ICAC got it wrong on Gladys: NOT corrupt

Read what she said in full:

The responses to ICAC’s finding of ‘serious corrupt conduct’ against former NSW Liberal premier Gladys Berejiklian seem to be binary: some ridicule ICAC, others deride Gladys. But in all the argy-bargy, there is one aspect that is not addressed in the aftermath of the ICAC’s televised delivery (why?) of its report, gestated for over 18 months. It’s the abject ignorance of ICAC of the political process, the context in which Berejiklian operated. Counsel assisting was out of his depth, which can be seen in the following extract to contribute to what is commonly known as barking up the wrong tree.

The transcript below is reproduced from the ICAC records.

Mr Scott Robertson: Just have a look on the second thing attributed to you after the second dash. It says, ‘I’ve got you now, got you the 170 million in five minutes.’ Do you see that there?

Ms Gladys Berejiklian: Yep, ah hmm.

Robertson: Now, having been refreshed with at least some of the context, the fact that a reference to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital Stage 3 was in the preceding budget papers before this conversation with Mr Maguire, are you able to assist as to what you were saying when you were telling Mr Maguire on 16 May, 2018, that you had got him $170 million in five minutes?

Berejiklian: I can only make this assumption and that is that the money was already allocated in the budget but the issue is that members of parliament like to see it as a separate line item because it was a separate stage. He needs to explain to his community that that particular stage was being funded. So the money was already there. It’s how it’s presented. And many colleagues often have those issues where a commitment is made or money is allocated and it’s put up as a general line item, but they want to be able to explain to their communities that the allocation is actually there. So the money had already been agreed to by government, it had gone through the proper process, the relevant minister would have had to have made that recommendation, and my assumption would have been that it’s how it was presented in the budget papers so that any member, including him was able to explain to his community that the Stage 3 funding had commenced.

And in fact I see from the budget paper there, the end date was 2022 and often the allocations are less in the first instance and then the balance of the sums are, are heavier in the, towards the end of the project, when most of the capital works are undertaken.

So I see from there absolutely nothing unusual. If anything, I may have, and I have no recollection of this, spoken to the Treasurer to make sure that it was presented in a way in the budget where the local member was able to confirm to the community that the commitment was being made.

But as to the dollars, they were already in the budget. Nobody on this planet can get that amount of money overnight and I certainly would never have done that. I am a stickler for going through the processes, I am a stickler for making sure everything is done by the book and I would never have been able to pluck that money out of thin air in five minutes. That’s just absurd, absolutely absurd.

Robertson: So at least a possibility is that when you said to Mr Maguire that you had got him the $170 million in five minutes, what you in fact got him is not actual new money but a reference in the budget papers to money that had been committed in previous budget years. Is that right?

Berejiklian: That could very well have been the case, yeah.

Robertson: But do you at least agree that the intervention that you apparently engaged in on 16 May, 2018, getting $170 million in five minutes, perhaps simply getting it in the budget papers as opposed to getting new money, that’s not the kind of intervention that you would have made for any other member of parliament?

Berejiklian: That’s incorrect. It would have been. I’ve had many instances where members of parliament are upset because we’ve made a commitment and sometimes in some portfolios a minister, or the line item might be planning money and in that planning money there may be several projects that are bundled up in that and members get anxious when they can’t go back to their community and show the line item. So in subsequent years, and certainly when I was Treasurer, you often have a separate sheet of election commitments so that the general line items can be determined and demonstrated to the community. So, it, that’s a question of presentation and I would have absolutely done that for other colleagues, absolutely explained to them. In fact we even had supplements to the budget to satisfy colleagues’ concerns that if a commitment had been made but money hadn’t been spent yet, but the money had been allocated, that we made that transparent to the community. Of course I would have done that for other colleagues, in fact I have. And I’m very comfortable if you go and ask some of them

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/icac-got-it-wrong-on-gladys

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

Whitehaven coal scores legal victory for expansion

Whitehaven Coal has scored a legal victory after a NSW court dismissed a legal challenge to the company’s plan to expand its Narrabri underground coal mine.

The energy group secured NSW independent Planning Commission permission in 2022 for the project that will extend Narrabri’s lifespan by 13 years to 2044, infuriating environmental advocates which had mounted an aggressive campaign against the project that they said would exacerbate climate change.

