ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is appalled by the perverse state election outcome in South Australia

Future of Manus Island asylum seekers unclear as Peter O'Neill says most are not 'genuine refugees'



Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister has pre-empted decisions on the refugee status of asylum seekers being held on Manus Island, declaring “a good majority” of those who have been interviewed are not “genuine refugees”.

Peter O'Neill has also made plain that PNG will only re-settle “some” of those whose refugee claims are recognised, insisting other countries in the region should “carry the same burden as we do”.

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in a joint media conference with Mr O'Neill yesterday, could not nominate a single country that has indicated it will take refugees from Manus, where around 1300 asylum seekers are being held and not one refugee status determination has been completed since the first transfer of asylum seekers in November 2012.

Mr Abbott accepted that “it might be hard” for PNG to take all whose claims were recognised and said Australia was “continuing to work with other countries in our region to ensure that people don't come to Australia if they arrive illegally by boat”.

As the two leaders met and vowed to “stay the course”, journalists were given access for the first time to the controversial centre, where many of the asylum seekers pleaded for their freedom. During the journalists' visit, asylum seekers made new claims about the murder of detainee Reza Barati, saying he was thrown from a balcony before being beaten to death.

The journalists entered the centre with the approval of PNG judge David Cannings, who is investigating human rights after the incidents last month in which scores of asylum seekers were also injured, allegedly by PNG nationals employed by the security contractor at the centre.

Mr O'Neill made a fleeting reference to the violence, saying he regretted “instances of late”, but gave no indication of when the police investigation into the incident would be complete.

While legislation allowing for resettlement in PNG will not be ready until May and remains highly contentious, a defiant Mr Abbott said Australia could best assist PNG “in ensuring people found not to be refugees are swiftly repatriated”.

“This is the bottom line: if you arrive illegally by boat in Australia you will never permanently settle in Australia because, as long as there is this prospect of permanent resettlement, there is the risk that illegal boats will keep coming,” Mr Abbott declared.

Mr O'Neill recommitted to the centre despite international agencies including the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, and Amnesty International raising concerns about conditions in the centre, the state of processing and requirements that might be attached to resettlement.

Before a PNG official declared that the leaders would take no more questions on Manus, Mr O'Neill said that some communities in the country had offered to participate in a resettlement program.

“It is pretty hard to speculate when we don't precisely know the actual number of people that we are talking about. We expect it to be less because people are expected to go home.” he said.

“Many of them now that have been processed, a good majority of them, are economic refugees. They are not genuine refugees. So, as such they will be sent back to the country of origin.”

It was not clear on what Mr O'Neill based his claim that a majority of those processed were not “genuine refugees”, given that the legislative framework for determining refugee status and resettlement has not been finalised.

In a statement that will concern the UNHCR, Mr O'Neill said the absence of legislation was not an impediment to decisions. “Interview and processing of refugee people at Manus is now taking place as we speak,” he said. “Those proven to be not genuine refugees will be moved on as quickly as possible and those who want resettlement will be resettled under our legislative structure.”

Both leaders were talking after they met at PNG's Parliament House on Friday and signed an economic co-operation treaty.

SOURCE





Leftist hypocrisy knows no bounds

FEDERAL Labor is asking way, way too much of the public with its high-minded moralistic posturing over Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos.

Sinodinos, who stood aside as assistant treasurer on Wednesday to give the government clear air in the lead-up to the May Budget, has been called as a witness in the current NSW ICAC hearings into whether former NSW Labor heavyweights Eddie Obeid, Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly misused their positions to favour Australian Water Holdings.

No allegations of any criminal activity have been made against the NSW Senator, a former chief of staff to former prime minister John Howard, with an enviable reputation for honesty and integrity.

Yet former AWU boss and Labor leader Bill Shorten, who is likely to be called before the royal commission headed by former High Court justice Dyson Heydon into alleged trade union corruption, has occupied almost all Question Time with his attempts to besmirch Sinodinos and by association, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

As Education Minister firmly told Parliament on Thursday, the Abbott government “will not be judged by the party of Craig Thomson, and the party of Michael Williamson, and the party of the AWU slush fund, and the party of Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald”.

Thomson, the former Health Services Union official and former Labor MP, has been found guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates Court of misusing union members funds to pay for prostitutes and personal expenses. He will be sentenced next Tuesday.

Williamson, a former national president of the ALP and a former head of the Health Services Union, pleaded guilty last October 15 to four charges of cheating or defrauding as a director, fabricating invoices and recruiting someone to hinder a police investigation.

His bail has been revoked and he in prison awaiting final sentencing this Friday.

