The Queensland government is clearly one of our very worst

It takes a woman to tear down another woman and Judith Sloan has risen well to that challenge below. She gets it pretty right but I think she should given more credit to Anastacia for unusually relaxed lockdowns during the pandemic. I was hardly bothered by them at all

We hang out a fair bit in Queensland. We bought a place over a decade ago and happily spend several months a year in the Sunshine State – that’s when we are allowed to.

We had been given an early glimpse of how bad the Queensland government was when we were buying the place. It was a legislated requirement to provide prospective buyers with an environmental assessment of the property for sale. (It had been the brainwave of the husband of Labor premier Anna Bligh who was a senior bureaucrat at the time.)

The form consisted of page after page of detailed questions that the property owner was expected to answer or attempt to answer. You see: ‘not applicable’ and ‘don’t know’ were acceptable answers. Quite a lot of forms we received had ‘don’t know’ to the question: is there a swimming pool on the property? Clearly many vendors were simply taking the piss. I should add that the real estate agents weren’t taking the government directive too seriously either.

Fast-forward a decade or so and it’s clear that the performance of the Queensland government has deteriorated further. I’m not talking here so much about its reaction to Covid – I’m pretty sure the wooden spoon goes to Victoria, with Western Australia not far behind.

Even so, it’s hard to erase the memories of those mindless observations of the then chief health officer, Jeanette Young – she is now Governor of Queensland!

Needless to say, there were various low points in Queensland during the times of Covid, including that memorable comment from the premier Annastacia Paluszczuk – now commonly referred to as Red Carpet Anna – that Queensland hospitals were for Queenslanders, thereby preventing some seriously sick people, including children, living in far north New South Wales from crossing the border.

And who can forget the bumbling, incoherent commentaries of the then health minister, Stephen Miles? On the basis of that performance, he is now deputy premier. (OK, I made that bit up; he is deputy premier because of some factional stitch-up.)

Of course, no one expected Red Carpet Anna to become premier; she was made the leader of the opposition as a sort of seat-holder at an Oscar’s ceremony because there were so few Labor parliamentarians after Campbell Newman stormed into office. But Newman managed to storm out of office just as quickly and the daughter of a former senior Labor politician and deal-maker got the top job because it would have looked tacky to remove her at that point.

To give you some examples of just how bad the Queensland government is, it’s hard to go past the current kerfuffle surrounding the government-run DNA laboratory. A part of Queensland Health, which is a disaster story in itself, at some point the ‘managers’ – I can’t call them real managers – decided that the cut-off point for testing should be double the international standard.

What this has meant is that baddies who might otherwise have been indicted because of forensic evidence were allowed to roam the streets because some ‘manager’ in Brisbane had decided that a new standard should apply which allowed the lab to get through the backlog and save money. Unsurprisingly, the first reaction of Red Carpet Anna was to cover it up, claiming there was nothing to see. Were it not for the dogged efforts of a journalist, this gross failing by a public agency would never have seen the light of day.

It’s also hard not to laugh at the Queensland government’s recent attempt to extend the land tax base for Queensland properties. The cunning minds at Queensland Treasury pondered how to extract more money from those well-heeled investors with properties in other states as well as in Queensland.

The Queensland treasurer, Cameron Dick – who is slightly more competent that his predecessor Jackie Trad – hoped to include the value of all investment properties for the purpose of calculating the land tax on Queensland properties. Sadly, NSW premier Dominic Perrottet refused to cooperate by releasing any details of investment property ownership in his state, which was a slight problem.

Of course, for anyone caught in this tax trap, an answer of ‘don’t know’ to the question about interstate properties could have done the trick. But in the end Red Carpet Anna was sufficiently embarrassed by the whole cack-handed exercise that she dropped the new tax.

Mind you, you wonder why the good folk at Treasury ever bothered given that the extension to the land tax arrangements was going to net a mere additional $20 million per year. Note here that the state has debt in excess of $100 billion, has more public sector workers per head of population than any other state and has a media department in the premier’s office whose staff wouldn’t fit in the newly constructed and unused (and paid for by Queensland taxpayers) quarantine facility in Toowoomba.

