Australian Politics
Duck hunting season begins in Victoria despite inquiry recommending it be outlawed
This is of course an emotional issue rather than a logical one. If you kill animals for food what does it matter which animal you kill? And poultry are a very widespread source of food. The KFC and Nando's chains would not exist otherwise.
Hunting any animal is not for me but we have in fact evolved to kill animals for food. So hunters are doing a very human thing. One can only hope that the people "rescuing" ducks are also kind to their fellow human beings.
I do myself rather like ducks both in the environment and on my plate but they are a very capable creature so there is never going to be any scarcity of them. Quacking creatures in ponds are very common
In wetlands across Victoria, camouflaged hunters waded into the water on Wednesday, turned their shotguns to the sky and began to bring down ducks.
At Lake Lyndger, near the wheat-growing town of Boort, Danny Ryan is waiting waist-deep in water at 8am — the moment Victoria's 2024 duck hunting season commenced.
Mr Ryan, a longtime hunter and spokesperson for the Victorian Duck Hunters Association, points to several dead tree stumps and marks an imaginary line.
This is the distance within which he will shoot ducks, he says, as it is more likely to lead to an accurate shot and an ethical kill.
Under mounting pressure and increased regulations, duck hunters like Mr Ryan are keen to stress their efforts to hunt humanely.
In a little over an hour, Mr Ryan kills three grey teal, one black duck and one wood duck. His haul is one short of the daily limit of six ducks.
It takes skill to identify from the silhouette, size and movement of the duck whether it's a species that can legally be hunted, and as birds come and go, frenzied gunfire gives way to the natural sounds of the wetlands and moments of peace.
"You get to be at one with nature, but at the same time you're interacting with nature and you're harvesting wild game birds," Mr Ryan says.
Some of the ducks the hunter shoots are killed instantly and some fall to the water injured and need to be shot again.
Some he will he eat, he says, and some will be shared with family.
Is it crueller than eating an animal raised in captivity?
"I think the majority of people if they sat down and had a really good think about that, I think that they would come on the side of 'No, the duck's had a better life'," Mr Ryan says.
Last year, a parliamentary inquiry recommended outlawing duck hunting, and many thought the 2023 season would be Victoria's last.
The inquiry cited long-term decline of native birds, animal welfare concerns regarding wounding rates, the unacceptable wounding and death rates of threatened species, and the inability to enforce compliance, as the major factors leading to its recommendation.
But the hunters are back for another season this year, after the Labor state government declined to implement the ban.
And a polarised debate continues over whether the pursuit is a noble way to stay connected to where our food comes from, or the sport of bloodthirsty killers.
The duck rescuers
On the shores of a lake near Charlton, a dozen or so Coalition Against Duck Shooting (CADS) volunteers wait to retrieve injured birds from the water.
Without a hunting license they risk a fine if they enter the water before 10am or get within 10 metres of a hunter.
Some members do enter the water, dressed in high-vis vests, and paddle kayaks with flags and whistles to shepherd ducks away from hunters.
Leading the team is David Evans, who darts around the other volunteers, his head slightly bowed and a walkie-talkie in hand, perpetually in motion.
For 28 years he has spent his autumns scouting wetlands, plucking injured birds from the water, documenting illegal killings and antagonising hunters..
Gone are the days of 8,000 shooters with pump action shotguns, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, he says.
"I think we're lucky to have 50 here in this wetland [today]," he says.
The decline in hunters gives him hope, and he believes public opinion is on his side.
This year, on the opening day of the season, interactions between hunters and those who oppose them are relatively calm, and Mr Evans says it has been that way ever since the proliferation of digital cameras.
But the rescuers say they are often verbally abused and threatened by the hunters, while shooters complain of CADS volunteers rescuing injured birds from the water before they can be killed and collected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-13/victoria-duck-hunting-season-begins-despite-inquiry/103699988
******************************************************Daniel Martinez, who spent eight months in jail for a rape he didn't commit, readies to sue the state - as Judge Robert Newlinds attacks his trial as 'lazy'
Corrupt feminist "Believe the woman" doctrine at work again. The story below is only one of the false rape accusations that some women make, showing how blind and evil feminist influence can be. "Believe the evidence" is the only just dictum. There was quite a spate of false rape allegations in Britain some years back with some of the false accusers ending up in jail over it. We need that here
A man who spent eight months in jail over a rape he did not commit is preparing to sue the state after a judge suggested 'political expediency' stopped him from being 'acquitted within minutes'.
