Mark Bouris slams outrageous real estate rules preventing young Australians from making their first step into the property market

There's no stupidity like government stupidity

Two infuriating rules are preventing young Aussies from gaining a foothold on the property ladder, according to finance guru Mark Bouris.

The Wizard Home Loans founder has identified two 'unfair' rules preventing young people from buying their first home.

The first relates to the First Home Owner Grant (FHOG), a scheme that offers $10,000 to eligible people buying their first property valued at $600,000 or less.

'Did you know that the First Home Owner Grant only applies to apartments with a floor area greater than 50 square metres?,' Bouris wrote in an article for Yahoo Finance.

'So young people who are looking to buy a one-bedroom or studio apartment won't be eligible for the FHOG.'

The businessman also pointed out that it was far harder to secure a loan for a property smaller than 50 square metres.

'Why should someone looking to buy a mansion have a better shot at getting a loan than someone who wants to buy a studio apartment?,' he asked.

'It’s not fair.'

Bouris then took aim at the 'absurdity' of charging people $300 to view a property's strata report to check for any defects or nasty surprises.

'It's like going to buy a car and the car dealership charging you $300 just to see the car's service history. You'd tell the dealer he’s dreaming,' Bouris wrote.

The founder of Yellow Brick Road mortgage brokers pointed out that if you were to view and properly assess 20 different apartments it would cost you $6,000 just to access their strata reports.

'This is the absurdity of the property market in this country. It's why so many young people are giving up,' he wrote.

'And it's why we need change. So let's stop charging first-home buyers to see a strata report. Let's allow the First Home Owners Grant to apply to properties with a floor area of under 50 square metres.

'It's common sense. It can be done with a flick of a pen.'

It comes at a time when Australian house prices are set to hit record highs as a combined mix of population growth, construction blockages and borrowing power heat up the market.

Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane are expected to lead the pack on house prices in the 2025 financial year, setting fresh records alongside Queensland's Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast, real estate portal Domain says.

By the end of the 2025 financial year, median house prices would exceed $850,000 in Perth and $1.7million in Sydney, and hit $984,000 in Adelaide and $999,000 in Brisbane, the property marketplace predicts.

Domain research and economics chief Nicola Powell said population growth, construction challenges and borrowing power would be to blame for the expected price growth in Australia's market.

'We have seen an increase in single-person households and a decrease in household size in general, both amplifying housing demand, further compounded by migration,' Dr Powell said.

'Home building has also struggled to keep up with population growth due to the scarcity of land, weak building approvals, and high construction costs, exacerbating the existing structural undersupply.'

Stage three tax cuts on July 1 would mean more money hitting Australian households, lifting borrowing capacity across the country, Dr Powell said.

For some, that would mean upping their budgets, while for others, it could mean more borrowing capacity and a push into the market, she said.

'All three factors will play a role in further driving up Australia's home prices,' Dr Powell added.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13545035/Mark-bouris-real-estate-rules-home-owner-grant-strata-reports-young-Australians-buying-home.html

**********************************************

Fury at Sydney University’s ‘capitulation’ to protesters

The University of Sydney’s concessions to some anti-Israel protesters for closing their campus encampment peacefully have been met with fury from Jewish groups and the federal opposition.

Australia’s oldest university on Friday night announced it had struck an agreement with the last of the Gaza war encampment protesters, the Sydney University Muslim Students Association.

The agreement would see the students end their near-two months-long protest in return for a suite of measures, including a seat at a working group to review the university’s defence and security investments.

The Muslim Students Association earlier on Friday said their defiance of university orders to vacate had “worked in our favour across many fronts, most particularly being the catalyst for the negotiations with the uni”.

The social media post was made in conjunction with stand4palestineaus, which was recently implicated with extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir in a report in the Nine newspapers.

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president David Ossip lashed the management of the university and accused it of “thoroughly deceptive and misleading” engagement with the Jewish community.

“This is nothing short of a scandal. [Vice-chancellor] Mark Scott, his offsider Darren Goodsir, Chancellor Belinda Hutchinson and the University of Sydney have hideously capitulated and done a deal with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir – an organisation proscribed as a terrorist organisation in much of the world including the UK,” Mr Ossip told The Australian.

“In a sign of how futile this appeasement is, Hizb ut-Tahrir have already announced that they are planning future activities to put pressure on the university and have not ruled out a further encampment,” he said.

Sydney University’s administration has responded that “our campuses must be welcoming and safe for all our community, including our Jewish and Muslim students … our focus from the beginning has been to de-escalate tensions – not fuel them”

“The university’s engagement with the Jewish community has been thoroughly deceptive and insulting,” Mr Ossip said.

“Despite assurances to the Jewish community that any offer to the encampment was off the table and that the university would be pursuing alternate options to clear the encampment, the university instead reopened negotiations with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir.

“When we found out about these negotiations on Wednesday and formally requested immediate crisis talks, Mark Scott ignored this request and has still not picked up the phone to us.

“Instead the university negotiated with only one side, reached an agreement with a group dominated by Hizb ut-Tahrir, sought to bury the story on a Friday night (the Jewish Shabbat) and allowed the radical protesters to first announce the deal.

“No amount of mealy mouthed, pro-forma spin from the university should be allowed to distract from the utter shame of the university’s behaviour or the pathetic terms they have agreed to.

“This deal is not just about ‘transparency’ as the university claims. It goes beyond the terms agreed by any other institution and effectively gives Hizb ut-Tahrir influence over the university’s research and investment activities.

“Be in no doubt – whilst the university may be enjoying its new collaboration with Hizb ut-Tahrir, the university’s relationship with the Jewish community is in absolute tatters.”

Opposition Liberal education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson said the “capitulation to activists, including people linked to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, is untenable”.

“The government must step in and overturn all such agreements, particularly those struck with groups which are listed terrorist organisations in some other countries,” Ms Henderson said.

“How can students and staff be safe on a university campus when vice-chancellors are bargaining with extremists?”

Liberal federal member for Berowra and prominent Jewish MP Julian Leeser accused Professor Scott of having “ceded control to radical extremist groups” and he repeated calls for a judicial inquiry into campus anti-Semitism.

“Why, when there is clear evidence that extremist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir are infiltrating our universities, has the Albanese government refused to take action,” Mr Leeser said.

“Instead of demonstrating leadership and providing a safe and cohesive learning environment, the University of Sydney’s vice-chancellor Mark Scott has ceded control to radical extremist groups.

“Sydney University’s actions are setting a terrible example for the next generation that Jewish students and staff don’t count and that if you intimidate people enough you can get whatever you want.

“The Albanese government proves every day how weak they are in combating anti-Semitism.

“It is time Labor took campus anti-Semitism seriously and supported my bill for a judicial inquiry into anti-Semitism in Australian universities.”

Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Alex Ryvchin lashed the agreement with the “anti-Israel fanatics”.

“This dismal decision by the university shows that unlawful conduct, intimidation and extremism are effective tactics against weak leadership,” he told The Australian.

“Today, there will be celebrations among those who have turned one of our finest institutions into an eyesore and created no-go areas on the campus.

“Meanwhile, Jewish students and staff will feel that once again their basic rights and equality mean less than the outrageous demands of anti-Israel fanatics,” Mr Ryvchin said.

The deal, announced by the Muslim Students Association and confirmed by the university on Friday evening, would see the university disclosing details of defence and security-related research and investments.

The University of Sydney will also double its expenditure over the next three years to support academics under its scholars-at-risk program, with a particular focus on Palestinians, the SUMSA president said.

Most significantly, the university committed to set up a working group to review its defence investments and research disclosures, and granted protesters a seat at the table.

The deal is similar to the offer the university made weeks ago that sparked backlash from Jewish leaders and calls for vice-chancellor Mark Scott to resign.

When contacted for comment, a University of Sydney spokeswoman said: “Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our community. Our campuses must be welcoming and safe for all our community, including our Jewish and Muslim students.”

“We understand there is deep trauma on both sides of this conflict and a wide range of views exist. Our focus from the beginning has been to de-escalate tensions – not fuel them. It is worth acknowledging we have not seen the violence that we have seen on other campuses during these challenging times.

“Our priority has always been a peaceful resolution and we are pleased our proposal has been accepted,” the University spokeswoman said.

“Our position aligns with similar offers made at leading universities from around the world including Harvard University and the University of Melbourne.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/fury-at-sydney-universitys-capitulation-to-protesters/news-story/4113cd26653d89a3c0aa7c9f9b84c4ed

**********************************************

Congratulations to Dutton on climate change retreat

Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, deserves an elephant stamp for calling out the impossibility of Australia reaching its 2030 emissions target set by the Labor government. The Coalition has now effectively disowned the target.

Recall here that the Coalition had been shooting for an emissions-reduction cut of between 26 and 28 per cent by 2030 from a base of 2005. The then prime minister, Scott Morrison, declared that this would be achieved in a canter. He wasn’t wrong on that score, because by the end of 2023, a cut of 29 per cent had been achieved.

But as they say, the last mile is always the hardest and so the 43 per cent emissions reduction set by the Albanese government is looking like a tough climb to the top of Everest in unfavourable weather conditions.

But this fact never deterred Albo and the hapless B1, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, from racing the new higher target into legislation and formally advising the UN climate bureaucrats in charge of the Paris Agreement racket of this more ambitious goal.

Mind you, the fact that the target is legislated doesn’t really make much difference nor does our refreshed statement of intent made to the UN – let’s not forget here that the Paris climate agreement is not legally binding.

Most signatories to Paris haven’t bothered to legislate their targets and have no intention of doing so. The UK, much to its shame, is different in that regard. Theresa May, a true climate believer if there ever was, insisted on this as well as committing the Tories to net zero.

She even conferred ridiculous powers on the Climate Change Committee, appointing extremist chairs who bully the Poms to change their evil climate ways – don’t eat meat, install expensive and ineffective heat pumps, use ‘active transport’ (walk, cycle or scooter) rather than drive the car, don’t even think about getting on a plane, etc, etc. Is it really any surprise that the Tories are about to get a drubbing, Boris and Rishi having never walked away from this rubbish?

But I digress. Let me get back to Australia. Dutts’ decision to decline the 43 per cent target is a mixture of informed realism and courageous politics. Needless to say, the progressive press is aghast, claiming that the announcement puts paid to the Liberals’ chances of winning back the Teal seats, although we shall see.