Then there’s the absolutely unconscionable proposal to amend Queensland’s industrial relations laws to exclude any competitors of registered trade unions. I guess it’s just a coincidence that currently registered unions happen to be affiliated, either directly or indirectly, to the Labor party and are also major financial contributors. (I’ve written about this before – it’s not too late. Queensland Speccie readers should contact their local member to express their outrage. The opposition has been slow to lodge its vehement objections.)

Aimed directly at the nimble and innovative Red Unions – their representation of nurses, in particular, has gone extremely well – the perverted (and completely self-serving) logic of the minister is that other unions can be established but they cannot represent their members industrially. Indeed, it will be an offence were they to attempt to do so under the amended legislation.

There is absolutely no doubt that the legislation is a violation of the ILO conventions on freedom of association and freedom to form associations, conventions which the Australian government has signed. But the Queensland government doesn’t care, claiming the amendment is needed to avoid ‘employers and employees being confused’. What, like being confused by choice at the supermarket?

Let’s face it, competition and choice are not the mantras of Red Carpet Anna who seems to prefer to spend her time with her new bariatric surgeon boyfriend attending gala events, often paid for by the Queensland taxpayer.

Perfect, she no doubt thinks.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/10/red-carpet-anna-dazzles-in-incompetence/

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

‘Not having a big impact’: COVID drug fails to beat placebo in major trial

A COVID-19 medication that was thought to strongly reduce the risk of the illness becoming life-threatening and was bought in bulk by the federal government works no better than a placebo, preliminary findings from a major new study suggest.

Molnupiravir, sold in Australia under the brand name Lagevrio, disrupts the coronavirus’ ability to copy itself and was the first COVID-19 antiviral to win government subsidy here.

The medication is intended for people at high risk of serious illness – those aged over 50 who have risk factors, and the immunocompromised – after they test positive to COVID-19 but before they are sick enough to need a hospital. Australia was one of the most aggressive movers in securing access to molnupiravir, buying 300,000 courses in late 2021, before it was approved by medical regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

But some scientists have long been suspicious of strange results in the drug’s early trials. Data from the new trial has hardened their scepticism.

The University of Oxford’s PANORAMIC trial enrolled 25,783 people with COVID-19, half of whom got molnupiravir. After 28 days, 103 people given molnupiravir had died, compared with 96 in the second group.

“Clearly, it isn’t having a big impact,” said Professor Peter Wark, an expert on antivirals at the University of Newcastle. “I think we’d have to look very critically as to the cost-effectiveness of continuing in this sort of way.”

Governments keen to end COVID restrictions had leant on antivirals as a way out of the pandemic, Wark said. “A slower relaxation of restrictions probably would have had a bigger impact than relying heavily on these antivirals.”

Dr Kyle Sheldrick – a University of NSW researcher who co-authored a paper earlier this year on molnupiravir’s problems – is critical of the TGA’s approach. “I did not think it should have been approved before PANORAMIC,” he said “I certainly don’t think it should be now.”

The Health Department did not answer questions on how much it had spent on the drug, but the US paid about $US700 ($1099) a dose at the same time.

Australia’s National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce said it was reviewing the study and would probably soon update its recommendations, which endorse molnupiravir.

A spokesman for the drug’s sponsor Merck said PANORAMIC had focused on a low-risk group, and pointed to other studies showing the treatment was effective.

In April Merck predicted it would make $US5 billion to $US5.5 billion selling the drug this financial year.

In an effort to get more people using the drug, the Australian government widened eligibility in July and Merck launched an advertising campaign.

Due to uncertainties about the clinical trial evidence, molnupiravir remains unapproved by the European Union; France cancelled its order in December.