Daniel Martinez is seeking compensation after he spent eight months in prison on remand before he was acquitted of sexually assaulting a woman at a jury trial where her previous history of near identical false allegations against other men was not heard by the jury.
Mr Martinez could win damages over $400,000 if he sues for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment or even assault and battery.
The state of NSW could also be up for hundreds of thousands in legal costs if it goes to court and the state loses.
Mr Martinez's case has raised questions about whether those accused of sexual crimes are being fully accorded the presumption of innocence in the wake of the MeToo movement.
After a judge stated he believed there were 'secret policies' leading to 'seriously flawed evidence' being used to justify sexual assault prosecutions, an audit was announced of 400 such cases by the office of NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Sally Dowling.
Five NSW District Court judges have criticised the office of Ms Dowling for bringing 'hopeless' sexual assault cases to court.
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley has also faced questions in state parliament about whether prosecutions are being launched without any reasonable prospect of conviction on the basis of secret internal policies informed by recent law changes.
Mr Daley said he was advised prosecutors stick to 'the publicly available prosecution guidelines'.
He refused to comment on the audit being undertaken and said 'the specific details of the review are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions'.
In reviewing the case of Mr Martinez to certify costs, Judge Robert Newlinds said had the jury known about five near identical accusations made about other man by the complainant, the accused man would have been 'acquitted within minutes'.
'I think the prosecution took the lazy and perhaps politically expedient course of identifying that the complainant alleged she had been sexually assaulted and without properly considering the question of whether there was any evidence to support that allegation,' Judge Newlinds said.
Judge Newlinds stated the jury should have been allowed to decide on the basis of all pertinent information.
'This must stop. Justice has not been served and will not be served by repeated cases being prosecuted based on obviously flawed evidence,' he said.
The complainant alleged she was blacked out due to drunkenness before Mr Martinez sexually assaulted her.
However, the trial heard she 'enthusiastically participated' in sex and consent was obtained every step of the way.
The case has raised concerns over NSW legislation that does not allow juries to hear tendency evidence that would expose patterns of behaviour in prior sexual history.
Those accused of sexual crimes are also now denied a committal hearing and must show there was 'affirmative consent' for sexual acts.
Lawyer Ben Willcox, who acted for Mr Martinez, said the cumulative changes were changing the way sex crimes were being treated by prosecutors, reported The Australian.
'The introduction of the affirmative consent provisions challenge the presumption of innocence,' he said.
'This, in my view, has had an impact in terms of how the ODPP approach their assessment of sexual assault allegations and the prosecutorial guidelines for which they are bound.'
Following his judgment on the wrongful imprisonment of Mr Martinez, Ms Dowling made a complaint against Judge Newlinds to the NSW Judicial Commission but the outcome of this has not been made public.
*****************************************************
Premier Steven Miles tells nurses, teachers to not be concerned about cushy construction sector conditions
Premier Steven Miles has told Queensland nurses, teachers and paramedics they have “some of the best conditions in the country” and not to be concerned about the extraordinary perks to those in the construction sector.
It comes after The Courier-Mail revealed some of the deals the state government has gifted the unions and locked in on taxpayer projects worth over $100m – a policy the industry says has crippled productivity and made private housing developments uneconomic.
Double time when it rains, a full month of rostered days off each year, and an extra $1000 a week when working away from home are just some of the sweetheart conditions the state government has struck with the construction unions under its controversial Best Practice Industry Conditions policy.
Mr Miles was grilled over the policy on Wednesday and doubled down, rejecting claims the cushy conditions were contributing to cost blowouts.
When asked how frontline workers will feel when seeing the extraordinary benefits offered to those in the construction industry, Mr Miles insisted Queensland offered some of the best conditions in the country.
“If they look at their conditions compared with the conditions of similar workers in every other state and territory, they’ll acknowledge that we have some of the best wages and conditions for all of our frontline staff,” Mr Miles said.
“Our nurses, our teachers, our ambos – they have among the best conditions in the country.
