy planning in housing, transport, water, hospitals and just about every other areas of service delivery across most states, public tolerance reached a fragile point. Rudd inadvertently applied the final straw.

Instead of a bipartisan consensus in favour of big immigration intakes and strong population growth, we now have a contest between the parties to see who can appear more convincingly to be the party of a not so big Australia.

SOURCE





Are they serious? Defence Forces banned from wearing berets

Australian soldiers always wear their traditional broad-brimmed hats with great pride but such hats are not suitable for all environments and circumstances. I have worn both hat and beret myself when I was in the army

The ABC reports today the Defence Force has banned Australian soldiers from wearing traditional berets.

Australian Defence Association spokesman Neil James told the ABC the ban would not apply for Special Forces or on ceremonial occasions.

The reasons for the ban include worries about exposure to the sun and ensuring the rightful place of the traditional slouch hat, Mr James told the ABC.

"Look I think it's a reasonably unpopular measure to an extent," Mr James said. Mr James warned that wearing a slouch hat inside a tank could be problematic.

SOURCE





More high-handed behaviour from the bureaucrats at Qld. Health

They are utter animals -- and that's defaming animals

Queensland Health has controversially terminated the contract of a respected surgeon operating on public hospital patients in Bundaberg with complex foot and ankle problems.

The decision to end orthopedic surgeon Michael Lutz's contract without explanation or consultation has re-ignited tensions between the Bligh Government and visiting medical officers (VMOs) - doctors who work part-time in the public health system.

Brisbane-based Dr Lutz had worked half a day a month at Bundaberg Hospital for the past two years but received a letter from Queensland Health last week terminating his services there.

Dr Lutz, who grew up in Bundaberg, said the decision would mean more Bundaberg patients would have to travel to Brisbane. "I was concentrating on things the surgeons in Bundaberg felt were beyond their capacity," he said. "There are surgeons up there who have special interests in other areas like hips and knees, but not foot and ankle. "I've certainly never had a shortage of patients. I've had a full session every time I've been there.

"It's not easy for someone in Bundaberg who's a public patient and might not have enough money or the ability to travel down to Brisbane for this care. They'll either not have care or be severely inconvenienced."

The incident has incensed VMO committee chairman Ross Cartmill, who has been negotiating a new agreement for Queensland Health's 850 VMOs. Dr Cartmill said better conditions for VMOs providing services in provincial areas were key to the negotiations. "We're struggling to get people to go to these places," he said.

Dr Lutz is still contracted to work at the Princess Alexandra Hospital one day a week.

"Michael Lutz is the type of young man we should be encouraging to be a VMO," Dr Cartmill said. "He's a young surgeon we should be proud of. When Queensland Health treats a person like this, inevitably he asks himself why does he bother? "This Bundaberg issue is to us a symptom of a disease that we've got to fight."

Dr Cartmill said Queensland Health's decision to send Dr Lutz a letter ending his contract without explanation, rather than informing him face-to-face, was indicative of the department's "notoriously poor" management style.

Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons Queensland chairman David Hayes said the way Dr Lutz had been treated would discourage other surgeons wanting to provide services in regional areas. "It's just another example of how detached we feel Queensland Health is on a number of issues," Dr Hayes said.

In a statement, Queensland Health said the Bundaberg Hospital's orthopedic services were being provided by local specialists.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG thinks the "psychic" crocodile prediction of a Gillard victory is a crock





'Muslim witness must remove burqa' - says judge

A PERTH judge has ordered that a Muslim woman must remove a full burqa while giving evidence before a jury in a fraud case. Judge Shauna Deane today ruled that the witness must remove her niqab, or burqa face covering, when she gives evidence to the jury.

The judge said she did not consider it appropriate that the witness give evidence with her face covered. However she stressed she was not making a decision which was making a legal precedent, it was simply her ruling in these circumstances.

Earlier a defence lawyer had argued that the Muslim woman should remove her burqa to give evidence in the fraud trial, just as she would have to appear without the covering in an Islamic court.

But District Court Judge Shauna Deane rejected the argument as not relevant, as the matter is not being heard in an Islamic court.