The rent-seeking business community with interests in green things is complaining bitterly. Evidently, they need certainty which is simply code for more subsidies. A lower target or no target at all will undermine their case for even more moolah from taxpayers and long-suffering consumers.

One of the advantages that Dutts has over Albo is that Dutts can count. Albo’s strong suit is wishful thinking and dreaming up rhyming cliches. The fact is that a 43 per cent target requires losing around 100 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent in six years in the context of a rapidly rising population. It boils down to the maths: where will those tonnes come from?

Sadly – OK, not that sadly – for B1, the renewable energy experiment has not been going entirely to plan, like Japan’s second world war effort. Of course, if you throw subsidies at something, you will get more of it. But there have been some significant impediments to renewable energy (RE)investment in recent times – escalating costs, worker shortages, local resistance to RE developments (God bless our country cousins) and inadequate transmission.

As a consequence, the amount of RE added to the grid has been a fraction of what is required to meet another B1 target – 82 per cent RE in the grid by 2030. It’s only around 40 per cent now. There is a long way to go.

Going by the polls, voter opinion is on the side of the Coalition on this issue. A rising majority think that affordable and reliable electricity is the most important consideration with a small and declining proportion taking the view that hitting the emissions target should prevail. Even those on board with the green energy idea either don’t want to pay anything extra or $100 more per year at most. It looks as though peak climate has been reached and we are now on the sunlit downhill.

Albo and B1 could easily be tempted to look beyond the electricity grid to achieve the unachievable target. Laughably, there was a view at some stage that 90 per cent of all car sales by 2030 would be EVs. Given recent developments in the EV market here and overseas, it would seem extremely optimistic to predict that half of all car sales in Australia will be EVs by the end of the decade.

Let’s face it, the wheels are really falling off the EV market in the US – pardon the pun. General Motors, which was given great licks of taxpayer money to convert to EV production and ditch its highly profitable and popular lines of internal combustion vehicles, is walking back at an incredible pace. The company built an EV truck expecting to sell 150,000 in the first year; it sold 27,000.

There are so many hairs on EVs as convenient family or work vehicles, including the incredibly high cost of insurance and the absence of a second-hand market. Add in the difficulty of accessing fast charging and range anxiety, and the real surprise is that so many EVs have been sold.

But note here that most EVs are sold to companies attracted by the substantial tax concessions, not to private buyers. The only ones surprised by these developments are the true-believing green activists – and B1.

The Albanese government might have a crack at pushing for the closure of some of the big emitters – aluminium smelters, alumina refineries, steel works – but the politics of this are not great. Attacking the farming community also has its downsides – just take a look at what has been happening in Europe with farmers revolting.

The bottom line is that Australia’s current emissions target already looks like a bust and most people who follow these things know this.

As Speccie readers appreciate, a political leader who stands for nothing is never well-placed to roll an incumbent government. Claims of superior managerial competence simply do not cut it if the proposed platforms are essentially the same as the government’s. (Take note, David Crisafulli, hapless opposition leader of the LNP in Queensland. It was a Bill Shorten moment – ‘I don’t know what’s in Labor’s budget but we will support it.’)

I say hats off to Dutts: he has taken a stand on the 2030 target. Next stop: ditch the folly of net zero by 2050.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/hats-off-to-dutton/

**********************************************

Who are the "moderates"

I refer to those who self-describe themselves as ‘moderates’.

The word no doubt is emotively attractive to users and delivers a frisson of approval and virtue-signalling self-worth, maybe even a tingle down the spine. But it is essentially an empty concept. You need to fill it with specific content before deciding if you approve or disapprove of the political positions of the person or political faction spouting it. So take former prime minister Morrison. His faction grouping notwithstanding, the man as PM purported to govern as a ‘moderate’.

But what did that look like when it came to specific content?

Well, Team Morrison & co. signed us up to the impoverishing net zero without signalling it before the election; they oversaw the biggest inroads on our civil liberties in the country’s history, all while never once finding it in themselves to criticise Dan Andrew’s outright thuggish and brutally heavy-handed response in Victoria (and if the honours system wasn’t broken beforehand it sure is after giving a gong to Chairman Andrews); they blew out the budget with massive spending and high taxes that created huge asset inflation and transferred big time wealth from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich and in a way that would make an ardent left-winger proud; they made appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission, e-safety Commissioner post, the High Court, cultural bodies, and more, that Labor and on occasion the Greens could have made, with barely a single conservative amongst them; they oversaw a ballooning in the size of government and a surging in government spending as a percentage of GDP; they made huge payments to an activist Barrier Reef group over lunch while not lifting a finger to help Peter Ridd (who was correct down the line, just to be clear); and Mr Morrison made various disparaging but in fact vacuous and uninformed comments about the value of free speech while it was Liberal governments that gave us the first iterations of a number of woeful free-speech restricting Bills, including the absolutely outrageous Acma Bill.

That is what ‘moderate’ delivers as far as the Morrison and indeed Turnbull governments were concerned. (And cards on the table, I have slowly come to believe that in the ‘worst Liberal PM ever’ stakes, Mr Morrison certainly ties Mr Turnbull for top spot and may in fact take the gold medal in his own right.)

Yet incredibly, astoundingly even, the state Liberal parties, who all crawl over broken glass barefooted to describe themselves as ‘moderates’, are worse than their federal counterparts. The best of a woeful lot is Mr Crisafulli in Queensland. Yet he signed up to the recent Labor budget-spending orgy; he commits to not a single conservative fighting position bar some tough talk on youth crime; he won’t repeal the state bill of rights that Labor brought in without running on an election to bring it in; he won’t cut the grossly bloated public service; at best it’s a Tony Blair social democrat offering on the now tired refrain ‘well, at least we’re not Labor’.

The other state Liberal party iterations are worse. John Pesutto in Victoria in my view disgraced himself with his treatment of Moira Deeming and the rest of the party’s offerings are to the left of what Tony Blair would offer. WA? Do I need to say anything about the dynamic duo there? New South Wales is worse than Queensland. In all of these states the Liberal offerings are devoid of any actual classical liberal or conservative content.

Hence the general point that I am reiterating, that labels on their own can be empty, and void of content. Ignore all attempts by politicians to cloak themselves under the banner of ‘we are moderates’ and look at the actual offerings. The reverse of this applies as well, of course. The labels ‘far right’ and ‘hard right’ are now widely used by the mainstream media and even by some Liberal MPs at times to describe a set of policies that includes:

1) the entire Tony Abbott agenda,

2) believing that biological sex is real and imposes a mind-independent reality on the world that trumps subjective druthers and preferences,

3) being against the lockdowns and vaccine mandates (being against now proven to be the right position as it happens),

4) having grave doubts about virtue-signalling net-zero policies that will impoverish Australia while China and India build new coal-fired power stations weekly and we make zero difference to global temperatures (because, you know, we aren’t a moral beacon that other countries will copy as we travel back to the Stone Age),

5) wanting to control immigration and insisting GDP is largely irrelevant as it is GDP per person that matters

The list goes on. Voicing any and all of those can get you labelled ‘far right’ and ‘hard right’ by the legacy media. Voicing some of them has earned the ire of the Liberal-appointed eSafety Commissioner and increased her desire to censor such views. And all the five such positions, without an exception, would have been endorsed by John F. Kennedy. That is the specific content of what today gets one labelled ‘far right’.

Such labels are empty and without content. Ignore the trendy lefties who deal in such platitudes and, in a smug, self-satisfied, self-righteous way, shun debate in favour of cancellation.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/silly-labels-and-meaningless-monikers/

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Deformed pets, three-eyed fish and even Lara Bingle in a bikini: Anthony Albanese's anti-nuclear power campaign is an insult to Aussie voters

It's taken less than 24 hours for the childish scare campaign around Peter Dutton's nuclear energy policy to flood social media.

I'm not talking about posts by the average user. Federal and state Labor leaders and the union movement quickly began posting improbable and downright ridiculous ways to try and undermine nuclear power.

Deformed pets, references to The Simpsons, toxic spills causing three-eyed fish and images suggesting the sites might be located near iconic natural wonders such as Victoria's Twelve Apostles were just some of the immature games being played by parliamentarians.

I did say yesterday that the mother of all scare campaigns would soon start but I didn't think it would be quite this pathetic.

It isn't as though there aren't serious problems with Dutton's announcement - I'll come to those shortly.

Victoria's new premier Jacinta Allan, no less, posted mocked up images of three-eyed cartoon fish leaping out of the water in Gippsland, writing: 'The Liberal Party want a toxic and expensive nuclear reactor in Gippsland.'

Anthony Albanese's contribution wasn't much better: 'Instead of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, this is Peter Dutton and the seven nuclear reactors'.

I wonder how long it took the PM's taxpayer funded team of 11 media advisers to come up with that one. Or did Albo proudly think it up all on his own?

Seizing upon The Simpsons theme, Victorian federal MP Josh Burns tweeted images of nuclear reactors with the Liberal Party logo on them, writing 'under Peter Dutton Australians will glow green'.

Clever stuff.

At 62 years of age Labor MP for the Victorian seat of Corangamite, Libby Cocker, wasn't too mature to take a similar dig, days before Dutton's announcement.

The federal Victorian MP riffed off the 'where the bloody hell are you' tourism campaign of yesteryear spearheaded by Lara Bingle.

Cocker, who was a school teacher before entering politics, tweeted a mock up of a bikini-clad Bingle standing in front of the 12 Apostles on the Victorian coastline with three nuclear reactors billowing smoke behind her.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union shared an image of a Chernobyl-style dystopia

The Australian union movements official X page posted an image of a deformed something or another, it was hard to tell, above the headline 'this will be your family dog'.

Scare campaigns are rarely rooted in accuracy, and that is a bipartisan problem. But they are rarely this childish in nature.

It will be interesting to see if these callow MPs and vested interests continue to act this way, or sharpen up their attacks in the weeks and months ahead.

History tells us that scare campaigns work, especially against big bold policy ideas raised by Oppositions. But do they work when they are this low brow?

As mentioned earlier on, if anyone wants to seriously critique Dutton's policy there is plenty to dig into without having to resort to juvenile antics.