Merck’s spokesman argued the patients in PANORAMIC were relatively healthy, whereas in Australia, the drug is reserved for people with major risk factors. “Other recent real-world studies, including the Clalit study from Israel, have indicated that [molnupiravir] was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalisations and mortality due to COVID-19 in patients 65 years and above,” he said.

Initial uncertainties about molnupiravir stemmed from strange results in the original Merck trial that got the drug approved.

Merck’s trial recruited about 1500 patients and gave half the drug. Early results from the first half of patients tested were so positive – a halving of the chance of death – that the trial was stopped early so everyone could get the apparently life-saving treatment.

But when data from the remaining half of patients in the trial was published a month later, it told a different story. The second group had done far worse than the first. In fact, the data suggested molnupiravir did not improve their outcomes. Combined, the full trial suggested molnupiravir may not cut the risk of death.

“We think this is unprecedented. None of us had ever seen anything like this before,” said Sheldrick.

The strange results may have been caused by a new coronavirus variant emerging mid-trial, he said. Merck disputes that, and claims the early results were the key ones.

Wark said it was possible the drug was of less use in a highly vaccinated population faced with a milder variant such as Omicron.

Sheldrick said the PANORAMIC results suggested governments need to think differently about rushing to approve drugs with limited evidence – even in the middle of a pandemic.

A spokeswoman for the TGA said the drug remained provisionally approved for use. “It is noted that while, in the PANORAMIC trial, hospitalisation and death was not reduced by molnupiravir for adults under 65 years, the time to first self-reported recovery was six days shorter.”

https://www.smh.com.au/national/not-having-a-big-impact-covid-drug-fails-to-beat-placebo-in-major-trial-20221010-p5bohc.html

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

Albanese’s secret shock for the self-employed

The Albanese government is planning a secret shock for Australia’s self-employed people (18 per cent of the workforce). The ‘shock’ will be delivered under the guise of giving employee ‘rights’ to gig workers. Expect new laws early next year.

Such ‘rights’ are a fantasy and a con. They are (let me call them) ‘instruments of control’.

The government’s plan is to force people who are their own boss into a wage-slave environment. It’s a fundamental attack against the core ‘people’ base of Australia’s market economy. The outcome of this Labor government plan will be to strip self-employed people of their control of the money they earn when working.

The process will work like this.

If you are one of Australia’s 2.1 million self-employed people, you earn your income through commercial contracts. When you complete a job, you issue an invoice for a total amount and expect to be paid the full amount. That’s normal with any commercial contract. But the government has said it’s going to change that. You’ll be paid less.

Albanese says he’s going to give you holiday pay ‘entitlements’ for example. How will this work? Is it ‘free’ money? Assuredly not!

If you issue an invoice for, say, $100, your client will have to deduct money for holiday pay (say, $10) and only pay you $90. Your client will have to hold on to the $10 and only pay this to you when you take ‘holidays’. But you say, ‘I don’t want the $10 deducted. I want my full $100. I’ll manage my own holidays, thanks!’ Bad luck. Prime Minster Albanese says that’s what’s to happen. Get this. Albanese says that it’s your ‘right’ to have the $10 taken away from you!

But some people will say, ‘No, you’ll still get your $100 plus you’ll get an extra $10 for holiday pay!’ That’s where the con fantasy happens. Anyone who is their own boss knows that’s not what happens. They know that their client will turn around and say, ‘Ah, if I have to pay you $10 holiday pay, I’m not going to enter a contract for $100, I’m only going to offer $90.’ That’s the way the world works. People will adjust prices. People are not dumb.

The really dumb thing is that this is exactly what happens with employees. Say a full-time employee earns $1,000 a week. They are ‘entitled’ to 4 weeks’ holiday a year. That is $4,000 when they don’t work but are still employed. The truth is that the employee is really earning $1,083 a week for the 48 weeks they actually do work. In other words, the employer holds back $83 a week for holiday pay. The reason this is done is so that the employer can control when the employee takes holidays. That is, holiday pay is really a form of control.