The judge heard lawyers' submissions on whether a 36-year-old Muslim woman should be allowed to wear a full burqa, also called a niqab, while giving evidence in a fraud trial.

The woman, an Islamic studies teacher, is due to give evidence for the prosecution in the fraud trial of a Muslim college director, Anwar Sayed.

In court, defence lawyer Mark Trowell, QC, said the woman's wish to wear the burqa was a "preference she has". "It's not an essential part of the Islamic faith. If she was in an Islamic court she would be required to remove it," he said. Judge Deane replied: "This isn't an Islamic court."

Defence lawyers raised concerns about how the jury could be expected to read the woman's facial expressions if they could not see her face.

Prosecutor Mark Ritter, SC, told the court the woman wanted to give evidence but would feel uncomfortable without the burqa and that could affect her evidence. "It goes beyond stress . . . it would have a negative impact," Mr Ritter said. He said the woman, who has lived in Australia for seven years, had worn the burqa since the age of 17 and went without it only before her family and male blood relatives.

SOURCE






The collapse of school discipline again

Parents threaten legal action to remove primary school 'bully'

PARENTS of a six-year-old boy may take legal action to remove an alleged bully who has been tormenting their son in class.

Taner, a pupil at Roxburgh Homestead school, in Melbourne, has allegedly been kicked, punched, ridiculed and verbally abused by a classmate for several months.

But Taner's parents, Sue and Cane, yesterday accused the school of failing to protect him even though staff had admitted the perpetrator was "fixated" on their son and a psychologist had recommended he be moved.

Sue, who asked that the family's surname not be published, said Taner had become so distressed by the bullying that he was admitted to hospital after vomiting and complaining of stomach cramps and breathing problems. "He said, 'Mum, I can't go to school. Every time I go he's just going to hit me and hurt me all the time'," she said. "He's been kicking him in the legs, punching him in the arms. He's having nightmares, he's extremely distraught."

Taner, who is being kept at home, said the attacks made him sad and he hadn't learnt much this year. "He hits me every school day. I say, 'Stop it, I don't like it', I give him one warning and then a second or last warning and then he hits me," he said.

Sue said the Roxburgh Park school had promised to deal with the issue, but the attacks had continued. It is believed the alleged bully has autism.

Taner's parents want the other boy removed from the class, but so far the school has offered only to transfer Taner. A child psychologist has recommended that Taner remain in his class, but an Education Department student wellbeing officer has told the parents the alleged bully will not be moved.

When told that the parents were considering legal action, the officer allegedly said: "I'll see you in court." It is believed this has been disputed.

Cane said the school had admitted the alleged bully's fixation on his son, but the family felt let down by the school and the department. "We are the victims but we are being made to feel like we're the guilty party," he said.

Roxburgh Homestead principal Barb Adam said the school had been dealing with the issue and wanted to continue talking with both families to resolve it. "There have been mechanisms that have been put in place to support both students," she said. "We're really confident we can resolve this issue but because it appears to have become a legal matter it would be inappropriate for the school to comment further."

The department confirmed it was investigating the matter. "We're working with both families to resolve the issue," a spokesman said. "No bullying is tolerated in our schools." [Except when it is!]

Parents Victoria spokeswoman Elaine Crowle said there was rarely a win-win situation in these matters. "The child and the parents deserve to feel supported by the school and we would always encourage parents to try and have it handled by the school," she said.

SOURCE





Australia now ruled by elites

AUSTRALIA'S first Parliament had a tinsmith, a carpenter, a cabinet maker, a butcher, a market gardener, and no less than two hatmakers sitting on its benches. Between them they could have built parliament, furnished it, tended its lawns and clad its inhabitants in the latest fashions.

Fast forward 110 years and 97 per cent of today's federal parliamentarians come straight from careers as "managers, administrators or professionals", figures from the Parliamentary Library show. The remainder include a motivational speaker (Pat Farmer, LP), an AFL coach (Damian Hale, ALP), two real-estate agents (Michael Keenan, LP and Judi Moylan, LP) and a military officer (Mike Kelly, ALP). There is not a single tradesperson among them.