For example, Dutton says he plans to use existing coal fired power sites and the government will pay for and own the operations. But most of the private owners of these sites have already ruled out relinquishing them to a Coalition government, and they weren't consulted before the policy was announced.

Most of the sites Dutton has announced are in states that have legislatively banned nuclear power, and a number of these Premiers have already ruled out changing that.

The policy hasn't been costed, much less modelled to ascertain what taxpayers might be up for if or when construction was to begin.

We don't even know who the Coalition engaged to produce this policy. Is it rooted in any scholarly research beyond a superficial thought bubble announcement?

We're also still in the dark about which types of nuclear reactors the Opposition is proposing to build: the new smaller modules or the more established larger varieties used in other parts of the world? It is a pretty basic choice not to be included in a major policy announcement.

So yes, there are serious questions for serious people to raise requiring serious answers before Team Dutton can expect Australians to get behind his proposal.

Unfortunately the Labor government and its union mates seem largely incapable of reaching high and properly challenging the policy announcement.

Instead they choose to play in the sandpit on social media.

No wonder the public has such a dim view of the political class.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13548855/PVO-Dutton-nuclear-Albo-scare-campaign-childish.html

*********************************************

Why these Victorian Country Fire Authority volunteer firefighters have vowed to let blazes burn around new renewable power plants and transmission lines

People don't like being ignored by the elites. The "Voice" referendum showed the gap between the elites and most others

Volunteer firefighters in Victoria's central north are so opposed to renewable power plants and transmission lines in their area they will let fires burn around them rather than tackle the blazes.

Captains from five brigades wrote to the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the state government to say they are not prepared to fight fires near or involving infrastructure such as the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector (VNI West).

VNI West is a planned transmission line that would run for hundreds of kilometres through Victorian farmland, leading to angry protests from farmers who say they do not want it on their land.

The line is planned for 'over the top of dry land farming area, where we have a six month fire danger period,' Gre Gre Village CFA Brigade captain Peter Knights told Daily Mail Australia.

'It gets very dry and hot and we have fairly significant fire events, and it places a barrier to us being able to attack or fight any running grass fires because we can't move under the transmission lines because of the smoke being conductive.

'And it runs the risk of what we call a flash over, where the electricity at a high voltage will arch to the ground, and if you're underneath it, it will kill you.'

Mr Knights and his fellow firefighters also object to the VNI West due to the economic value of the land it is planned to run across.

'They're placing this transmission line and also placing a renewable energy zone over the top of some of the best grain growing and livestock producing country,' he said.

'That renewable energy zone shouldn't be over productive farmland.'

As well as volunteers from CFA Brigades in Gre Gre Village, Traynors Lagoon, Gooroc, Callawadda and Wallaloo East, the group claimed it had also 'received commitments from a further 19 impacted brigades'.

In a statement, the group said it is also 'looking to add the support of many more either in joining our proposed action or taking their own variation of action'.

'We see the imposition of all this infrastructure and our requirement to then protect that asset that's been imposed on us, (that it) will divide our communities,' Mr Knights said.

He denied that the group is driven by an anti-renewables agenda, saying VNI West is being put 'through the wrong area and it's imposing extra risk'.

'There's no political alignment with this group, but there will be political persuasions or thoughts within the individual members.

'We're not saying that we're pro-nuclear or pro-coal, but we're certainly saying renewables in the wrong spot is a bad idea and it's really been imposed on us without proper consultation.'

Mr Knights said, however, that using renewable energy is 'only a short term solution. We're putting wind turbines up which have a 25 year life ... what's after that?'

He denied that the group is funded by any fossil fuel backers.

'We're five very small fire brigades of locals and our budget is all self-funded, because it's not costing us much to put a hand up and say we're not turning out.'

The aim of the group is to get 'at least a genuine discussion around what's expected of volunteers and the impact on communities where these things are placed'.

Mr Knights said their campaign is also about ensuring the areas where the VNI West is proposed to go through are protected and can attract people to live there in future.

'You're looking to perpetuate your area as a good place to be and it's pretty hard if no one wants to live there because there's a tick, tick, tick of a wind tower over your head, or it's just a totally different place to be than what it's been,' he said.

CFA's deputy chief officer Brett Boatman said they are working with 'members on issues around fighting fires near transmission lines and renewable energy resources such as solar farms and battery energy storage solutions'.

'The concerns from our CFA members has been heard and we are working with them to ensure the right information is out there,' Mr Boatman told Daily Mail Australia.

'CFA acknowledges the concerns of the community and respects our members' rights to engage in matters relevant to their local communities.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13545429/Victorian-country-fire-authority-volunteer-firefighters-let-blazes-burn-renewable-power-plants-transmission-lines.html

**************************************************

Labor steps in to break up 'dysfunctional' CFMEU

One of Australia's largest unions could soon split after the federal government waded into a stoush between the AFL and the union's leaders.

A proposed demerger bill would allow the manufacturing division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) to split from the broader organisation if supported by a vote.

This comes as the union's Victorian secretary John Setka piles pressure on the AFL to fire its chief umpire.

The 59-year-old has criticised the AFL for hiring Stephen McBurney, the former head of the now-defunct industrial watchdog the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Mr Setka, who stands down later this year, threatened to delay work on AFL construction sites if the sport failed to give in to his demands and sack Mr McBurney.

"The status quo is dysfunctional and cannot continue," he said.

"We will provide the opportunity for members of the manufacturing division to vote on their future.

"The members in the manufacturing division include workers in largely feminised industries like textiles - and it's not hard to see why those members might want to leave," Mr Burke said.

Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has previously called for textile, footwear and clothing workers to be able to hold a secret ballot to vote to leave the CFMEU, saying they deserved "freedom" from Mr Setka.

The CFMEU Manufacturing Division national secretary Michael O'Connor welcomed the opportunity.

"The government is doing the right thing, they have listened to us and are respecting the good judgment of our members," he said.

"We thank Senator Lambie and Minister Burke who are backing us in to give our members an opportunity for a brighter future outside of the CFMEU and a more respected and active role in the labour movement, free from the shackles of the dysfunctional CFMEU."

But the union's national body said the federal government should not be intervening in determining union coverage, "which poses a huge risk of leaving workers worse off".

"Using legislation to decide on union coverage would set an incredibly dangerous precedent a future anti-worker government could use to trample on workers' rights," said CFMEU national secretary Zach Smith.

"The government needs to scrap this plan and show it respects the very clear rules around union amalgamations that have been backed in by the Federal Court."

Mr Setka has been involved in a string of workplace controversies and a public breakdown of his marriage to Emma Walters in his decade at the helm of the Victoria and Tasmania CFMEU.

The union boss was expelled from the Labor Party in 2019 over accusations he told colleagues that anti-family violence campaigner Rosie Batty's advocacy had led to men having fewer rights.

He has rejected the allegations.

Mr Smith said Mr Setka would leave the CFMEU with an "enormous legacy" of making members' lives better and had recently delivered a 21 per cent pay rise for construction workers in Victoria.

Mining union members of the CFMEU voted to split from the union in 2023.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/dysfunctional-cfmeu-faces-split-afl-224941004.html

******************************************************

Victoria Police gives job of hunting down anti-Semitic vandals to local cops

Victoria Police is still treating a spate of anti-Semitic attacks on electorate offices throughout Melbourne as individual investigations led by local cops, as raids escalate, with vandals setting fire to the inner seaside St Kilda shopfront of Jewish MP Josh Burns.

Six vandals attacked the Labor MP’s electorate office around 3.20am on Wednesday, lighting two fires, smashing windows, spraying red paint and daubing the slogan “Zionism is fascism” on Mr Burns’s photo.

Despite pro-Palestinian vandals attacking up to a dozen federal and state electorate offices in the wake of the October 7 terror attacks on Israel, Victoria Police confirmed it was yet to call in or establish a dedicated taskforce to lead the investigation.

Asked by The Australian whether it could confirm how many attacks on electorate offices were being investigated, how many arrests and charges had been laid and whether calling in a specialist taskforce was being considered, Victoria Police said: “These incidents are investigated by local crime investigation units; we do not have overall stats.”

Asked specifically about May’s vandalism of former opposition leader Bill Shorten’s office in Moonee Ponds, Victoria Police said: “There’s no update on this incident; the investigation remains ongoing.”

Mr Burns, the Labor MP for the heavily Jewish electorate of Macnamara, has described the attack as dangerous. Police have confirmed the vandals set fire to two telecommunications pits and the facade of the electorate office.

“It was clearly politically motivated by having the graffiti on the outside of the office. This was ­really ugly behaviour. It was dangerous and it put residents’ lives and livelihoods at risk,” Mr Burns said.

“I want to remind people what the office actually is and what it is there to do. My staff are there to look after their community; to provide access to government and government services, whether it be the NDIS, whether it be immigration, visa issues, Centrelink, whatever it is, my team are here to help.

“And at the moment … they can’t be in the office, it’s not safe in the office, it’s still a crime scene. And it’s a reflection of eight months of my team turning up to work and being abused and being screamed at, and I’ve got really good people working for me … who have no role in a conflict on the other side of the world.

“And their place of work has been smashed in by really dangerous idiots. It’s a reflection of the sort of conduct of political debate right now. We’re in Australia … We’re in multicultural Melbourne. This isn’t respectful right now.

“This is a dangerous escalation of people trying to bring a conflict on the other side of the world to our streets, and it needs … to stop, because it’s dangerous.”

Since October 7, there has been a string of anti-Semitic attacks on electorate offices with windows smashed and shopfronts sprayed with red paint, leaving taxpayers facing a repair bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Labor MPs Peter Khalil and Daniel Mulino and the offices of Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus have also been damaged by vandals.

Anthony Albanese has been locked out of his Sydney electorate office for most of this year because of pro-Palestinian protests.

Australian Federal Police told a Senate estimates committee hearing this month that 725 threats against MPs had been reported so far this financial year, compared with 279 in 2020-21.

Jewish former Liberal treasurer Josh Frydenberg has called on the nation’s political leaders and law enforcement to do more to protect the community

“The attack on Josh Burns’s office was despicable and dangerous and one that requires more than words of condemnation,” he told The Australian.

“We need more action from our political leaders and law enforcement to protect the community. Our leaders must step up and wrest control back from the mob, a mob that has had free rein since October 7 to act in a violent, hateful, un-Australian manner.

“It is after all not just the Jewish community that is under attack, it’s Australia’s social co­hesion that is under attack and the very values that underpin it.

“This is Australia’s fight and it’s a fight we must win.”

The Prime Minister called the attack on Mr Burns’s office an “escalation” of previous acts.

“We’ve got to dial this down,” he told the ABC. “The people who were responsible for this attack should face the full force of the law; it is very distressing for Josh and for his staff.”

Jewish community leader Dvir Abramovich described the attack on Mr Burns’s office as “another sickening and evil act of anti-Semitic vandalism”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/victoria-police-gives-job-of-hunting-down-antisemitic-vandals-to-local-cops/news-story/2497307f80ed36a34e420b8546bd4ee1

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

False rape accuser prosecuted

A rarity in Australia. Wise of Garside to start filming the incident when it started going wrong. It took that to overcome the evil "Believe the woman" assumption. Police arrested him purely on the word of the woman, with no further investigation. The police concerned should be prosecuted too. Garside could well sue the State of NSW for lost earnings etc

Harry Garside has reflected on his domestic violence court case ordeal, revealing that boxing helped provide clarity during that turbulent spell.

Garside, 26, was arrested by NSW Police in dramatic scenes at Sydney Airport as he returned home with his father after shooting the reality TV show I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here! in South Africa earlier this year.

Police dropped the charges against the 26-year-old in a Sydney court after his legal team produced video evidence they said showed his ex-girlfriend, Ashley Ruscoe, was the alleged aggressor during an incident on March 1.

Garside had steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout the ordeal, but admitted it was a testing time.

Ms Ruscoe, 35, was arrested at her Bellevue Hill home in July and charged with assaulting and intimidating her former partner, Mr Garside.

Months later, Ruscoe - who works as a boxing coach and wellness guru - was subsequently charged with two counts of intentionally distributing intimate images without consent.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-13542193/Harry-Garside-reveals-one-distraction-helped-court-case-ordeal.html

********************************************************

Origin Energy warns costs and public support are inhibitors to nuclear

Needless controversy from Dutton

The Coalition’s nuclear strategy will have to overcome high costs and community acceptance if it is to play a part of the country’s future National Electricity Market, Origin Energy chief executive Frank Calabria has warned.

The comments underscore the significant challenges that the Coalition will need to overcome if it to implement its signature energy policy, which is says will reduce the toll of the transition net zero by 2050 on households and businesses.

Mr Calabria said the industry is agnostic to technologies underpinning the country’s electricity market, but said nuclear has some sizeable hurdles, and it does not offer an immediate solution.

“There’s obviously also the public debate that’s going to go on about the acceptance of nuclear, and we would have to watch that as well. We’re not in control of that,” said Mr Calabria.

“The experience today around the world if you’re building a new one, it’s very expensive, but there are now new modular technology around the technologies that are being certainly development and research and that’s going to be something that continues, and we all look at that with interest.”

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has flagged seven potential sites, including AGL Energy’s Liddell Power Station in NSW and Loy Yang in Victoria and EnergyAustralia’s Mount Piper Power Station in NSW. The Coalition has also earmarked Western Australia’s Collie Power Station and South Australia’s Northern facility and Callide and Tarong in Queensland.

Australia’s energy industry has been careful to comment on the proposal amid concern of alienating a potential future government, but AGL Energy has rebuked the suggestion.

The most directly impacted companies did not immediately respond to the proposal, but AGL’s chief executive Damien Nicks In March said nuclear was not viable.

“There is no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia, and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive,” Mr Nicks said.

“AGL’s ambition to add 12GW of new renewable and firming generation by 2035 does not include nuclear energy. Policy certainty is important for companies like AGL and ongoing debate on the matter runs the risk of unnecessarily complicating the long-term investment decisions necessary for the energy transition.”

While AGL has vowed to push ahead with its renewable energy strategy, Australia faces a looming shortfall.

The Australian Energy Market Operator estimates that the country’s coal power station fleet is likely to have been retired within 15 years, a fact acknowledged by Mr Calabria.

“We’ve got coal plants that are coming to very long into their lives, so we can talk about years, but they’re not going to be there,” Mr Calabria said.

“For decades, we are going to have a coal transition, but that’s all around timing. And so therefore, what we’re doing is, therefore having to make the investments and navigate that as a country to achieve what’s the best blend of technologies that does that?”

While Australia’s energy industry has been considered, Treasurer Jim Chalmers slammed the Opposition’s energy policy as the “dumbest policy ever put forward by a major political party” and accused the Coalition of “ideological stupidity”.

He said the Albanese government’s policy “couldn’t be more different to the economic madness, which is being peddled by our opponents today”.

“We are expecting to hear a bit more about the Coalition’s nuclear road to nowhere.

“With Australia’s advantages and opportunities, nothing could be more economically irrational, or fiscally irresponsible. Nuclear takes longer. It costs more, and it would waste Australia’s unique combination of geological, geographical, geopolitical and media illogical advantages.

“It might be the dumbest policy ever put forward by a major political party. It is the worst combination of economic and ideological stupidity.”

Energy now shapes as a defining theme of the election due by May 2025, with a diametrically opposed strategies threatening to create more policy uncertainty.

Mr Calabria said there was “certainly more” certainty today than five years ago as to the government’s position on renewable energy but said clarity was needed on the federal Labor’s centrepiece Capacity Investment Scheme.

“There’s certainly more in terms of where they want those renewable zones to be constructed and where they will be built,” he said. “And there’s more certainty in our role now … as you approach timing, and we’ve just committed for a gigawatt of batteries to be installed on our existing sites, and we see those have matured as being part of a solution.

“I think there are still some things that need to happen in terms of timing on transmission, timing on when those builds will occur. And probably the capacity investment scheme is the key one where they’ve announced that scheme, but we’re just waiting. More details need to be developed.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/renewable-energy-economy/origin-cautious-on-nuclear-costs-public-support/news-story/f51c92748148c7830e171b2331d0a694

****************************************************

Bring back watchdog to halt union’s thuggery

The events involving the CFMEU campaign against the AFL because of a personal vendetta against its head of umpiring, Stephen McBurney, the former head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, are exactly why our sector needs an industry-specific workplace relations regulator.

The wider community, along with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers, are now witness to exactly the type of tactics and thuggery that have flourished in many parts of the building and construction industry for decades, and that continues to worsen.

It is sickening to see how so many are powerless as a very public display of bullying and threats plays out against an individual who is just doing their job.

This conduct is designed to send a clear message: “It’s our way, or the highway. You play by our rules, not the rule of law, and if you want to betray us, you’re going to pay a price.”

For our members who run building sites, expletive-laden abuse, intimidation and threats of retribution are nothing new.

And the irony of the latest campaign by Victorian CFMEU construction secretary John Setka isn’t lost on them, with one company I spoke with recently saying: “Welcome to our world, Prime Minister.”

This echoes much of the recent feedback and messages I’ve received, and underpins the frustration growing in building and construction businesses.

The industry never understood why the government abolished the ABCC when there was so much clear evidence that it needed to stay.

There have been four royal commissions, hundreds of court judgments, and dozens of other reports and independent inquires that forensically examined the unlawful and illegal conduct of building unions. They all reached the same conclusion – there are problems unique to building and construction, and therefore there is a need for an industry-specific workplace regulator or specific rules for the industry.

The evidence is compelling, with our research showing building unions are responsible for about 90 per cent of all breaches of workplace laws governing freedom of association, right of entry and anti-coercion provisions.

This is almost 20 times more than all other unions combined, and building unions are 48 times more likely to break right-of-entry rules than any other union.

Courts and judges are just as frustrated as our members, with a litany of publicly available judgments criticising the CFMEU as “bringing the union movement into disrepute” and for being “the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history”.

But despite this, the government abolished the ABCC to appease one of its largest political donors. In doing so, it turned a blind eye to the thuggery, abuse and the need for an effective body with strong powers to uphold the rule of law on building sites. And now it’s coming back, stronger than ever, with building unions so emboldened they are willing to have a fight with our Prime Minister and the AFL.

Perhaps now the government will understand the frustrations felt by employers and small businesses about changes to workplace laws since it came to power.

Small subbies and tradies don’t understand why the government passed changes that increase financial penalties for them while giving unions even more rights at the same time they abolished the only regulator that protected them.

We have heard some argue that the Fair Work Ombudsman will be responsible for protecting construction workplaces from this behaviour, but we are yet to see a single case taken up. As builders now tell me: “There is nowhere for us to go.”

It’s not just tradies who pay the price, it’s the public servants, including female inspectors, who are intimidated from carrying out their job, and it’s taxpayers who have to pay more for projects and time delays in the middle of a housing crisis.

If the government is serious about ensuring workplace laws are strong and effective, it must immediately take steps to deal with the bullying and intimidation the CFMEU deploys.

Welcome to our world, Prime Minister. As our members say: If you don’t stop it now, it will only get worse.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/john-setka-annoys-you-prime-minister-welcome-to-our-world/news-story/f93e9ff43abf64895284869105bfbedb

**************************************************

Pope Francis bans traditional Mass at Melbourne’s St Patrick’s

This is a disgraceful fiat by a "progressive" Pope. The Tridentine mass is one of the few growth areas for the church, as well as being comforting to older Catholics

In a move that has shocked and upset hundreds of Catholics in Melbourne, the Vatican has banned the traditional Latin Mass from the city’s St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The final traditional Mass will be offered on Wednesday, June 19, at 5.30pm. By essentially ordering traditional Catholics to get out of their own cathedral, the ban is stirring up tensions and divisions.

On Wednesday evening Mass, which has been a regular feature of cathedral worship for 13 years, drew a crowd of more than 150, mainly young people, including city workers not aligned with traditional parishes.

Veronica Sidhu, who attended the Mass, said it was solemn, uplifting and sad because worshippers knew it was coming it an end, as well as devotional, with “heavenly’’ choir singing.

“There was a mix of people – city workers and tradies _ including a dad who went to Communion with one toddler on his shoulders and was holding another by the hand,’’ she said. “Has Pope Francis or Archbishop Comensoli ever attended a Mass like it?’’

Ms Sidhu said that after years of contributing energy and resources to the church in Melbourne she felt “appalled’’ to be excluded from her own Cathedral.