Opponents were able to block development albeit temporarily when Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, a community activist group, sought a judicial review of the IPC’s ruling as they sought to argue whether the commission gave sufficient credence to the impact of the expansion on the climate.

In a victory for Whitehaven, however, a NSW court on Wednesday dismissed the challenge from Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action.

“Our consistent position has been that this legal claim was without merit. Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the Narrabri Stage 3 Extension Project was undertaken by the IPC, including in relation to climate change related matters,” Whitehaven said in a statement.

“High quality thermal coal has an important role to play in providing energy security during the decarbonisation transition.”

Fiona Lee, a spokeswoman for the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, said the organisation was disappointed by the ruling.

“Sadly, this shows that planning decisions today are out of step with community expectations because approving high-emitting projects is exposing communities to more extreme impacts from climate change,” said Ms Lee.

“We believe it is unreasonable for planning authorities to approve projects with such a massive climate footprint at a time when greenhouse gas emissions must be rapidly reduced to limit the devastating impacts of global warming.”

While the ruling is a boost for Whitehaven, it does not completely clear all legal challenges to Narrabri.

Whitehaven still requires approval from the federal environment minister.

The Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc, a Green advocacy group, has challenged an assessment from environmental Minister Tanya Plibersek that the third stage expansion of Narrabri would not be a substantial cause of the physical effects of climate change on World Heritage properties and other matters of national environmental significance.

The challenge is expected to be heard in federal court in September.

Should Whitehaven overcome that challenge, Ms Plibersek would then be able to rule on whether to issue the federal green light.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/whitehaven-scores-legal-victory-for-narrabri-expansion/news-story/c531d38a465ab7df3d3f12239e92bbf2

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

Housing crisis: $8b of Qld homes lost as developers pull the pin

BILLIONS of dollars worth of housing stock has been shelved or abandoned, as some of Queensland’s biggest developers declare they can not afford to build anything new in the next year.

State government red tape, construction union interference, and rising building and labour costs are among the factors forcing local developers to flee the market at a time when new stock is desperately needed.

New figures from property research firm PRD show 30 per cent or $8.3 billion worth of housing stock — units, townhouses, and houses — due to be built in Greater Brisbane this year has been deferred or abandoned.

Developers are also blaming the CFMMEU for interfering with construction on certain development sites across Brisbane.

In recent months, a group of up to 20 people have been blockading at a development site owned by Pradella in West End, wearing balaclavas and reportedly using intimidation tactics to try to block the company from using a non-unionised crane.

Construction is now underway on stage one of ‘The Lanes’, which is the final development within Pradella’s $1.3b Riverside West End project.

Association of Professional Builders co-founder Russ Stephens said union interference was adding to building costs and delays.

“This kind of behaviour applies to all major construction sites in Australia,” Mr Stephens said. “The smaller developments sit under the radar, but the unions are running the show. The Queensland Labor government has pulled back the powers to bring control and order to construction.

“The builder has to have a good relationship with the unions otherwise nothing would get done.”

Mr Stephens said some builders were deliberately avoiding taking on larger projects because they did not want to attract the attention of the CFMEU.

“It goes as far as organised crime basically running things,” Mr Stephens. “They’re controlling access to sites through thugs who use workplace health and safety to allow them access and we see a lot of builders not want to go near them.

“It’s adding to the cost of apartments for all of us — we’re all paying for it.”

Aria Property Group development director Michael Hurley said conditions had become so challenging, it was unlikely the developer would start any new projects in the next 12 months.

Mr Hurley said while construction costs had increased 60 to 80 per cent, it was also difficult to obtain builders and workers, with many walking off job sites to accept better pay rates at other projects.

“In the Tier 1 and Tier 2 space, it’s incredibly challenging to get a builder,” Mr Hurley said.

“Most are preferring to focus on government projects such as new hospitals, defence, Olympic and infrastructure works.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/property/housing-crisis-8b-of-qld-homes-lost-as-developers-pull-the-pin/news-story/de89ab3daace2c026e3a01497f4ed144

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

Why Dutton needs coal not renewables or nuclear

Yesterday, Opposition leader Peter Dutton called for Australia to embrace nuclear power to secure a clean, cost-effective, consistent electricity supply.

Dutton is right to be concerned that the government’s policy of replacing coal-fired plants with renewables will end in a disastrous shortage of power.