A separate Herald analysis comparing politicians' past careers against the occupations of the wider workforce reveals a yawning gap between today's politicians and the people they represent.

Although nearly all of today's federal politicians come straight from a managerial, administrative or professional job, just 48 per cent of the wider Australian workforce hold such positions, according to the Bureau of Statistic's 2006 census.

The remaining half of the workforce include tradespeople and technicians (14.4 per cent), labourers (10.5), salespeople (9.8), community workers (8.8) and machinery operators and drivers (6.6).

Not one of the 226 members in the recently dissolved Parliament came directly from one of these occupations. (However, some members may have performed such jobs earlier in life because the library's figures only count the position held immediately before entering Parliament.)

According to the library, nearly a quarter of members came from a position in business - as executives, managers or self employed. The second most common path after that was through a union or party position (19 per cent of members). Barristers, solicitors and other types of lawyers made up a further 12 per cent of Parliament, despite representing just 0.8 per cent of the wider workforce.

Although Australia's Parliament has always been heavy with business professionals and lawyers, the increase in the number of politicians coming from party or union positions is startling. Just seven members of the 1901 Parliament were former union officials.

Today, 43 per cent of parliamentarians come directly from political jobs - including political consultants, advisers and lobbyists, members of state legislatures, party or union employees and electorate staff. Two-thirds of ALP members come via that route, and this probably understates the numbers who held such positions previously.

In 1981, at the end of the Fraser era, just 15 per cent of all members came to Parliament directly from political posts. The last Fraser Parliament contained six tradesmen, eight teachers, six medical practitioners, two pharmacists and a policeman.

Ian McAllister, a professor of political science at the Australian National University, said: "What we have seen in Australia is the rise of the career politician, where people are involved in politics at university and then they go work in a politician's office and then go into parliament."

Although Australia has never had a government that truly mirrored society, it had become even less representative over the past half-century. "In particular in the Labor Party, you have seen a collapse in people coming from working-class backgrounds over the past 50 years - it just doesn't happen any more, or it is very rare," Professor McAllister said. "In terms of representing the interests of the people within their electorate, you might say it would be better if they came from a background which better represented the people."

He said the rise of career politicians was a global phenomenon, but more pronounced in Australia because of the power of political parties to pick their candidates. Above-the-line voting in the Senate, in particular, meant parties more or less decided which candidates were elected. "The Senate was designed to be the state's house and it was designed to be non-partisan and in fact its more partisan than the lower house."

SOURCE






Bullied nurse wins appeal for compensation

Bullying of medical staff by bureaucrats is all too common

A NURSE who claimed she was bullied by Gold Coast Hospital management has won an appeal for workers compensation for a psychological injury.

Mudgeeraba LNP MP Ros Bates yesterday told State Parliament a culture of bullying and intimidation remained rife in Queensland Health and unreasonable management practices had injured nurse Susan Dale.

Although Ms Dale's initial claim for compensation with WorkCover Queensland was rejected, Q-Comp this week set aside that decision and ruled she had sustained a personal injury due to her employment.

Ms Dale had claimed the manner in which two meetings with management were conducted over complaints made against her earlier this year had contributed to the onset of her psychological condition.

Review Officer Marisha Mees found hospital management had acted unreasonably by calling a meeting to address complaints against Ms Dale and including a manager she felt did not like her as well as calling a second meeting without giving her time to have a support person present.

In a statement, Ms Dale said she was relieved there had been a positive outcome for her professionally. "My case is only the tip of the iceberg on the bullying that takes place at the Gold Coast Hospital from senior staff," she said.

Ms Bates said the decision was a damning indictment of the endemic culture of bullying and intimation that remains a part of Queensland Health.

Health Minister Paul Lucas said one complaint of bullying was one too many but Queensland Health was a large organisation and everyone needed to understand the appropriate way in which to deal with their fellow staff members.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG doesn't think much of Tony Abbott's plan for getting young people off the dole. Zeg sees it as a "carrot" that will be ineffective and thinks the stick is needed





AUSTRALIA'S GREEN PARTY ARE DESTRUCTIVE CRAZIES

Four current articles below:

Australia's Green party is far-Leftist

The big parties' panicked abandonment of climate change has effortlessly transformed the Greens. They are now two days from winning more power than they've ever dreamed of.