“That’s not something that we’re ashamed of, it’s something we’re very proud of.”
The Premier repeatedly claimed the conditions were in line with enterprise bargaining agreement rates and stood firm by the stunning measures offered to the workforce.
“The department takes what EBAs the unions and companies are negotiating in the industry and incorporates those into the BPICs,” he said.
“Our construction workers work very hard, often under difficult circumstances, and it’s important that there are conditions related to wet weather and to heat.”
The boss of the CFMEU has lashed out at reports the government’s BPIC policy was slashing productivity and driving up costs, declaring he “makes no apologies” for the extraordinary conditions he says is “backing Queensland construction and manufacturing workers’.
CFMEU State Secretary Michael Ravbar claimed there was not a “shred of evidence” BPICs were leading to cost escalations of up to 30 per cent - despite multiple industry heavyweights repeatedly saying it does exactly that.
He also hit out at the Masters Builders Association, saying it was “outrageous for the (MBA) Association to complain about regional workers having an opportunity to earn better pay and conditions on government construction projects.”
“During a skills shortage and a cost-of-living crisis, they expect Queensland workers to suffer wage restraint to pay for their failures,” Mr Ravbar said.
“Their race to the bottom only ever leads to less safety, lower wages, more exploited visa workers and cheap imported building products on the job.
“As this state’s largest blue-collar union, we make no apologies for backing Queensland construction and manufacturing workers.”
The CFMEU also claimed BPIC projects are “better regulated and deliver bang for buck for taxpayers”.
“Blue collar unions are on a unity ticket in support of the State Government’s Best Practice Industry Conditions policy because it puts Queensland first by backing local workers and manufacturers,” a statement read.
“Where it is implemented properly, the BPIC policy has resulted in greater investment in local suppliers and better conditions for local workers – including apprentices, women and First Nations workers.”
When grilled about the extraordinary conditions, the Premier repeatedly claimed the conditions “represent the prevailing EBA rates in the industry”.
“These are real people too and people with families and people who deserve a decent wage deserve to be able to provide for their families, deserve to be able to come home safe from work,” he said.
“I know there are people out there criticising the wages and conditions of working people but I won’t be one of them because I know that there are two sides to cost of living – there’s what it costs to buy things and then what you earn for going to work.”
Mr Miles rejected claims the costly conditions were driving up the cost of construction and forcing cost blowouts on major projects, declaring: “I’m not going to apologise for ensuring we fund the projects sufficiently so that workers are paid decent wages”.
“Those conditions have been in place for some time, in fact the best part of the time that we have been in government,” he said.
When quizzed if the conditions had been artificially created by the government’s policies, Mr Miles said: “No.”
National’s Leader David Littleproud has also weighed in on the debate, telling Sky News the government’s BPIC conditions were driving up costs “and someone’s going to pay for it”.
“And that’s going to be you, whether it be with you directly, (when you) buy or build or construct a dwelling, or whether it’s for the actual public infrastructure that’s being built by the Australian taxpayer,” he said.
“Now I’m not against fair and reasonable work conditions, but we have to be realistic about what we can afford and under what conditions.
“And you know, when you’re talking about because it’s raining they get an extra loading, or when it hits a certain (temperature) - I think it’s 29 degrees and 75% humidity in Brisbane - I mean that’s most days in summer.”
Mr Littleproud said the conditions would likely mean “people are going to have to pay a lot more, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis”.
“I think we’ve got to be realistic and I think unfortunately this government is just empowering unions to get high up in the stirrups, but that cost has to be passed on,” he said.
“So whether you’re a taxpayer or you’re directly building, you are going to pay and you’re going to pay a lot more because of the ideology of this government.”
***************************************************
Labor’s interventionist industry policy aims big. But how can Australia compete with the US and China?
Governments have a long record of abject failure at picking winners in business and industry
The head of local sales for solar giant Trina, was slightly taken aback when asked at a recent briefing in Sydney whether his firm might shift any of its panel manufacturing to Australia.
After all, wasn’t Australia among the Chinese company’s top markets in the Asia-Pacific, on a par with Japan with a total demand heading towards 6 gigawatts a year?