Dutton’s proposal is to replace coal-fired plants with small modular reactors that are on the drawing board in the US, UK, and elsewhere. By locating the new nuclear reactors in existing coal-fired plants, they can tap into existing transmission lines.

There are a number of problems with this, but first, it is important to note that nuclear power is cheaper than renewables because this goes against conventional wisdom.

A branch of CSIRO regularly compiles cost estimates of different sources of power which spuriously claim wind and solar power are the cheapest sources of electricity. But wind and solar are only cheap for power that customers will take when it is produced and not when it is needed. That’s why although wind is the cheapest method of propelling ships, it has no role in commercial shipping due to its low density and irregularity.

Even on a superficial assessment, CSIRO’s estimates fall apart. If wind and solar were the cheapest forms of energy, there would be no need to subsidise them. Yet virtually all countries do subsidise them. In Australia, this is done using regulatory mechanisms like Renewable Energy Certificates, soft loans through the government’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and government requirements for consumers to fund the additional transmission lines these intermittent, highly dispersed, and low-density sources of power required. That direct support is worth around $7 billion a year.

CSIRO also amplifies the costs of coal and gas-generated electricity by overstating their construction costs and understating their capacity factors, the hours per year they can operate. This criticism also applies to CSIRO’s estimates of nuclear costs.

As a highly dense source of energy, nuclear reactors can tap into existing transmission lines, whereas wind and solar need to be dispersed over vast areas and will require vast transmission grids to be constructed.

Renewables also need to be backed up by dispatchable power. In other words, you can save a massive amount of money by simply building dispatchable power sources and not building renewables at all.

Wind and solar also need to be replaced around three times as often as dispatchable sources of power such as coal, gas, or nuclear.

The problem with nuclear, then, is not in comparison with renewables but in comparison with coal. There is no doubt that conventional large-scale nuclear power plants are much more expensive than coal-fired plants.

For example, in China, conventional nuclear power costs more than twice as much as a coal-fired power plant, around $US2,800-3,500 per kilowatt for nuclear compared to $US1,000-2000 for a modern, efficient, and hence low emissions US coal plant. Sadly, even with swift regulatory approvals, the CFMEU factor would increase costs by 25 per cent in Australia.

Dutton is proposing to build fourth-generation, small modular nuclear reactors. Will these planned 200 MW reactors be less costly than conventional 1000 MW units? Estimates vary, and costs are speculative, but they will not be cheaper than coal, where, as in Australia, the fuel is located close to the power station.

The reality is that the cost of generating power depends to a great degree on the natural resource endowment of a country. Nuclear energy is relatively cheap in countries such as France or Sweden because neither has access to vast deposits of coal. In Australia, coal is far cheaper than nuclear because of our resource endowments,

The fact is that civilisation has advanced by using increasingly dense inputs of energy, allowing for progressively lower costs. Per cubic metre, petrol is one billion times denser than wind power. Uranium has 100,000 times the energy density of petrol. As a result, 60 years ago, nuclear fission and fusion were seen as the energy fuel of the future, but it hasn’t turned out that way.

Nuclear power supplies only nine per cent of global electricity, a little more than half its share of the 1990s. Coal and gas provide over 50 percent, down from 60 per cent two decades ago. Hydro provides 15 per cent. Wind and solar provide 12 per cent but have been growing rapidly only thanks to government subsidies.

So why has nuclear failed to fulfil its manifest destiny? Cost and political vilification are both important factors. Political vilification remains in place notwithstanding nuclear’s enviable safety record, which in spite of Chernobyl, has made it the safest source of power in the world. As regards cost, it is the very high safety requirements rather than the price of uranium that makes nuclear power expensive.

Dutton’s plan has other problems. He envisages using small modular reactors as a backup for a system dominated by intermittent wind and solar power but nuclear power, like coal, with its high capital costs and low operating costs, is not well suited to that ancillary role.

Finally, the adoption of nuclear under the terms Dutton proposes raises the whlte flag to the spreaders of climate alarmism. It is based on the specious claim that burning fossil fuels is causing adverse climate change. And caving into the anti-coal and gas lobby sacrifices Australia’s priceless comparative advantage with its fabulous coal and gas resources.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/why-dutton-needs-coal-not-renewables-or-nuclear/

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

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

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