The Greens are almost certain to win the balance of power in the Senate for the first time. This will make them the arbiter of any legislative disagreement between Labor and Liberal and put them in a prize negotiating position.

And the betting markets make the Greens favourite to win their first seat in the House of Representatives on Saturday, giving them power to propose laws.

This is the Greens' big chance to go from fringe to mainstream. So what is Brown's vision? The Greens have policies on a great deal more than climate change.

Their tax policy, for instance, prefers less tax from the GST and more from income taxes. Specifically, it commits the party to raising the top income tax rate from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. And it demands company tax rise from 30 per cent to 33 per cent.

Would Brown actively pursue these proposals, or are they dead letters, like Labor's long-ignored platform to socialise industry?

Brown not only vigorously advanced the case for "a much more equitable tax system" yesterday, he also pledged a cap on executive salaries of $5 million. And he promised to force a future Labor government to extract an extra $2 billion in mining taxes to pay for education.

The Greens, in other words, are unabashedly advocating a greater redistribution of income. As opposition parties sniff power, they usually soften radical policies and become more centrist. Not the Greens.

Brown said he would "look at the imbalance in our trade agreements". He attacked the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and signalled hostility to the agreements Australia is negotiating with Japan and China.

The Greens support Labor's broadband network, but want to go further. Where Labor will build the network, then privatise it within five years, the Greens will seek to keep it in state ownership permanently.

Taken together, the Greens are bringing alive the old Labor commitment to redistributive socialism. And yesterday Brown said it was actually redistribution of wealth - not climate science - that was the reason he helped block the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme.

He helped defeat Australia's only realistic attempt at an ETS, he said, because Rudd's proposed compensation for carbon emitters, "the biggest polluters," was too much.

The Greens are often accused of being a watermelon party - green on the outside but a socialist red in the middle. Not true. The party's leader showed yesterday that it's actually more like a tomato, red not just on the outside but all the way to the centre.

SOURCE

Felled by an invidious green plot

"The conscience-less dishonesty of the green movement"

This is the chilling story of how green activists targeted and finally brought down John Gay, the visionary former chairman of the Tasmanian timber company Gunns, damaged the company and helped wreck the state economy.

It contains a clear warning for the rest of Australia of what lies in wait as emboldened environmental activists move on to new bogus campaigns against their next targets: the "wild rivers" of Cape York at the expense of indigenous enterprise, the fishing industry, farming or, catastrophically, the coal industry.

In Gay's downfall is everything you need to know about the conscience-less dishonesty of the green movement, and how its war on progress is camouflaged as concern for nature.

"I'm not bitter with the company," says Gay, who resigned in May. "I had to leave Gunns because the institutional investors were targeted by the greens and kept pressuring me to resign, and I just wasn't prepared to put my wife and two kids through any more [of the] thuggery in the green movement. They've damaged Tasmania and did their best to damage my credibility."

The third-generation Tasmanian sawmiller left school at 15 to work with his father, before building his own sawmill and being headhunted at 28 by Gunns, a family-owned timber milling and hardware store business in Launceston then turning over about $10 million a year. He became the managing director, transforming Gunns into a top 50 company with a market capitalisation of $900 million by 2003, when it was one of the best-performing companies on the stock exchange.

Gay bought the company back from the multinational Rio Tinto, becoming a hero of the working people of Tasmania.

But the international green movement and the Australian Wilderness Society fought a relentless campaign to bring the company to its knees and destroy Gay. They let loose violent feral protesters who chained themselves to trees and sabotaged logging equipment; protesters with placards picketed the ANZ Bank, which had undertaken to finance Gay's proposal for a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, but pulled out at the last minute.

And they had environmentalists in suits successfully traduce Gay to cowardly institutional investors who earlier this year dumped Gunn's shares, halving the value of the company in a week.