The AWU slush fund affair is likely to see former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard called before the Heydon royal commission where she is likely to be asked to explain her role in assisting her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson establish a fund that was kept secret from both Wilson’s union, and Gillard’s employers, the Labor law firm Slater & Gordon.

Both Obeid and Macdonald were found to be corrupt by the NSW ICAC in connection with the issuance of mining licenses.

Little wonder that Pyne pulled Shorten up firmly.

Labor has clung to tainted MPs, even defended them, when the stench of corruption was evident to all (except, perhaps, Labor’s media arm, the ABC).

As Shorten and some unwise souls on the Opposition benches feigned outrage, Pyne walked through them through Labor’s sad record, reminding the smarting Opposition MPs that their party lacked all credibility and left itself shamefully exposed on the topics of ministerial accountability and parliamentary standards.

He said Labor presided over a “sewer” in the past three years with “an endless list of atrocities committed against this parliament”.

He reminded the House that Labor had not only suborned former Liberal MP Peter Slipper by offering him the Speakership (replacing the universally respected Labor MP Harry Jenkins) but had kept Thomson in their party room until April 29, 2012, even though there a cloud had been hanging over the former NSW Central Coast MP as early as January, 2009, well before the 2010 election, when the Fair Work Commission commenced its inquiry into the HSU’s Victorian No. 1 Branch.

So concerned was Labor about the allegations engulfing Thomson that former prime minister Gillard’s chief of staff Ben Hubbard rang the then Industrial Registrar Doug Williams in early 2009 to inquire into whether Thomson was under investigation – before the fraud allegations were made public.

Then, despite the New South Wales police launching Strike Force Carnarvon, in September, 2011, despite the Victorian police fraud squad’s confirmation of its investigation into Thomson in October, 2011, despite Fair Work Australia’s publication of its investigation into the HSU in April 2012, and its release of its investigation into the Victorian HSU No. 1 Branch, Labor continued to protect Thomson and his caucus vote.

No allegations, I repeat, have been made against Sinodinos. He has been called before ICAC as a witness.

Labor has had its share of MPs and ministers called as witnesses before ICAC, not least being former climate change minister Greg Combet who was questioned about a letter he wrote supporting a controversial mining licence sought by union official John Maitland.

The noisy Senator Doug Cameron was called to give evidence about the Obeids.

In neither case did the Liberals demand either be stripped or their responsibilities or disciplined.

The contrast between the behaviour of the two principal parties in Australian politics could not be greater.

Labor is the party of smear, innuendo and hypocrisy.

There is probably no greater example of Labor’s gutter tactics than the ugliness revealed by Gillard herself during the confected frenzy of her extremely personal tirade against Tony Abbott during which she falsely claimed he was a misogynist as she attempted to distract the public from her personal appointment of Slipper, a man who had made the most appalling references to women’s sexual organs, to the highest parliamentary office.

“I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man,” she shrieked. “Not now, not ever.”

Pathetic and baseless charges eagerly seized upon by the mindless twitterati who chose to ignore Gillard’s moral deceit and betrayal of principle in regard to Slipper’s promotion.

“Not now, not ever,” Gillard screeched theatrically.

Well, “not now, not ever”, should anyone from Labor try and lecture anyone about morality, about ethics or parliamentary standards.

Labor over the past six years has demonstrated it lacks all understanding of the terms.

SOURCE






Busting the myths of the paid parental leave scheme

As the May budget draws nearer, women’s groups, business and political watchers alike are anticipating the incorporation of the Abbott government’s flagship paid parental leave scheme, funded partially by a 1.5% levy on big business.

The government’s vocal commitment to this $5.5 billion scheme sits uncomfortably alongside rhetoric about the end of the age of entitlement and the need for tough choices to be made to improve the nation’s finances.

The scheme has been justified by the government as an ‘investment’ amid suggestions it will improve productivity. Rather than paying the minimum wage, workers covered under the scheme will be paid at their replacement wages, on the basis that doing so will improve participation, boost women’s super at retirement and increase fertility. These claims are either wrong or greatly exaggerated.

It’s highly unlikely there will be an increase in fertility. As the government is fond of pointing out, the proposed scheme bears a greater resemblance to those in place in other OECD countries compared with the existing scheme. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for making this point masks the fact that these generous schemes in countries like Sweden and Norway have produced fertility rates virtually indistinguishable from our own. Strike one.

The other significant difference is that the proposed scheme includes superannuation at the going rate (currently 9.25%), which will boost a woman’s super accumulation by somewhere in the vicinity of $50,000 for an average full-time income-earner. These increases are real. But the dent in women’s savings at retirement compared to men’s is not caused by six months of parental leave; it’s the years spent in low-paid part time or flexible work due to personal choices or inadequate childcare availability. Strike two.

Productivity and participation are the bigger issues. They are not the same thing – if more low-productivity workers shift their behaviour and re-enter the workforce than higher-productivity earners, participation goes up but productivity doesn’t. The high-productivity earners the government wants to entice back into the workforce are most likely to go back anyway, thanks to high pay and generous employer-provided enticements like flexible work and on-site childcare. Strike three.

Paid parental leave is not a concept without any value: improving women’s participation is one way to broaden the tax base over the medium-term to tackle coming fiscal problems, and it has other benefits too. But all the evidence suggests that this scheme is not the way to go about it. Nor do the alleged benefits to fertility and income upon retirement hold enough water to justify the scheme. The government should go back to the drawing board on this one.

SOURCE






Youth unemployment:  A proud achievement of the Labor government

At 6.3%, Australia’s unemployment rate is at its highest level in ten years. While our unemployment figures compare well to the rest of the OECD, Australia was unlike its European counterparts in that it was not hit hard by the global financial crisis. It means that rather than returning to the strong growth and record low unemployment experienced in 2008, our economy has flat-lined.

These points were highlighted in Greg Jericho’s recent ABC article bemoaning a significant fall in youth employment since 2008. Jericho points to a near 10% fall in the employment-to-population ratio among 15 – 24 year-olds since 2008 to illustrate the souring employment prospects of our youth. By contrast, the employment-to-participation ratio among 24 – 54 year-olds dropped only 1% in the same period.

What Jericho fails to point out is that changes to the welfare system enacted by the Rudd government have decreased incentives for young workers to find emplloyment. At the same time, changes to labour market settings have reduced the demand for young, low-skilled labour.

Last year, former CIS Research Fellow Andrew Baker pointed to the rise of non-job seekers on unemployment benefits, highlighting that nearly half of those on unemployment benefits did not necessarily need to be looking for work to receive benefits.

Following the GFC, the government altered the eligibility requirements for those on unemployment benefits such that recipients could stay on benefits without being required to look for work, so long as they enrolled in some sort of education and training. Newstart recipients can enter into work experience after 12 months and hold onto their benefits, while early school leavers who later complete year 12 (or equivalent) can continue receiving income support.

These changes made it easier for the unemployed to continue drawing welfare benefits without actively seeking a job. At the same time, the Fair Work Act increased the cost for businesses in hiring young workers.

The award modernisation process simplified and amalgamated 3,715 state and federal awards to 122 modern awards. That made for a simpler award system, but in the process, the minimum wages and penalty rates were factored up towards the highest common denominator rather than the lowest.

This has meant that along with the yearly minimum wage hikes, there have been additional hikes to award wages as the new modern awards are phased in.

If you increase the cost of low-skilled work, you reduce the demand for that work. Young people are now more expensive to employ and at the same time are finding it easier to remain eligible for welfare benefits without looking for work. Does it come as a surprise that young workers are opting out of the labour market?

SOURCE

Club owner speaks out about the night Virgil Power king-hit Michael Halbauer

The thug was let off without a recorded conviction so it would not stop his legal career

THE owner of the club where a young member of a Queensland legal dynasty king-hit a patron is furious the attacker walked free after committing the most random violent act seen at the establishment.

CCTV footage showed Virgil Macquarie Power, 29, throwing a drink on Michael Halbauer and then flooring him without warning at Laguna Jacks bar at Noosa in September.

Magistrate Bernadette Callaghan sentenced Power to 240 hours’ community service and took into account the “remorse’’ shown by paying the victim’s $24,000 medical bills. This was to repair serious damage to his face and teeth.

Laguna Jacks owner John Whimpress told The Courier-Mail Virgil Power Jnr had only bought two drinks — the second of which he threw on his victim — before the violent punch.

He said he was unaware of any incidents between the pair leading up to the attack.

Although Magistrate Callaghan found Powers had been intimidated by Halbauer earlier in the evening.

Mr Whimpress and his staff were “devastated’’ by the magistrate’s decision and feared it sent the wrong message. “It was the first time we had seen this type of attack. We had heard about them elsewhere, but not here,’’ he said.  “We’re very upset with the result. We don’t think it acts as a deterrent.

“Customer safety is paramount for us and we have a great relationship with police and liquor licensing. We all work hard to keep people safe and prevent things like this happening.’’

Mr Whimpress said he was unaware of any confrontation or incidents involving the men leading up to the clash and Power had shown no signs of intoxication.

“Nothing viewed by staff or customers showed Virgil Power Jnr was a threat to anyone. He had only bought two drinks and the second was the one he threw at the other guy before he hit him.

“We can’t understand why it (the king hit) happened.’’