This is how employment works. Money is denied to employees so that the employer can managerially control the worker.

This is not how self-employment works. When you are self-employed, you decide when you take holidays. Your client doesn’t control you. You manage your own money. Your client doesn’t manage or control your money. This is called business. This is called the economy. This is called being your own boss. But the Albanese government intends to stop this.

Yes, we know that the government says that the new ‘rights’ laws will only apply to gig workers. Let’s look at that.

The government accepts that gig workers are self-employed. There are about 11.9 million Australian workers. 7 per cent (around 830,000) have done gig work in any year. But only 0.19 per cent of the total workforce (around 22,500) have earned their full-time income from gig work. In other words, around 807,000 people do gig as ‘odd job’-type work in addition to (say) their full-time job.

Here are some practical questions for Albanese and his anti-self-employed promoters. Gig workers work on commercial contracts. An Uber driver, for example, might accept a fare that will pay the driver (say) $20. When the driver drops off their passenger they know they will get paid $20. But how will Albanese’s new ‘rights’ laws work?

Will the government force Uber to pay the driver an extra $1 for holiday pay? But wait. Will Uber have to hold on to the $1 until the driver takes a holiday? Who will decide when the driver takes a holiday – Uber or the driver? How will this work? What if the driver works for different ride-share companies? Will every company have to hold on to the extra $1s per ride? Will the driver have to collect ‘holiday pay’ from all the ride-share companies and, if so, how? Will Albanese set up a massive new government department to manage all this?

But there’s more. Is this ‘free money’ for the driver? Will Uber have to pay the $1 from its massive profits? Hold on! Uber has made non-stop losses since starting in 2009. What if Uber goes broke? It could happen! Alternatively, would Uber charge the customer/passenger the extra $1, so the passenger pays and not Uber? Or will Uber not pay the driver $20 and only pay the driver $19? Any of these things could happen. What does the Albanese government say?

These are questions that apply across the massive diversity of gig-type work, not just ride-share. And similar questions apply to the 22,500 self-employed people who do gig work as their main/only source of income. What then of the other 807,000 Australians who only do gig work to top up their incomes? How will the government answer the foregoing questions for these people? What a mess!!!

The reality is that in taking ‘employee rights’ and trying to apply them to self-employed people the government is effectively destroying self-employment. The two – being an employee and being a self-employed person – are totally different.

You can’t turn an apple into an orange. You can’t turn a self-employed individual into an employee. Instead, what you can do is destroy the right of people to be self-employed. Inevitably this is the Albanese government’s agenda, whether they state it or not.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/10/albaneses-secret-shock-for-the-self-employed/

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

Indigenous leaders, Greens unite against the voice to parliament

Amusing. This ensures that the referendum will fail. Referenda in Australia succeed only if there is no significant opposition to them

Conservative Aboriginal leaders and Greens have held talks over their common opposition to a referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament, as Anthony Albanese leans toward starving both the Yes and No campaigns of ­public funds.

A diverse range of Indigenous leaders and politicians is coalescing against the voice, ­demanding the government halt the referendum, or at least ensure public funding for an Aboriginal-led No campaign.

The Australian can reveal Indigenous businessman Warren Mundine met Greens senator Lidia Thorpe last Wednesday and discussed ramping up a No campaign, on the sidelines of wider talks with crossbench senators about Indigenous affairs.

The meeting – between Mr Mundine, a former federal Liberal Party candidate, and Senator Thorpe, who says a voice is not radical enough and a treaty between Indigenous Australians and the federal government is needed – was the first informal step to bringing conservatives and ­radicals in the Aboriginal community together to support a No campaign.

“These blokes (supporters of the voice) are better than Jesus Christ,” said a source who was at the meeting. “They have brought all these people with different politics together.”

Mr Mundine also plans a ­national talking tour with Country Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price in coming months to promote the No cause.

Veteran Aboriginal leaders across the country, including Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell and former North Queensland Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire mayor Percy Neal, are also rallying colleagues to help halt the referendum.