Greenies in suits also went to Japan, destroying Gunn's markets for its woodchips, threatening - in an oh-so-reasonable way - companies which used pulp sourced from Tasmania's forests to make paper. Afraid their brands would be trashed, Gunns' Japanese customers dropped Tasmania like a hot potato.

Then there was the personal vilification. Gay describes it as "torture" for his wife, Erica, and adult son and daughter, with his home under assault two or three nights a week for years - from smoke bombs under the house, stink bombs at the front door, dead possums in the yard, people rattling the gates late at night and screaming abuse from the street. His wife was spat at in the supermarket and the Tasmanian media sat on the fence as a good man's reputation was destroyed. "My wife and kids were tormented … I had to put in a security system so my wife could feel safe," he says.

Today Gay will say nothing bad about Gunns. But he must view with dismay what has happened since he left, with its wineries and hardware stores sold off at rock-bottom prices, and its capitulation to the green movement.

Like any quasi-religious force, the environmentalists needed an arcadia to save and a demon to fight. The cute island state and the "rapacious logger" fitted the bill. Gay was a godsend to them. An unreconstructed working man, who never completed high school and believed in honest work and fair play, he saw the world as rational and straightforward, rather than an insane place of spin, mirage and hidden agendas.

His friend of 45 years, and a former director of Gunns and former Liberal premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, says: "John is a very, very decent bloke, very generous, but he's been painted as a dreadful uncaring person. "People who should know better were influenced … by green activists … who went to the chief executive of the ANZ Bank, which had given commitments to fund the pulp mill … The movement against him finally cost him his job."

The former premier Paul Lennon says the Tasmanian economy is "under extreme stress, the timber industry is on its knees". "Unemployment in Tasmania is 6.3 per cent. When I was in politics two years ago, it was 4 per cent. And we were one of the fastest-growing places in the country, but Tasmania is small and vulnerable to big shocks. We need projects like the pulp mill to underpin the economy."

Lennon blames the then environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for "sitting on his hands" over approval for the pulp mill before the 2007 election, under the onslaught of a campaign in his eastern suburbs Sydney seat of Wentworth by the businessman Geoffrey Cousins, who appeared out of nowhere to wage a virulent campaign against the mill. The delay, Lennon says, stopped the pulp mill in its tracks. Gunns is now in closed-door negotiations with the Wilderness Society over whether it will be allowed to continue with the mill.

"Who is actually going to believe that environmental management is going to be better in Indonesia or Malaysia," Lennon says. The campaign "exposes the real agenda of Greens". "The Greens believe in shrinking the economy. We've found in Tasmania [that] they always find a way to oppose projects - they always try to slow down growth."

One Tasmanian political insider says Gay's failure was that he was "out of touch with the way to operate a modern business". "He's a lovely bloke but he didn't have the skills or the layers of bureaucracy, or the PR people you need to manage the campaign for the pulp mill.

"He just thought a pulp mill was a good idea for Tasmania. It would create jobs, and he was going to build the best, most environmentally friendly one in the world. He couldn't understand why people were putting obstacles in his path."

Gay thought truth would win out. Now he lies in bed at night and worries about the logging contractors he couldn't save, who borrowed money to buy equipment and have lost their livelihood.

Gay refused to kowtow to irrational green bullying, and his demise stands as an object lesson.

What the green movement has done to Tasmania's timber industry, it will do to the rest of the country. Those purported 13 per cent of people planning to vote for the Greens on Saturday had better understand exactly what they are voting for. It's not about saving trees. It's about "moving backwards" to the dark ages.

SOURCE

Push to silence the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney after his criticism of Greenies

If a leading churchman cannot offer an interpretation of his own church's doctrine, we are back in Tudor times

The recent stoush [metaphorical punchup] between Cardinal George Pell and the Australian Greens prompts the question “Where is the Australian Tax Office when you need them?” According to Derek Mortimer, principal of DF Mortimer & Associates, a boutique law firm working exclusively for Not for Profit organisations, if the ATO cannot effectively monitor and regulate charities, it fails them.