Trina had plants outside China in the US, the United Arab Emirates and south-east Asia but just 12 employees in Australia. With an annual capacity of 95GW – or more than Australia’s total fleet of generators – perhaps there was scope to bring some here?
Zhou said his bosses in eastern China might “study such a possibility”, implying they haven’t done so yet. Compared with markets such as China’s – now nudging 220GW a year – Australia is “not quite big to us”, he told Guardian Australia.
Trina’s reticence underscores the challenges facing the government’s Future Made in Australia policy. Unveiled this week by the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, it aims to “seize the opportunities of the next decade, for our nation to generate the energy, skills, jobs, technology and investment that will power our future prosperity”.
The size of the programs is gaining heft – including a $15bn National Reconstruction Fund, $4bn for critical minerals and $2bn for green hydrogen – with more likely in next month’s federal budget.
But should Australia bother competing in industries such as solar when Chinese firms have such gargantuan scale? And, as for joining what the Australian Financial Review dismissed as a “worldwide race to the bottom”, how can Canberra ever stump up more than a fraction of the US’s $600bn Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and equivalents in the European Union and elsewhere?
The answers, though, aren’t as simple as “let the market decide”.
To the government’s credit, its interventionist efforts – including laying the groundwork for a shadow carbon price on energy – mostly seek to promote decarbonisation. Tackling the climate crisis, arguably the biggest market failure in history, wasn’t made easier when the Abbott government culled the carbon price.
We also ignore economics when it comes to, say, building nuclear submarines in Australia. National security concerns about China presumably trump market concerns.
And, as it happens, the design and odds of success for industry policy hinge on how we think about China.
Renate Egan, the executive director of the Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics and an author of a recent report on solar’s prospects in the country, said “the natural outcome” would be to work with Chinese companies.
Rather than recreate the whole supply chain, Australia had a relative edge in refining silicon dug up locally and assembling the final modules from imported components. Chinese firms may see it in their interests to diversify risks.
Australia’s annual solar market could reach 15GW or more, potentially large enough to entice Chinese investment especially if governments set local content requirements, Egan said.
If, however, the policy aim was to compete with China or prepare for a future breakdown of relations, then Australia “had a comparative advantage with the rest of the world” on much more of the solar supply chain, she said.
Albanese and his ministers have so far shed little light on how the largesse will be divvied up. Mariana Mazzucato, the founding director of the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose at the University College London, might provide some of the illumination.
Dubbed the treasurer Jim Chalmers’ “favourite economist” by the AFR, Mazzucato recently held a week of meetings in Australia, including with senior heads from departments such as finance and industry, and a commissioner from the Productivity Commission. (Chalmers himself described her as “influential” in a 6,000-word essay published in the Monthly last year.)
Mazzucato is a strong backer of government intervention to “catalyse” change, highlighting the “mission economy” derived from America’s Moonshot program. (The government dubbing its solar scheme “Sunshot” hints at a familiarity with her work.)
Cameraphones, foil blankets and baby formula were among spin-offs from the push to send astronauts to the moon, she notes. A reminder that not all nice things come from canny entrepreneurs tooling around in garages.
Policymakers should design their program based on an “objective orientation”, rather than fixing a market failure, Mazzucato told Guardian Australia last month from an airport lounge as she prepared to jet back to Europe.
The key is to ensure companies receiving support are encouraged if not required to make investments on their own so innovations take on lives of their own.
“If you’re just giving out subsidies and guarantees, in a problem-oriented way, that might actually just increase costs for companies and not catalyse that investment,” she said.
Mazzucato also drew a distinction between the IRA and the US$280bn (A$430bn) Chips and Science Act. (The latter scheme also has a national security element, with the US aiming to reduce reliance on semiconductors from Taiwan should it get invaded by China.)
Apart from the relatively standard sharing of risks and rewards, transparency and accountability, the Chips Act imposed other conditions. Recipients had to commit to reinvesting profits not just using proceeds on share buybacks, as has been the case with similar schemes in the past. Energy efficiency and working conditions also had to be improved, she said.
And there’s a warning the Albanese government and others should heed.
“Government programs should be focusing on transformational change, not just giving billionaires and their industries a subsidy,” Mazzucato said. “That would be stupid.”
************************************
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
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment