'Woke' council makes massive Australia Day decision following outcry from residents

One of the largest local governments in Western Australia has reversed a decision to ditch Australia Day celebrations following an outcry from locals.

The City of Rockingham Council, in Perth's southwest, had announced in May last year that all celebrations relating to Australia Day would be held on the closest Saturday to January 26.

But the council has now backflipped following a community survey, with the results announced at a meeting on Tuesday night.

The survey found that 64 per cent of respondents wanted events associated with Australia Day to be held on its actual date of January 26.

Just two councillors out of 12 voted against reversing the decision, which was put forward by one-time Rockingham State Liberal candidate Peter Hudson.

Councillor Craig Buchanan, from the Legalise Cannabis WA party, and former Greens candidate Dawn Jecks, were against the move.

Mr Hudson claimed that of the 7 per cent of Indigenous respondents, the majority of had supported celebrating the national holiday on January 26.

He added the council had an 'obligation' to act in the interests of its residents.

'But we also have a moral duty as citizens of Australia, to act in our country's national interest,' he said on Tuesday night, The Sound Telegraph reported.

'That means defending what we have when we must - if we don't stand up for what we believe in, nobody else will.'

Fellow Rockingham councillor Mark Jones gave a list of the 'special days' he said Aboriginal people already enjoyed.

'So there's the anniversary of the national apology, we've got Harmony Week in March, national Sorry Day in May, national Reconciliation Week in June, we've got Mabo Day in June, the National NAIDOC week in July, national Aboriginal and Torres Children's Day in August, and national Indigenous literary day in September,' he said.

'So there's multiple days we're trying to reconcile. I guess I'm sorry that Australia Day is not one of those days for everyone, but as a city, we're trying to celebrate the good things about Australia and unite our country.'

Several other councils around Australia have ditched the national holiday in recent years following calls from Indigenous groups to have the date changed.

In late 2022 the Albanese government scrapped a rule that forced councils to hold Australia Day citizenship ceremonies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13888141/rockingham-council-australia-day-celebrations.html

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

Dr Nick Coatsworth issues an urgent warning over Albanese's government's proposed speech law

One of Australia's most high-profile doctors has urged Australians to actively oppose the Albanese government's proposed misinformation laws saying they would have been potentially harmful during the pandemic.

Dr Nick Coatsworth, who was the nation's deputy chief medical officer during the pandemic period, feared the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill would be 'weaponised' to shut down debate.

He noted the legislation was in part aimed at stopping the spread of 'misinformation' that caused 'harm to public health in Australia, including to the efficacy of preventative health measures'.

However, he said this was 'astonishing' after the pandemic lockdowns because the medical fraternity and general public became 'acutely aware' the 'facts' changed as the virus became better understood.

This means the new laws could brand 'legitimate concerns' about about public health policy as 'misinformation', according to the government of 'scientific orthodoxy of the moment'.

'Misinformation causes harm,' Dr Coatsworth said. This bill should be rejected in its entirety.

'The weaponisation of misinformation as a term to shut down debate causes even greater harm.

Dr Coatsworth said 'he shares the government's deep concern about the harms of social media to community trust and cohesion'.

'But misinformation is such a widely used accusation these days that I can't see how the law could work practically',' he said.

Dr Coatsworth said that while some things online are 'verifiably false' the 'only solution is to equip the community from a young age to recognise what they (falsehoods) are and to understand how social media works to manipulate debate'.

'Let's teach our kids critical thought and how to question and debate, not how to dismiss or reject other's opinions or ideas with random accusations of misinformation,' he explained.

'I'd strongly encourage Australians to do something they may never have done before and submit to the Senate Inquiry.

'Even if it's a short paragraph expressing deep concern about what this Bill represents.'

Dr Coatsworth has previously admitted Australian governments and health officials lost the trust and goodwill of the public over the pandemic.

He told Sydney radio station 2GB in February said draconian measures to contain the virus dragged on too long and caused people to tune out and grow resentful.

In a 10-page submission made in February to a special inquiry, Dr Coatsworth admitted imposing mandates was wrong.

Under the new laws beefed up watchdog Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be able to order social media companies to crack down on repeated misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.

Should the companies fail to do so they face a range of penalties and whopping fines, which could include forfeiting five per cent of their global revenue.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has denied the laws would curb freedom of expression.

'We've been very clear as a government to take strong advice around this and to consult widely and to ensure that it aligns precisely with what we have under international law so as not to curb freedom of speech,' she told the ABC earlier this month.

Shadow communications minister David Coleman has accused the government of trying to shotgun the laws through parliament after an earlier version of them was withdrawn last year following substantial public opposition.

'How are people supposed to respond to this complicated law in just a week?,' Ms Coleman told The Daily Telegraph.

'Labor wants to ram this legislation through and is trying to stop the massive backlash we saw last time.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13887877/Dr-Nick-Coatsworth-warning-misinformation.html

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

What the big parties aren’t telling you about their housing ‘fixes’

Ross Gittins

I’m sorry to tell you, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that next year’s federal election campaign will feature a fight over which side has the better policies to end the housing crisis. Why is that bad news? Because neither of the major parties’ proffered solutions would do much good.

The Albanese government wants to introduce two schemes – Help to Buy and Build to Rent – but these are being blocked in the Senate by the opposition and the Greens. If they’re not passed, Labor will go to the election claiming it has the policies that could fix the high cost of housing, but is being stopped by its evil, anti-housing opponents.

The Liberals claim Labor’s schemes are no good, but that their own proposal, Super for Housing, would do the trick. As for the Greens, they’re blocking Labor’s schemes because, they say, they’re too small to make any difference, and Labor needs to agree to their proposals to make that difference. What proposals? To end negative gearing, spend a lot more on building social housing, and limit how much rents can be increased in any year.

The Greens are selling themselves as the party for renters. This is no bad thing. The two big parties have never worried much about renters, even though they make up about a third of households.

The real problem is that the big parties’ schemes don’t stand up to close examination. They’re designed to look bigger and more helpful than they really are.

The term housing “crisis” is misleading. Both sides of politics have sat back for decades, happily watching house prices rise faster than household incomes.

Labor's Help to Buy scheme, which would see the government provide financial support for 10,000 first-home buyers a year, has been stalled in the Senate.

When you go back to basics, the cause of rising house prices is that the demand for properties is growing faster than the supply of them. The only policies that slow the rise in prices are those that either add to the supply of homes or reduce the demand for them.

So when governments pretend to help first-home buyers with grants or reduced stamp duty, they’re neither adding to supply nor reducing demand. They’re just making it easier for some people to pay the high price. Get it? They’re actually helping keep the price high. And if they help enough buyers, they’re probably pushing prices a bit higher.

This is what’s wrong with both Labor’s Help to Buy scheme and the Libs’ Super for Housing scheme. Labor’s scheme would involve the government giving eligible homebuyers up to 40 per cent of the home’s purchase price, but retaining ownership of the same proportion of the home’s value.

Whenever you sold the house, you’d have to buy out the government’s share, which by then would be a much higher amount than you were originally given. This is a condition that hasn’t appealed to many people when some of the states have offered similar schemes. There haven’t been many takers.

Labor’s scheme would be offered to a maximum of 10,000 buyers a year. This may sound a lot, but in an economy of 27 million people, it ain’t.

The deeper problem, however, is that, as with previous straight-out grants to first-home buyers, it doesn’t reduce the price of homes but, rather, makes them a bit easier for a few lucky people to afford. By doing so, it actually adds to the demand for homes, so putting upward pressure on prices.

The Libs’ objection, however, is that Labor’s scheme smacks of socialism. Their rival plan, Super for Homes, would allow eligible buyers to add to their home deposit (and thus to the amount they could borrow), by withdrawing up to $50,000 from their superannuation savings, provided it was no more than 40 per cent of their super balance.

One objection to this is that it wouldn’t do much to help younger homebuyers, since they wouldn’t have accrued much super. But, again, the more serious criticism is that the scheme would actually add to the demand for homes and so help push prices higher.

By contrast, Labor’s other scheme, Build to Rent, would offer special tax concessions to those big concerns that built new blocks of apartments and rented them out. So it would – in principle, at least – help by adding a bit to the supply of homes.

And, to be fair to the government, its already-implemented deal with the state governments, where it’s giving them big bucks to facilitate the building of 1.2 million new homes over five years, would – in principle – add to the supply of homes, particularly higher-density housing in the parts of capital cities where people most want to live.

Why will we be increasing the supply of homes only “in principle”? Because, right now, the nation’s home building industry can’t expand without more tradespeople. It’s short of workers because a lot of them have gone off to work on the states’ big infrastructure projects, but also because for years the industry has been saving money by not training enough apprentices.

When you’ve allowed homes to become ever-harder to afford over many decades, a few showy schemes won’t suddenly fix the problem.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/what-the-big-parties-aren-t-telling-you-about-their-housing-fixes-20240924-p5kcyf.html

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

Government grants extension to three coal mines

A decision by the federal government to extend three coal mines is in line with climate laws, the environment minister says, despite concerns the move undermines credibility in tackling rising emissions.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek signed off on Tuesday to extensions to two coal mines in the NSW Hunter Valley and another in the state's north-west.

Ms Plibersek said the decision was consistent with environmental laws.

"The Albanese government has to make decisions in accordance with the facts and the national environmental law, that's what happened on every project and that's what's happened here," she said in a statement.

"The government will continue to consider each project on a case-by-case basis, under the law. These are not new projects, these three approvals are all extensions of existing operations."

The decisions relate to coal producer Whitehaven's Narrabri underground mine's stage three expansion project, Ashton Coal's Ravensworth mine and Mach Energy's Mount Pleasant optimisation project.

It's expected emissions from the extensions meet the threshold under the federal government's safeguard mechanism, which aims at reducing emissions from large industrial sites.

"The emissions from these projects will be considered by (Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen) under the government's strong climate laws that were supported by the Greens political party and independents.

But Greens leader Adam Bandt said the decision damaged the government's standing on climate action. "(The decision is) a betrayal of our environment, the science and everyone who voted for climate action," he said on social media. "If Labor every gave a damn about the climate crisis, they don't now."

Climate program manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation Gavan McFadzean said the move was a backwards step.

"It is grossly irresponsible to be approving coal mines when global scientists and the International Energy Agency have repeated calls for no new coal and gas projects if we have any chance of having a safe climate," he said.

"These approvals will have consequences for everyday Australians who are forced to live on the forefront of climate damage."

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/government-grants-extension-to-three-coal-mines/ar-AA1r6KWv

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

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

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

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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