Currently the ATO serves as a de facto regulator of charities. Through its tax ruling system, churches and other charities are prohibited by the ATO from engaging in party political activities like encouraging the public to vote against a particular party. There is a good reason for this prohibition. Charities need to keep their independence. The values and policies of political parties and charities can align sometimes, but not always.

Charities that take political sides can find their values compromised. In my opinion, this has happened to Cardinal Pell and the church he represents. In apparent defiance of the ATO’s own tax rulings Cardinal Pell is reported as saying the Greens are “anti-Christian”. But as the Greens have pointed out, at least some of their values and policies align squarely with Christians.

There appears to be no immediate, public effort by the ATO to restrain Cardinal Pell from making party political statements. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect the ATO to do so. Yet the ATO has been travelling through the court system against a self described “activist” organisation called “Aid/Watch Incorporated”. The ATO says this organisation has a political purpose and cannot be charitable. The High Court heard the case in June and judgment will be handed down later this year. The independence of the ATO becomes compromised where it acts against one charitable organisation but does not appear to act against another.

Nor does the ATO have a formal complaints process for the public to complain about a charity’s apparent breach of tax rulings.

In Britain a member of the public can lodge a complaint about a charity engaging in party political activities with the independent charity regulator, the Charity Commission. The Commission may send the charity a warning letter (in the nature of a gentle reminder of obligations) and can also commence a more formal regulatory case report and in worse cases, revoke charity registration and consequent fiscal privileges . The Commission has been publicly active in the lead up to the recent British general elections, to investigate and rule on complaints about charities engaging in party political activities.

In January this year the Productivity Commission restated what the Australian charity sector has for many years been calling for; some form of charity regulator independent from the ATO. The ATO provides many useful services to charities, but if the ATO cannot effectively monitor and regulate charities, it fails them.

SOURCE

Despite the Greenies, large houses make sense

If the Greenies dropped their objection to "sprawl", their insistence on "dumb growth" and their opposition to land use changes, it might be different

ONE of the current social themes is that the consumer is to blame for wanting a big home. The new social order - excuse me if I get on my hobby horse for a second or two - wants us to buy something smaller and magically make our housing problems disappear.

Sadly, too few of those who clog up the blogosphere with urban commentary understand the economics of new housing or the decision-making process of a rational buyer.

Recent statistics published by CommSec show that Australia has the largest homes in the world, with the average floor area of a new dwelling (including townhouses but excluding apartments) topping 214sq m, up from 150sq m just 25 years ago.

The average floor area of new free-standing houses also set a record at 245sq m. Our homes are much larger than those in Europe and even many American cities.

Why has this occurred? It is simply economics. The actual land component of a new house-and-land package is very high and fixed. The land usually costs two-thirds of the total purchase price. This is particularly the case for basic or entry level new housing.

For example, the land component of a basic $375,000 house-and-land package in Queensland could cost as much as $250,000. In contrast, a 150sq m three-bedroom base level house on that land would cost about $135,000 or about $2500/sq m as a total price (including the price of the land).

Now a larger 250sq m four-bedroom house with a study might cost $175,000, making the total package cost $425,000. The buyer gets 100sq m of extra house for just $50,000 more. The total end price per square metre has now dropped to $1700, or 30 per cent less.

Here is the real rub. Assuming that the buyer can afford to pay the extra deposit and fund a $425,000 house-and-land package, all it costs - assuming a 10 per cent deposit and using today's rates - is an extra $10 a day in mortgage payments.

The new home buyer can now own a home that is two-thirds larger for just $70 a week. To upsize the house, as outlined in the example above, would cost the buyer an extra $3640 a year.

Given the high cost of land in and around our capital cities, the trend towards larger new homes makes economic sense. Consumers are just acting in their own interests and are making rational decisions to choose a larger and more valuable home for what is a small additional out-of-pocket expense.

Unless there are real economies in the land content, for example a plentiful supply of subdivided land to keep land prices keen, building a small house on a more traditional-sized suburban block of land is often not the best value for money.

SOURCE

ANOTHER defence equipment bungle

The defence bureaucracy cannot get even the simpest things right. No wonder most of Australia's submarines have been out of service for years

Now we hear that soldiers have to modify their gear with scissors!

Soldiers in Afghanistan have complained their government-issued equipment is failing them during firefights with the Taliban and putting them at risk of injury or death, according to leaked Defence documents.

Four official complaints have been received from the Middle East and training bases in Australia - one on May 7 and three between June 11 and 18 - about the standard-issue ammunition pouches soldiers have to use.

"Soldiers have significant difficulty in removing their magazines from their issued F88 Land 125 pouch due to the pouch simply being too tight," one complaint, seen by the Herald, said. "This could lead to the lack of capability in a lethal environment causing unnecessary casualties or death."

Defence said it is developing new pouches in response to complaints and they should be issued by the end of the year.

Army headquarters has ordered soldiers to use scissors to modify these pouches to eliminate a potentially dangerous defect. In two separate incidents in the past three months, soldiers have misplaced live rounds for blank rounds during training exercises because an internal divider in the magazine pouch can "hide" a loose round at the bottom of the pouch. The rounds were then accidentally loaded into a magazine.

Soldiers have been advised to cut the divider away with scissors, Defence said this week. Troops have also been advised to take more time to check the pouches for live rounds after exercises.

In May last year, the military banned the use of non-issue pouches because a soldier was shot in the shoulder and arm in exactly the same kind of accident. The ban led to uproar among combat soldiers on online forums and official complaints up the chain of command.

In the latest such complaint, obtained by the Herald, combat soldiers in Afghanistan have warned top brass that lives are being put at risk.

The leak follows a Herald investigation in May that revealed troops were being issued with defective equipment because the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) was riddled with questionable tender practices and incompetence.

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant-General Ken Gillespie, and the head of the DMO, Stephen Gumley, put out a statement in response, saying they contained "inferences" that were inaccurate. In his statement, Lieutenant-General Gillespie said the DMO "provides safe, fit for purpose, high-quality clothing and personal equipment to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force". [Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t]

On June 1, he told a Senate estimates hearing: "The vast majority of troops acknowledged that they were among the best-equipped troops in the theatre. The inference is that, because we have some issues with pouches at the present time, we have let our soldiers down. I do not accept that."

Five days later, a combat soldier on deployment logged a formal complaint that the "pouches fail to meet the operational usage required by infantry soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan".

In April last year, the commanding officer of a security task group deployed to Oruzgan province, Major Michael Bassingthwaighte, wrote to senior officers that issued equipment "failed to meet the standard required for the deployment". The Herald revealed in May that 90 per cent of Major Bassingthwaighte's soldiers bought their own gear from their salaries.

SOURCE





Tony Abbott still doubts planet is getting hotter

TONY ABBOTT has restated his sceptical views on climate change, and suggested the world may be getting cooler, as the Australian Academy of Science released a new report warning of the future impact of global warming.

The Opposition Leader said he accepted "that climate change is real", but he did not back away from his view, based in part on the work of the Australian climate sceptic Ian Plimer, that the world is getting colder.

Asked by the ABC's Four Corners if he still disputed that humans are responsible for climate change, Mr Abbott said: "Sure, but that's not really relevant at the moment. We have agreed to get a 5 per cent emissions reduction target."

He suggested he harboured doubts about the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body charged with collating global warming research.

"I certainly think that there is a credible scientific counterpoint but, in the end, I'm not going to win an argument over the science, I'll leave that to the scientists," he told Four Corners. "I have pointed out in the past that there was that high year a few years ago, and … if you believe the various measuring organisations, [the temperature] hasn't increased, but again the point is not the science, the point is how should government respond and we have a credible response that will achieve a 5 per cent reduction by 2020 and the government doesn't."

Mr Abbott was referring to global temperatures in 1998, which coincided with a heat-inducing El Nino cycle, and by some measures was slightly hotter than 2005.

Neither the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, nor Mr Abbott, could say when Australia's greenhouse gas emissions needed to peak if the country was to achieve its minimum agreed emissions cut of 5 per cent by 2020.

The Coalition has pledged to meet the commitment principally by paying farmers to absorb more carbon dioxide into the soil, though it insists that its payments do not constitute a "carbon price".

The Labor Party will also attempt to soak up more carbon in the soil, but says its preferred mechanism for cutting emissions is still an emissions trading scheme, which it will consider introducing in 2013.

The renewed argument over the science of climate change comes as a study of 300 federal, state and local government political leaders, by the University of Queensland, suggests sharp differences in beliefs and understanding around global warming between the Coalition and Labor parties.

Coalition MPs were less likely to believe climate change is happening, and showed less trust in scientists, although the results reflected only those who decided to take part in the survey. Forty-one federal MPs, 101 state MPs and 69 local government representatives took part.

The results showed 38 per cent of Coalition politicians believed the world was getting warmer because of human-induced carbon emissions, compared with 57 per cent of non-aligned politicians, 89 per cent of Labor politicians and 98 per cent of Greens.

"This difference is unlikely to have occurred by chance," said Dr Kelly Fielding, of the university's Institute for Social Science. "What it shows is that a much higher proportion of Liberal-National politicians are uncertain in their views, whereas on average the Labor politicians are more likely to agree with the statements made by scientists."

SOURCE




Hurt boy waits days for surgery

NSW government hospitals in their usual form



HIS face is so badly broken that doctors have warned him not to cough or sneeze but teenager Blake Wells has been forced to wait an agonising four days for surgery. Despite needing emergency facial reconstruction after a blow to his head during a rugby league match, Blake, 14, was sent away from a busy hospital on Sunday and told to return today.

Staff at Gosford Hospital informed Blake's family they had only one operating theatre in use at the weekend. And despite being prepared for surgery on Sunday, two life-threatening cases were admitted, meaning that Blake's operation had to be delayed until today.

Gosford Hospital management yesterday said that appropriate care had been given to Blake but blamed a "breakdown in communication" with the family.

Blake has loose fragments of bone floating around under his cheek. He has been told not to sneeze or cough in case the bone fragments became lodged in his nose.

"We are absolutely livid. We feel so frustrated, so angry, and so disappointed," his father Peter Wells said.

A hospital spokeswoman yesterday apologised to the family and said Blake's operation would go ahead today. "The standard approach for dealing with [his] fractures is either to operate on them early before swelling or delay surgery for at least three to four days to allow the swelling to resolve," a spokeswoman said.

SOURCE






Big burger causes do-gooder freakout



Looks yummy and seems to have lots of good stuff in it. Don't believe the crap about fat being bad for you. See the sidebar of my FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC blog for the evidence on the matter

A burger branded a heart attack on a plate by dietitians is being billed as Brisbane's latest tourist attraction. The 21 burger - created by chefs at Treasury Casino's Cafe 21 - features 21 ingredients including a 250g meat pattie and a new super-sized bun to "support" its heavy load.

"It's definitely a monster," sous chef Anthony Swanson said. "We really just wanted something that would set us apart from the competition and give people another reason to come here."

He said the burger was easily Brisbane's biggest and would hopefully become something of a tourist attraction. "It's our new signature dish," said Mr Swanson.

But dietitian Nicola Fox said the burger was gluttony at its best. "The meat, salad and bread would be suitable as a meal, certainly not a snack," Ms Fox said. "Brisket, cheese, egg and bacon increase the calories significantly and the mayo, sugar, butter, onion jam and sauces add more calories without providing any nutritional value."

She said adding beer-battered fries and aioli on the side would make the ``ridiculously high-fat, high-calorie meal even more horrendous". "It's scary, a heart attack on a plate."

Mr Swanson said at $17, the burger was more expensive than its fast-food chain competition but "still good value".

The 21 Burger's ingredients: Rangers Valley beef, Wagyu beef brisket, Worcestershire sauce, garlic, mayo, chives, cream chees, bacon, Spanish onion, onion jam, egg, lettuce, tomato, smokey BBQ sauce, white damper roll, bread crumbs, parmesan, sugar, salt, pepper, butter.

SOURCE