The priest who said that Mass, Father Shawn Murphy, 34, who was ordained a year ago, told The Australian: “The Cathedral is the mother church of the Archdiocese and like a mother should be welcoming to all her children.’’

Father Murphy, the Assistant priest of the St John Henry Newman old rite parish in Caulfield North in Melbourne where he leads the young adults’ group, said members of the group were distressed, shocked and disbelieving about the decision.

“What is so tragic is that unlike previous oppressions of the Mass and the faithful, in England under the Tudors, during the French Revolution and in prison camps of the Soviet Union and China, this oppression is coming from within the church,’’ Fr Murphy said.

It was a blow against Christian and Western cultural heritage and causing confusion, especially among the young, he said. St Patrick’s Cathedral had been built for the traditional Mass in the late 19th century, he said.

The ban was imposed by Archbishop Peter Comensoli, who had no choice, following a direction from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship.

It is the next step in a campaign by Pope Francis to crush the traditional rite, which evolved through the early centuries of the church and was largely unchanged for about 1500 years until the mid-1960s. It was phased out following the second Vatican Council, replaced by the more prosaic novus ordo (New Mass), usually said in the vernacular.

The traditional Mass was given fresh impetus by Saint John Paul II in the 1980s and by Pope Benedict in 2007, who affirmed the right of all priests to say Mass using the traditional rite (now known as the “extraordinary form”), without the permission of bishops. Benedict’s letter also clarified the fact that the Traditional rite was never abrogated.

While those changes were initially expected to accommodate older Catholics who remember the pre-1969 Latin Mass, the growth in attendance stunned church leaders as young families and 20-something and 30-somethings discovered the Old Mass and stayed. Along with Pentecostalism, it is one of the main growth areas of Christianity around the world, with new societies of priests established in the US and Europe to train priests in the Old Rite.

Francis overturned his predecessors’ initiatives three years ago, in a document ironically entitled Traditionis Custodes (Custodians of Tradition), which crushed centuries of tradition.

Cardinal George Pell, an adherent of the New Mass, who respected the principle of choice and inclusivity for Catholics who preferred the Old Mass, predicted that Traditionis Custodes “would not outlive the current pontificate’’.

In June 1992, an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne, the then Bishop Pell celebrated the first Solemn Pontifical Mass (an extraordinary form High Mass said by a bishop) in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, or in any Australian cathedral, since 1969.

Ms Sidhu said the latest decision from the Vatican was divisive, denied Catholics choice, and had an element of coercion – trying to force worshippers to attend the New Mass against their will.

Traditionis Custodes stipulates that the traditional Mass is “not to take place any longer’’ in normal parishes. But bishops around Australia, including Archbishop Comensoli, have used their authority and discretion in implementing it, with a view to the pastoral needs of growing numbers of worshippers, especially the young and converts, who were drawn to the transcendence and gravitas of the Old Rite.

The Wednesday evening Cathedral Mass survived, until Archbishop Comensoli sought further guidance from the Vatican.

In a letter to Archbishop Comensoli, Archbishop Vittorio Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Worship, said it was not “appropriate for the antecedent liturgy to be celebrated in the place that should serve as an example for the liturgical life of the entire diocese’’.

Father Glen Tattersall, Parish Priest of Newman parish in Caulfield in Melbourne, said the weekly traditional Latin Mass began at St Patrick’s in 2011, granted in response to a petition by Catholic laity. “I had the privilege of celebrating the majority of those Masses over the following years,’’ Fr Tattersall said. “There was a pause during Covid, but we returned after the lockdowns.

“This Mass was loved by many. It was fitting that the rite of Mass for which the Cathedral was built was returned to it, and had an honoured place in the life of the Archdiocese of Melbourne.

“It was also a particular demonstration of the communion of Catholics attached to this form of the Mass, with the Archbishop of Melbourne. The Mass was celebrated peacefully up to now with the blessing of the former and current Archbishops.

“I can personally attest to the many graces, including those of conversion, that have been granted through this Mass. It has borne only good fruit. But now, we learn that the Holy See has directed that the Mass be discontinued – causing widespread sadness and distress.

“In fact, the historical form of Mass is a constituent part of tradition and cannot be lawfully suppressed or forbidden. But in this Pontificate neither orthodox doctrine nor the law of the Church counts for anything.

“Everything is about power, and those in power in Rome insist that this Mass must stop. Archbishop Comensoli has been treated by the Holy See not as a Successor of the Apostles – which he is as Archbishop – but as the flunky of a remote and heartless bureaucracy. It seems that Pope Francis has suppressed Vatican II as well as the old Mass!’’

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/pope-francis-bans-traditional-mass-at-melbournes-st-patricks/news-story/af2d609bfea7fadcc4aea5e202d745a2

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Unjustifiable damage to Australia: Elite universities lash caps on student arrivals

This is typical Leftist stupidity: Introducing a new stupid policy to correct a previous stupid policy.

After Tony Abbott wiped out the "boat people" trade, Australia is one of the few Western countries to have complete control over its immigrant arrivals. Yet the Albanese government has presided over a huge influx of LEGAL immigration. Every Tomaso, Ricardo and Arroldo seems to get a visa just for asking. And that has led to all sorts of problems -- a housing shortage in particular.

So Albanese knows he has goofed and now badly wants to cut immigration back. But instead of doing the hard yards and looking in detail at why so many people have been allowed in he has just seized on just one large category of immigrants and cut them back.

But that category is exactly the wrong one. Educaton is one of Australia' biggest exports, accounting for a huge flow of money comng into Australia, mostly from China. So he is going to cut THAT back. Insane. He is going to cut by far the most beneficial group of immigrants into Australia. It takes a Leftist!

I don't suppose he would instead implement a complete stop on arrivals from the Middle-East. Middle-Eastern parasites = good; Hard-working Chinese = bad, no doubt

Elite universities have attacked the government’s plan to cap international students as an “unjustifiable risk to the nation” and warn tens of thousands of enrolments for next year are in limbo.

The Group of Eight – which includes the University of Sydney, Melbourne University and the University of NSW – has accused the federal government of creating a lasting legacy of political interference in the $48 billion higher education export market.

Top universities have warned that curbing international students would create multimillion-dollar holes in their finances.

In a submission to the government’s draft framework, the universities opposed the international student cap for public universities and TAFEs and instead proposed growth targets for individual institutions.

They criticised the government for introducing a bill into parliament, describing the move as a breach of good faith during the consultation process.

“The central ‘command-and-control’ approach to international education ... represents an unjustifiable risk to the nation,” the submission said.

“There is no evidence the approach will work – and significant evidence that it will fail.

The submission said the plan could not be implemented by the proposed 2025 date and would cause “significant financial damage” to the higher education sector and the Australian economy.

“It is founded on a false conflation of international students and Australia’s housing crisis. And it will leave a long-term legacy of political interference in a $48 billion export industry.”

The comments mark a significant escalation in the rhetoric of the influential group, signifying deep concern within the universities, which are highly reliant on international students to prop up teaching and research.

The eight universities control more than a quarter of the country’s lucrative international education market.

The government in May announced it would cap international student numbers as a key mechanism to halve migration by 260,000, in what was a dramatic intensification of its efforts to stem an influx of foreign students.

Enrolments in the sector were steadily increasing year-on-year before the COVID pandemic. Student numbers plummeted after border closures but quickly rebounded after the Morrison government introduced cheaper visas and better working rights to help stem workforce shortages.

At Sydney University, the largest educator of foreign students in the country, 46 per cent of its cohort comes from overseas, and it relies heavily on the Chinese market. Among its postgraduate degrees, most students are from overseas.

In 2023, it made more than $1.4 billion from foreign students and was the only NSW university to report a surplus.

At the University of Melbourne, 45 per cent of its students were from overseas in 2023, up from 41 per cent the previous year.

Education Minister Jason Clare said the government intended to set limits for every university, higher education and vocational education provider that educates international students.

“This is a really important national asset, and we need to ensure it maintains its social licence,” he said. “We are consulting the international education sector to make sure we get the design and implementation of these critical reforms right, with implementation to begin in 2025.”

Group of Eight chief executive Vicki Thomson said the group was happy to discuss managed growth across the whole sector with the government.

“It’s a very easy political hit to just say cut student numbers as part of a broader migration strategy,” she said.

“What the government has failed to do is address to us why would you go so hard on our universities when all of the evidence points to the absolutely devastating effect this will have.”

Thomson said should the caps be implemented, the 2025 start date would be unworkable given the long lead times in the recruitment of international students.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/unjustifiable-risk-to-the-nation-elite-universities-lash-student-caps-20240616-p5jm76.html

************************************************

Dire warning childcare centres are indoctrinating your kids and turning them into 'activists' after woke change to curriculum

A think tank has warned toddlers could be indoctrinated into activism and identity politics due to the federal government's new childcare teaching curriculum.

The Institute of Public Affairs has sounded the alarm claiming many parents would be unaware of the ideology being promoted in the Early Years Learning Framework.

Analysis by the conservative think tank found diversity, inclusion and equity is mentioned 149 times, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and reconciliation is mentioned 96 times, and mother, father or parent is not mentioned at all.

Dr Bella d'Abrera, who is director of the Foundations of Western Civilisation program at IPA, said parents should be concerned.

'These centres should be where children play in sandpits, draw with crayons and have afternoon naps, not be ­inducted into the cults of social justice, identity politics and sustainability by activist educators,' she said.

'Parents should be very concerned that the federal government supports young children being exposed to very adult themes such as gender, sexuality, race, culture and the environment, years before it is appropriate.'

The federal government's childcare regulator, the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, oversees applying the Early Years Learning Framework, which is titled 'Belonging, Being and Becoming'.

The regulator suggests children perform a daily Acknowledgement of Country and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags are displayed in childcare centres.

Learning materials recommended by the regulator include ideas that children should be 'understanding and exploring gender' and that 'colonial understandings' should be 'disrupted'.

'Similar to the National Curriculum, Australia's early learning framework begins the process of indoctrination by introducing infants and toddlers to radical gender and social justice theory, rather than allowing children to simply be children,' Dr d'Abrera said.

'As Australia's education system has shifted away from the acquisition of knowledge towards activism and social justice, results have continued to slide compared to other ­nations.

'By focusing on division rather than age-appropriate, fact-based education, we are setting another generation up for failure.'