Mr Mansell is campaigning for designated Indigenous senators from each state as an alternative to the voice, while others such as Mr Neal want to move immediately to a broader treaty.

A spokeswoman for the federal Greens confirmed the meeting between Senator Thorpe and Mr Mundine took place, and did not deny they discussed their mutual opposition to the Albanese government’s referendum.

“As you would expect, Senator Thorpe meets with a range of First Nations stakeholders,” she said.

“Senator Thorpe and Greens leader Adam Bandt are currently working with the government to ensure all elements of the Uluru statement including truth, treaty and voice are delivered.”

Senator Thorpe has repeatedly attacked the voice referendum despite saying she does not oppose it in theory.

The Victorian Greens senator has called a referendum a waste of money and claimed that a campaign could be harmful to Aboriginal Australians.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said the government was yet to make a decision on funding for the Yes and No campaigns. “It’s one of a number of issues that government will be consulting on … in the months ahead,” a spokesman said.

However, The Australian understands there is an influential view within government that it will not fund either campaign.

This would significantly advantage the “yes” camp, which corporate Australia is lining up to bankroll. “People have to make an ­informed decision on constitutional change and you can’t have an informed opinion if you’re only getting one side of the story,” Mr Mansell said. “They’ve given nothing to the Aboriginal voice that says ‘Hang on, we’ve got a different viewpoint and we want to raise some issues’.”

First Nations people, rather than the non-Indigenous, should receive any funding for the No case, given the subject matter, he said. “Those who wish to express themselves must have an ­opportunity to do so – most Aboriginal people are just completely shut out of this process. They don’t have the resources.”

This was backed by Mr Mundine. “I am sitting down and talking to people because we have got no money,” Mr Mundine said.

“We are up against a 50,000-tonne dragon. I think the general public will say ‘if they (Aboriginal people) are all split, why should we vote for it’. I predict the debate will get angrier as we get closer to this referendum because the ­voices of everyday working Aboriginal Australians have been totally snuffed out.”

Supporters of the voice are increasingly concerned opposition from such influential Indigenous figures threatens the Yes vote.

There is particular concern the Yes vote will struggle in Tasmania and Queensland, leaving it vulnerable to failure, given referendums require a national majority and a majority in at least four of the six states.

Mr Neal said like-minded Indigenous figures from across the country hoped to meet soon to plan a united approach to government to halt the referendum.

“We want to speak to government about where we’re going,” Mr Neal said. “There is still time. The Prime Minister has to seriously consider this. Now is the time to try to get something really good out of all this talk.”

If the referendum proceeded, he would reluctantly have to advocate a No vote. He believed the focus should be on treaty now.

“The Uluru Statement (from the Heart, which elevated voice as an initial step) was when we had a conservative government,” he said. “But now with Albanese there, we should all get together again and put that energy and money into seriously considering treaty.

“If (Mr) Albanese could show the same enthusiasm for treaty as for the voice to parliament, I think he’d be able to pull it off.

“Treaty is the only thing that everyone understands. People on the ground want something meaningful.”

He said he believed the cost of a voice would be better spent on improving the day-to-day lives of Indigenous communities.

At the 1999 republic referendum, the Howard government allocated equal funding to the two campaign committees. Campaigns by both sides in the 2017 same sex marriage plebiscite were also government-funded.

However, at the 1967 referendum (to count Aborigines in the census and allow federal laws for their betterment), only a Yes campaign was government-backed, given a lack of advocacy for a No vote.

Pauline Hanson is preparing to work on a No campaign alongside Mr Mundine and anyone else with shared concerns.

Her office said it was in ongoing discussions with Mr Mundine about a shared opposition to an Indigenous voice to parliament. “It has to be a collective effort. A divided No campaign will fail,” she said via a spokesman.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous-leaders-greens-unite-against-the-voice-to-parliament/news-story/2a59daecb591c0fbb2fd02c292c55517

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

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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