A childcare insider told the Herald Sun there was no backlash within the sector to the framework and individual centres had room to apply the principles as they see fit.

'Some services in inner Melbourne will have a very different interpretation of what is needed compared to those in regional communities,' the insider said.

The Belonging, Being and Becoming framework, introduced in 2009, was updated in 2023 and made compulsory for 2024.

A spokesman for the federal Department of Education said approved learning frameworks had 'always included respect for diversity and the ongoing learning and the sharing of ­Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander cultures'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13540325/Childcare-indoctrinate-activist-Early-Years-Learning.html

*******************************************

A price to pay for climate change fantasy

Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien haven’t reignited the climate wars, as Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen claim. The climate wars never went away and they are being waged all over the world. It’s just that almost everything you hear about climate policy in the official and semi-official discussion in Australia is basically misleading, if not outright wrong.

Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted, in the serene and beguiling Japanese city of that name, in 1997, 27 years ago. Kyoto itself built on the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So for more than three decades the world has been decarbonising, right?

We’ve had many solemn moments and announcements, especially the 2015 Paris Agreement. Dutton says he would abandon Australia’s 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent, but he’s committed to honouring the Paris pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. He wants to do it in part by building nuclear energy.

In truth Australia, whether led by Albanese or Dutton, is a very, very minor player in all this, being responsible for a tick over 1 per cent of global emissions. Every Labor leader since Kyoto, and quite a few Liberal leaders, has told us the world is decarbonising. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, early in the life of the Albanese government, caused a ripple of concern by rejoicing in the fact that coal was being phased out globally.

So after three decades of decarbonising, how is the world going in phasing out fossil fuels, to wit, gas, oil and coal?

Let’s start with gas. Everyone except the Greens understands that gas is, at the very least, a critical transition technology.

Much of the reduction in the carbon intensity of economies – that is, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of production – has come from substituting gas for coal and oil.

Nonetheless, after 30 years of relentless decarbonisation, you’d expect a pretty severe drop in gas use. Actually, according to the International Energy Agency, consumption of natural gas is at or just near its record high. The rate of growth of demand has slowed but demand is still growing.

Well, that’s a bit of a surprise. What about oil, that must be well down, with fuel efficiency standards, the global campaign for electric vehicles, the decline of oil in power generation?

Guess what. Last year, according to the US government’s Energy Information Administration, world use of oil was at a record high, higher than the peak before the Covid pandemic, at more than 100 million barrels a day. Not only that, the US under pro-green Joe Biden produced more crude oil, more than 13 million barrels a day, than any country has ever done.

Oil production dipped in the global financial crisis of 2008 and again during Covid. But it’s now roaring ahead, stronger than ever.

But surely the US constantly lectures everyone else about climate change, the dangers of fossil fuels etc. How is that consistent with record crude oil production? Bear that thought in mind, for it’s a clue to the wider reality.

OK, so we’ve struck out in looking for global reductions in gas and oil, but obviously coal use must be well down. I have myself caused something near pandemonium by suggesting on the ABC’s Q+A and on Insiders that coal has a future as well as a past. It was as though a leading atheist had infiltrated the Spanish Inquisition. So now I must face the truth about coal. Surely its use has declined?

But what do you know? According to the IEA: “Global coal consumption reached an all-time high in 2022, and the world is heading towards a new record in 2023.”

Advanced economies such as the US and the EU are using less coal but, says the IEA, “the growth in China and India, as well as Indonesia, Vietnam and The Philippines, will more than offset these decreases on a global level”. And the price of coal, at $US140 a tonne, is very healthy.

That’s a good thing because our top three export earners are coal, iron ore and gas. We couldn’t afford any fancy green measures, or Medicare, or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or anything else, without the minerals industry.

According to the IEA, fossil fuels make up about 80 per cent of global energy, just a tick under their level 10 years ago.

So how has the world been reducing its greenhouse gas emissions for so long, with these fossil fuels all reaching record production and consumption levels? Well, actually, the world hasn’t been reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

Oops again. Another surprise. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, greenhouse gas levels are rising again, and reached record levels last year. The IEA’s own figures, and studies from Stanford and other universities, confirm this.

None of the foregoing bears on the question of what should be happening. But our debates ought to start with reality. What is happening in the world is more or less the opposite of what the government and the climate change propaganda agencies tell us is happening.

How often have you heard any of the facts above in the Australian climate debate? The debate is overwhelmingly dominated by people who are so committed to the idea of Australia taking radical action that they insist on pretending radical action is being taken globally.

The developed countries are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the developed countries are no longer the big story. China is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter by far. It accounts for more than 29 per cent of global emissions, more than the US and EU put together. The top 10 emitters are: China, the US, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Iran, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Of those only two, the US and Japan, are rich, developed countries. Almost none of the others has binding targets or any commitment to when their emissions will even peak.

Indonesia is a fascinating case. Like China, it has a goal of net zero by 2060. It has nearly 280 million people and is still a poor country. It has more than 250 operational coal-fired power plants. It has an international deal to retire some of them early. Well, that seems to be progress, you might argue.

Except that it also has an out clause that says plants that have already been approved, or “captive” plants that don’t feed directly into the grid but only power an industrial park or a specific project, or are concerned with National Strategic Projects, can go ahead. There are 40 plants under construction and more in pre-approval.

Recently, Indonesia has had huge success expanding its nickel production. In 2020, Jakarta banned the export of unrefined nickel. Like Australia, it has a lot of nickel. It didn’t want to dig it up and ship it overseas. It wanted refining and processing to take place within Indonesia.

This move defied every tenet of orthodox economics and was almost universally criticised by international commentators (including me). Yet as so often, reality doesn’t conform to the textbook.

Indonesia’s move worked. It attracted Chinese partners who also bought the product. Low-grade nickel is used to make steel. High-class nickel is used for very sexy products like lithium-ion batteries. A bit like Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, low-class nickel can be transformed into high-class nickel with enough money. There are industrial processes that will do the trick but they require enormous amounts of power. So Indonesia’s Chinese collaborators built a swag of coal-fired power stations to provide the power to work the magic on the nickel.

In 2017, Indonesia produced 385,000 tonnes of nickel. Last year it produced 1.8 million tonnes. It’s murdering the Australian competition. The Albanese government talks a lot about Australia’s position with rare earths, of which we have a lot in the ground, and how we’re going to become a renewable energy superpower.

By the way, almost every country in the world plans to be a renewable energy superpower (surely now one of the iconic cliches of our time), suggesting many, many of them will be sorely disappointed.

The Indonesian policy has succeeded magnificently from its point of view. Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, has genuine environmental ambitions. But he’s also determined to develop his nation. Similarly, anyone with even the vaguest familiarity with Indonesian politics will know just how entrenched and powerful are coalmining and energy interests. Indonesia pays its population fuel subsidies – the exact opposite of a carbon tax – and has typically subsidised coal energy.

But the deeper pattern and perversity of the industrial politics of renewable energy revealed in the Indonesian nickel example occurs more broadly across Asia, especially in China. The production and sale of wind turbines is dominated by China. To make them so cheaply, China typically uses cheap coal-fired power. Coal power is still mostly the cheapest power in the world despite what the Albanese government tells you (more on that below).

So the true carbon cost of even renewable energy ought to take into account the role of coal-fired power in making the renewable energy products. In any event, here’s the paradox of energy politics: to become a renewable energy superpower, you need lots and lots of cheap coal-fired power.

China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, The Philippines and in due course the poorer nations of Asia, and beyond that lots of African nations, are extremely unlikely to compromise their national development by embracing vastly more expensive and unreliable renewable energy over coal, gas and the like.

Two factors allow some modern, wealthy, industrial nations to run low emissions levels. One is a natural topography that lends itself to hydro-electric power. Hydro power is the only genuinely cost-competitive renewable energy and still the most important renewable energy. The other is already having a lot nuclear power.

None of this, as I say, is to argue what Australian policy should be. But the realities sketched here almost never figure in the Australian debate. How come?

Let me nominate one international factor and one specifically Australian factor.

Accompanying this article is a graph from the IEA showing the rise of the use of gas, oil and coal, measured in exajoules (one joule, a measure of energy, to the power of 18; that is to say, lots of joules, one joule being the equivalent of 107 ergs). The left side of the graph’s curve, up to the peak in 2022, which has been maintained in 2023, describes things that have already happened. That part of the graph is indisputable fact.

The right side of the graph shows a steep decline in the use of coal, oil and gas. But that’s purely speculative. That’s more or less taking an end point of declared policy, the Paris targets, and plotting a line that gets there. But that’s the future, and government predictions of the future have never been reliable. Indeed the Climate Tracker website describes Argen­tina, South Korea, Russia, Turkey, Canada, Mexico and Indonesia as “critically insufficient” in meeting their greenhouse gas reduction targets, and Australia, China, Brazil, the EU and Britain as “highly insufficient”.

The point about the graph is that huge amounts of climate literature are presented this way. The average reporter, the average citizen, tends to see such graphs as one entity and unconsciously gives the authority of the left-hand side of the graph, which represents factual history, to the right-hand side of the graph, which represents Nostradamus-like prophecy.

Within Australia, governments do this kind of thing very deliber­ately and with shockingly good effect. I’ve been following the national defence budget pretty closely for some decades. I’ve never seen a defence budget projection, or capability projection, actually come true if it concerns any period of the future longer than about six months. And defence is an area where the Australian government entirely controls what it spends. Australian governments can’t even predict what they themselves are going to do more than five minutes hence.

Yet somehow we are supposed to believe government agencies can forecast exactly what’s going to happen in energy and climate years and years, even decades, ahead. Gimme a break.

Thus the Albanese government has got great mileage from a Climate Change and Energy Department projection that Australia will reach a 42 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2030, just 1 per cent shy of our target of 43 per cent. Apparently the government now can predict the course of the Ukraine war, the effects of a possible Donald Trump victory in America, greenhouse gas emissions caused perhaps by a sudden spike in migration to Australia, and all the other manifold variables. You think?

Predicting we’ll be just 1 per cent short is a sweet touch. Just try a little harder, Australia! Yet a UN committee examining the issue doesn’t think even one G20 country will meet its target. The government is miles behind in the rollout of renewables. Electric vehicle sales are a small fraction of the forecast sales. But still we are, according to the magic forecast, just 1 per cent off target.

This is the problem, though. Almost every piece of information in this area is designed to produce a political effect. Disinterested information is at a premium.

When like is genuinely compared with like, coal is cheaper than renewables. Because with renewables you have to take account of the fact that most of the time they don’t operate so you need vast extra capacity, sometimes there are wind droughts and long cloudy periods so you need vast back-up systems of gas or coal or something else, the transmission infrastructure is enormous and the costs huge, and after 25 years or so you’ve got to throw away all the renewable stuff and replace it.

Almost everywhere that introduces vast renewable energy, apart from hydro, sees big electricity price rises. It might be that we still want to make the change because of our commitment to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. But we need to recognise the cost, otherwise there will certainly be a backlash and the policy may well be reversed in time.

On the other hand, perhaps we should have some other conversations as well. Almost everyone wants to make some contribution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. But given that whatever we do will have no discernible impact on the global environment, we should think pretty carefully about the cost. Especially given that it’s not happening globally.

Switching to renewables will make us poorer. They say the key policy dilemma for China is: will it grow rich before it grows poor?

For us the question is: do we want to grow richer before we grow poorer? And how poor do we really want to be?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-price-to-pay-for-climate-change-fantasy/news-story/50e94ebdff8f5469dd008d895f6beb57

************************************

Brisbane unaffordable for student accommodation as shortage bites

Feds have the tap wide open on immigrant arrivals while the States and local councils do their best to prevent them from having anywhere to live! You couldn't make it up

Student housing providers have labelled the increased tax charges for Brisbane projects as “diabolic idiocy” in the midst of the housing crisis, with thousands of beds now at risk.

Queensland state government increases to foreign land tax and changes to Brisbane City Council rate structures are expected to add 24 per cent to operating costs, or about $180 a year, to each of the capital’s 16,000 beds.

Industry experts say the state is now the second-worst in Australia to invest in student housing, only after Victoria, due to the percentage of operational expenditure that goes to state and council taxes.

Chief executive of leading provider Scape, Anouk Darling, said the changes were beyond a discussion of fair and unfair.

“It’s a case of diabolic idiocy,” she said. “We have major headlines screaming, ‘housing crisis’ and purpose-built student accommodation is a legitimate asset class removing pressure from the residential for rent market, responding to the federal government’s ambitions of increasing supply. Yet Queensland Government have thrown one roadblock after another. They are categorically disincentivising development.”

The federal government announced in April that universities would face caps on their international student numbers unless they could demonstrate a new supply of purpose-built student accommodation. Australia’s biggest universities provide just one in five foreign students with guaranteed housing, despite taking in $9bn a year in tuition fees. A recent report found they took up 4 per cent of residential rentals in local government areas close to universities.

Last week, the Queensland Government increased the foreign investors’ tax from 2 per cent to 3 per cent to help cover the cost of first-home buyer transfer duty concessions. It also raised the additional stamp duty surcharge for foreign buyers to 8 per cent.

Brisbane City Council unveiled a new rates category for student accommodation owners on Wednesday, designed to better align the asset class with other types of residential housing operators. All Australian student accommodation providers rely on international backing to deliver projects.

Property Council executive director of the Student Accommodation Council Torie Brown said governments were acting in opposition to moves by the federal government to deliver more housing supply.

“At a time when this asset class has been recognised by the federal government as critical to the international education sector, it is frustrating to see unilateral decisions made that harm the viability and pipeline of this asset class in Queensland.”

“More broadly, this shows the challenge facing the federal government in stimulating supply – most of the significant blockages lie with the states and local government.”

“One PBSA owner will see an increase in their land tax surcharge and council rates bill of a combined 34 per cent. It all adds up,” she said.

Brisbane City Council’s civic cabinet chair for finance councillor Fiona Cunningham said businesses should pay their fair share like every other ratepayer. She said owners had been paying as little as $88 per dwelling a year in rates compared to $1171 for equivalent apartment owners.

“Council rates are a significantly lower impost than the land tax and foreign ownership surcharges, and other taxes imposed by state and federal governments,” Ms Cunningham said.

“Student accommodation providers should be looking to George St and Canberra to lower their tax burden, not a local council seeking the bare minimum contribution to public assets and services.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/brisbane-unaffordable-for-student-accommodation-as-shortage-bites/news-story/e79fbbd784d7be3e7b15f6c82c200d78

****************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************

Inside the push to scrap NSW’s ‘no body, no parole’ laws

This is a stupid and evil law that could well keep innocent people in prison. Finding the body is important in securng a conviction but after that is of sentimental importance only. A discretionary 10% cut in the parole period after a conviction would be a much better way of encouraging disclosure

On September 20, 2022, just weeks after Chris Dawson was convicted of murdering his wife Lynette following a trial that gripped the country, then-NSW premier Dominic Perrottet announced a tightening of the state’s parole laws.

Convicted killers who “wilfully and deliberately” refused to reveal the whereabouts of their victims’ remains would be ineligible for release on parole, Perrottet said. The changes, referred to as “Lyn’s law”, were rushed through parliament and passed on October 13.

Dawson’s appeal against his conviction for the 1982 killing of Lynette Joy Simms was dismissed last week by NSW’s top criminal appeal court. He was sentenced in December 2022 to a maximum of 24 years in prison with a non-parole period of 18 years.

A year was added to his non-parole period last year, after he was convicted of unlawful sexual activity with a then-pupil in 1980.

Dawson is first eligible for release in August 2041, aged 93, but Lyn’s law will keep him behind bars until he is 98, unless he co-operates with authorities about the location of her remains.

Lynette’s family and the couple’s elder daughter have pleaded with Dawson to allow them to “bring her home”, and the “no body, no parole” laws are backed by advocates for victims of crime.

But the changes may have no practical application to Dawson at all.

NSW Supreme Court Ian Harrison acknowledged in his sentencing decision that Dawson, now 75, would “not live to reach the end of his non-parole period” or would be “seriously disabled well before then even if he does”.

It is the potential application of the laws to other prisoners that has raised alarm bells.

Folbigg, Chamberlain-Creighton unite

This month, the women at the centre of two of Australia’s biggest miscarriages of justice, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton and Kathleen Folbigg, joined a coalition of high-profile lawyers fighting for the “no body, no parole” laws to be overturned.

In an open letter, organised by the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative (BOHII) at RMIT University and delivered to Attorney-General Michael Daley, more than 100 signatories including Folbigg and Chamberlain-Creighton called for the laws to be scrapped due to their “disastrous” consequences for wrongfully convicted prisoners.

Lawyer Rhanee Rego, who acted for Folbigg in the inquiry that led last year to her acquittal over the deaths of her four young children after 20 years in prison, said the laws “should be repealed”.

“Wrongfully convicted people cannot help locate a body if they have not committed the crime,” Rego said.

“Importantly, the same legislation enacted in 2017 in Queensland is not having the desired effect. The legislation does not appear to increase the instances of offenders assisting to locate bodies.”

In the first case to test the new laws, Keli Lane, who was convicted in 2010 of the murder of her infant daughter, Tegan, was denied parole last month after serving her minimum sentence of 13 years and 5 months.

Tegan’s body has never been found and Lane maintains she gave the baby to her daughter’s father, who has never come forward. BOHII has called for an urgent review of her case. The 49-year-old is set to remain behind bars until her 18-year sentence expires in December 2028.

Judge in Lane case speaks out

Anthony Whealy, KC, a former judge of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, presided over Lane’s jury trial and is a signatory to the open letter.

“The general proposition is this: hard cases make bad law, and [these laws] … stemmed essentially from the Chris Dawson trial,” Whealy said.

“One can understand that that was a traumatic trial, and it was certainly so for [Lynette Simms’ family], very much so, and so the government rushes to make a law without thinking of the consequences.”

Whealy noted that “it was always possible under the existing law for the parole body to take into account the fact that somebody was refusing to cooperate indicating where a victim’s body might be found”.

‘The impact of that [parole] door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].’

“The fact that they can’t tell you where the body is should be merely a discretionary factor and not a mandatory exclusion from parole,” he said. “We should go back to what the law was originally.”

Judges imposing murder sentences “will have very carefully given a sentence which embodies the principal period during which someone must be in jail and the period where it’s reasonable for them to be released on parole”, Whealy said.

“That would have taken into account the fact that they were refusing to admit that they were guilty … and had [not] demonstrated any remorse.”

During his second reading speech, the then-corrections minister Geoff Lee said the “no body, no parole” bill “recognises the pain and ongoing suffering experienced by victims’ families and friends who have not only lost a loved one but are unable to locate their remains and put them to rest”.

But Whealy said that in Lane’s case “the person whose grief and distress would need to be recognised was Keli Lane herself”, in the absence of Tegan’s biological father, and it was “absolutely ludicrous to say that this law should be applied to her”.

Professor Michele Ruyters, director of the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, said: “If the purpose of the legislation is to provide closure to victims’ families, and if that’s not possible because the families are not lobbying for this outcome, or there is no family, as in Keli’s case, then the only purpose of these laws is to punish.”

“That’s not the job of the [State] Parole Board,” Ruyters said.

In Lane’s case, she had been taking steps preparatory to release and then “all of a sudden that door is shut and then she’s back into the mainstream prison”, Ruyters said.

“From a human rights aspect, the impact of that door slamming shut, the emotional, psychological damage that would do to someone, [is profound].”

The government response

A NSW government spokesperson did not respond directly to the open letter but said the laws require an offender to “cooperate to locate the remains of the victim, not that the victim’s remains are actually found.”

“If the offender cooperates satisfactorily, they could be granted parole. If the offender does not cooperate, they will not be granted parole.”

Parole “rewards good behaviour”, the spokesperson said, and the laws were designed to “incentivise offenders to disclose the location of a victim’s remains, to provide closure to the victim’s family.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/inside-the-push-to-scrap-nsw-s-no-body-no-parole-laws-20240613-p5jlg0.html

***************************************************

These duplicitous modern Greens are Nazis in sheep’s clothing

FRANCIS GALBALLY

In my opinion there appears to be alarming similarities between Adam Bandt’s Greens and Hitler’s National Socialist Workers’ Party of the 1920s and 1930s. Both leaders are ideologues and demagogues. They are anti-Semitic in their rhetoric and this encourages in many a belief that the Jews are the cause of things wrong with society.

Bandt encourages the chant “from the river to the sea”. What does that mean other than the annihilation of the Jewish state and its people? But not just that, he seems through his rhetoric to want more. He encourages and attends pro-Palestinian demonstrations that are anti-Semitic and aimed at intimidating Australia’s Jews as they at least try to go about their ordinary lives whether as university students, workers or business people. Bandt supports gatherings that seem to me frighteningly similar to those pre-Nuremberg rallies in Munich in the 1920s. His rhetoric and actions appear to encourage the anti-Semitic demonstrations at parliament and on our city streets. This was Hitler at his most effective, and Bandt seems to have borrowed his playbook.

Bandt’s rant a few days ago has all the hallmarks of a Nazi rally. He accuses the major parties of “slandering this movement”. He calls on the Israeli ambassador to be expelled. He calls on sanctions against Israeli. He says “enough of the hand-wringing tweets, enough of the words that always come with conditions attached … they are being ignored by an extreme war cabinet that is hellbent on continuing this invasion”. And, like 1930s Munich, police had to move in to quell the violent protesters and use pepper spray (in Munich it was batons).

Bandt doesn’t mention how the Gaza war started, and appears to have no empathy for the abducted Israelis and the rape and killing of women and children. Bandt is a frightening demagogue; he distorts the truth, which suits a political agenda.

Bandt’s support of activists locking politicians out of their electoral offices bears the hallmarks of a potential dictator slowly cutting away at democracy.

Like Hitler, Bandt uses propaganda, discontent and fearmongering to gain support. He finds support among anti-Semites and uses climate action and anti-capitalist rhetoric to feed his supporters. Bandt would massively raise taxes and drive business from Australia. His rhetoric on tax and anti-business plays to his supporter base, much as Hitler did. And, like Hitler, he gets support from some individuals and businesses.

I do not criticise those who truly support the original Greens’ stand: protection of the environment and action to mitigate climate change.

But the Greens are now a party controlled by a rabblerouser who could destroy our way of life.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/these-duplicitous-modern-greens-are-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/news-story/85782a0b1725d97060fc3d1b98db275f

**************************************************

Queensland Labor shelves reforms to stop faith-based schools discriminating against gay teachers

A rather mournful report from the Guardian below

The Queensland government will renege on its promise to pass new anti-discrimination laws before the October state election – a move advocates say will leave women fleeing domestic violence, people with disabilities and members the LGBTQ+ community at risk.

Guardian Australia revealed on Monday that the state government was considering watering down reforms proposed by a review of the 33-year-old act.

State cabinet has approved a new plan that involves passing some measures – the parts that are a priority of the union movement – which mimic the federal “respect at work” bill, including placing a positive duty on workplaces to prevent discrimination or harassment.

It remains unclear whether other elements of the proposed reforms will be included in the new bill – due to be tabled on Friday – and which will be shelved until after the election.

The most controversial recommendation – to scrap the so-called “genuine occupational requirement” clause that has enabled faith-based schools to discriminate against teachers based on their sexuality, pregnancy, relationship status and gender identity – will not be passed during this term of government.

Other measures also likely to be delayed include proposals to scrap exemptions that allow accommodation providers to lawfully discriminate against sex workers; employers to discriminate against gender diverse or trans people when working with children; and IVF providers to discriminate against people on the basis of sexuality.

In a statement, the attorney general, Yvette D’ath, said the government remained committed to all of the reforms but that further work was needed to ensure new laws aligned with the federal approach to a March report by the Australian Law Reform Commission calling for the removal of exemptions for religious schools.

“This is a complex issue and many in the community have differing opinions,” D’ath said. “We need to make sure we get these legislative reforms right.”

Advocacy groups said this week they are concerned that a delay until after the election – with Labor well behind in published opinion polls – would put unfinished reforms at risk.

Alastair Lawrie, the director of policy and advocacy at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said there was “no justification” for Queensland to stall on the basis of the ALRC report.

“Indeed, the stance of the commonwealth government, which is currently refusing to introduce its own legislation without bipartisan support that is unlikely to be forthcoming, places more rather than less pressure on the Queensland government to act,” Lawrie said.

“The current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ approach under the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act does not work and does not protect the rights of workers who should be employed on the basis of their skills and experience, not their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Matilda Alexander from Queensland Advocacy for Inclusion said splitting the reforms would create a “chaotic and siloed” series of protections.

“It’s incredibly frustrating to hear that the Anti-Discrimination Act changes will not be going ahead,” Alexander said.

“Queenslanders have said conclusively what we think respect at work looks like in Queensland. We need the government to listen.

“And what we have comprehensively and completely told them is a respectful workplace in Queensland is one where all forms of discrimination are unlawful.

“We understand that the commitment was to repeal and replace the Anti Discrimination Act, which is now more than 30 years old. It’s outdated. It’s not fit for purpose. It can’t be tinkered with, it needs to be repealed [and] these changes need to happen now.”

Nadia Bromley, the chief executive of the Women’s Legal Service Queensland, said the reforms included measures to protect women experiencing domestic and family violence from discrimination.

“A woman who was fired for being the victim of domestic and family violence cannot sue for discrimination in Queensland,” she said. “They can also be denied access to housing by a landlord afraid of having their rental accommodation damaged.

“The bill’s been 33 years in the making already. It’s a really disappointing decision.”

Labor sources have said the government was “not up for a fight” with religious groups who had criticised draft legislation as “a betrayal of all faith communities in Queensland”.

The government needs to table the new bill by Friday for it to pass the parliament before the election.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/14/queensland-labor-shelves-reforms-to-stop-faith-based-schools-discriminating-against-gay-teachers

*********************************************************

EU climate knaves and follies

Only a week ago, Energy Minister Chris Bowen was telling anyone who would listen about the marvels of Germany’s energy policy. Since turning off its last nuclear power plant in April 2023, Mr Bowen claimed that Germany had experienced ‘record renewables output, energy price falls and a material drop in emissions’. The next election in Australia would be a ‘referendum on nuclear power’ Mr Bowen claimed.

Never mind the next election in Australia, the results of the European Parliamentary election this week have been a de facto referendum on Germany, and Europe’s, energy policies that Bowen would do well to heed.

The Social Democratic party (SPD) of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz suffered an ignominious defeat winning less than 14 per cent of the vote, down from almost 16 per cent, its worst result in a national poll since 1949. Humiliatingly, it only came third in the overall tally behind the main opposition party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which won almost 24 per cent of the vote, up more than one percentage point, and behind the much demonised Alternative for Germany (AfD) which increased its vote by almost 5 per cent compared with the last election. As SPD leader Lars Klingbeil put it, ‘There is no way to sugarcoat it. I think it is crystal clear that things have to change.’

But if the European parliamentary elections were devastating for Germany’s SPD, roughly the equivalent of the Australian Labor party, they were even worse for its ‘traffic light’ coalition partner, the Greens, which was incontestably the biggest loser, falling almost 9 percentage points to less than 12 per cent. This will no doubt come as a shock to Mr Bowen but it’s hardly surprising when you look at the appalling policies that the Greens tried to implement. Their Building Energy Act sought to mandate that all new heating systems use at least 65 per cent renewable energy which amounted to it effectively forcing people to install heat pumps that would have inflicted punishingly high costs on owners of older buildings. The law is deeply unpopular as is the plan to ban CO2-emitting cars.

One of the most damning aspects of the Green nightmare in Germany is that having campaigned to lower the voting age to 16, their vote crashed to only 10 per cent with those aged 16 to 24 years old, and their partner, the SPD, got a paltry 9 per cent. Instead, 17 per cent of these youths voted for the conservative Christian Democrats/Christian Social Union and another 17 per cent voted for the Alternative for Germany.

As the most populous country in the EU, the results in Germany had a big impact on the overall outcome in the European Parliament but in any event the same trend could be seen in France, Italy and Belgium.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally got more than 31 per cent of the vote, the first French party to do so since 1984. Macron’s Renaissance party got just over 15 per cent of the vote down from 22 per cent in 2019. The French Greens – the Ecologists – got a tad over 5 per cent, a steep fall from over 13 per cent in 2019 and more than 16 per cent in 2009.

Overall in the European Parliament it looks like the Greens will be pushed from fourth place into sixth place with only 53 seats out of 720. The only green shoot, so to speak, was Denmark where the Greens gained one seat and in the Netherlands where a Green-Left party is the largest Dutch party in the EU parliament with eight seats but where Geert Wilders Freedom Party went from one seat to six and the Farmer-Citizen party also got two seats.

What explains this collapse in the vote for Green parties and for climate-loving left-liberals is that Europe is suffering what it calls a greenlash to its Green New Deal. For months, farmers have been protesting EU climate policies that are driving them out of business. Yet the least palatable proposals of the EU’s delusional 2030 goal of cutting greenhouse gases by 55 per cent from 1990 levels look highly unlikely to be implemented. A carbon market for heating and transport fuels that is meant to be launched in 2027 would further exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis, and all new cars are meant to be emissions-free by 2035. But even that is not enough for the climate commissars who earlier this year called for a more ambitious goal for 2040 of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent relative to emission levels in 1990. That would require almost doubling the level of investment from the 863 billion euros per annum spent in the decade to 2020 to 1.5 trillion euros per annum. Good luck with raising the capital to splurge on such profoundly unproductive investments.

You know that climate policies have lost their appeal when even the most ardent of activists, such as Greta Thunberg, was wrapping herself in a keffiyeh last Friday to protest the war in Gaza in Berlin rather than ‘climate injustice’ per se. Bizarrely, the protesters managed to conflate Israel’s war against Hamas with a ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ rally that called for oil and gas companies to be held accountable for enabling genocide in Gaza, systemic violence, and fuelling the climate crisis. In a strange way that they didn’t intend their protest almost made sense. After all, who is a bigger exporter of gas than Qatar, which bankrolls Hamas, the terrorists that are calling for a Jewish genocide? As William Blake wrote in his Proverbs of Hell, ‘If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise’, although perhaps more apposite when considering the EU’s climate policies is Blake’s proverb that ‘Folly is the cloke of knavery’. What does Mr Bowen make of all this? Very little it seems. Under Labor, Australia is set to follow in Europe’s foolish footsteps while the knaves laugh all the way to the bank.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/eu-climate-knaves-and-follies/

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************