Mr Whimpress said Power had been in the club on previous occasions without incident.  He said his victim was a visitor.  Virgil is now banned and has not been back.  “We need to send a message that this type of behaviour is not to be tolerated, whether it be at a club, pub, wedding or wherever.’’

Manager Rod Hambrook was behind the bar when the attack happened and rushed to Mr Halbauer’s aid.  Mr Hambrook said the young man was groggy and completely confused.

“He seemed a nice kid. Here on holidays and having a night out. I got him up. Helped him get clean and took him to the hospital. I also rang the police.

“I like to keep an eye on people, but hadn’t previously noticed the guy who got hit.  “I had noticed Virgil. I had seen his face a few times before, but it was more that he was tall and seemed to be known by others in the club. He was mingling.’’

Mr Hambrook said he had since examined the footage of the night and noted the victim had been in the club about two hours and Power about an hour and a half.

He said he had only seen the two men pass by each other on one occasion, but did not seem to acknowledge each other.  “From what I could see there was no altercation earlier on.  “Our guards are very vigilant and noticed nothing untoward.’’

Mr Hambrook said he had been shocked by the incident.  “Talk about a coward’s punch. I have never experienced anything like it. What makes people think they can do this to others and get away with it.’’

Virgil Macquarie Power works as a law clerk for his father Virgil Alexander Power at the Noosa law firm, Virgil Power and Co. When The Courier-Mail visited the office yesterdayand contacted it again in the afternoon, reception staff advised both were out of the office for the day. A request for an interview was unsuccessful.

SOURCE






Stubborn  Muslim gets kid glove treatment

A FATHER who was indefinitely jailed in Queensland three months ago for ignoring an order to return his young daughter from overseas has been released from prison.

Federal Circuit Court Judge Margaret Cassidy said it would be futile to continue the indefinite sentence, although the father had done nothing to bring back the Australian child.

The father took his daughter overseas almost two years ago, without the consent of the mother, later returning on his own to Australia, where he has permanent residency.

He has since obtained an overseas custody order that allows the girl to live in the other country, which is not a party to The Hague Convention.

Judge Cassidy said the Australian-born child now was likely to remain overseas, with the mother and daughter unlikely to have any opportunity for a relationship.

“I do not know where to begin to express the pain I hold in my heart,” the mother said in a victim impact statement.  “There is not a single day or moment in a day that goes by that I do not have a thought for my daughter.”

The court heard the father believed the mother had committed a morally reprehensible act by marrying a younger man and he needed to protect his daughter from the situation.

The father told the court if released he would go back overseas to look after his child and bring her back to Australia. But Judge Cassidy said she did not have any great confidence that he would return.

She told the father that in this country parents had equal shared responsibilities when it came to parenting.  “One parent can’t decide to have a child living in (the overseas country) against the wishes of another parent,” Judge Cassidy said.

The mother’s lawyer, Adam Cooper, asked Judge Cassidy to give the father a fixed prison term of up to 12 months. He said the ­father had expressed no regret for the mother’s suffering.

“In my view, he has no understanding of the impact it may have on the child and the mother if they are not to spend time together,” the judge said.

She ordered the father’s release from jail last Friday, deciding the three months he had spent in jail were sufficient for the breach of court orders.

SOURCE






Violent Abo attacks Qld bus driver



POLICE are searching for a man who viciously assaulted a bus driver in Southport this morning ... and it was all over a fare.

The man, described as wearing no shirt, grey board shorts and carrying a black backpack was captured on camera dragging the 63-year-old driver out of the bus on to the ground and punching him in a vicious attack at a bus stop at the corner of Nerang and Pohlman Streets.

Detective Acting Inspector Paul Austin says the attack occurred about 8.30am when the passenger boarded the bus and tried to pay with a pre-paid travel card, or GoCard, which didn’t have any money on it.  The culprit then tried to pay with a $50 note, but the 63-year-old driver did not have sufficient change.

“There was an attempt at payment, however we do believe there was an escalation of his language, of his demeanour, which then became violent,” Insp Austin told reporters.

The driver was taken to hospital with bruising and cuts to his face.

Insp Austin commended the driver for getting up once he was being assaulted and moving towards the door so other passengers on the bus were not in the firing line.  “However, that did mean that the assault continued ... and he received further assault on the footpath,” he said.

Video of the incident shows the driver being dragged on the ground outside the bus while being kicked by his attacker.

The culprit is thought to be in his late teens or  early 20s, has a dark complexion, a medium build, tattoos and sports a mohawk hairstyle.

A nearby business owner said the man involved is a known local in the area and was seen arguing with the bus driver.  "I think he tried to pay his fare with a $50 or $100 note and the bus driver might have said no,” the witness said.  “Next thing he was out of the bus and picked up his things which had fallen out of his bag.  "Then he walked across the road and down Pohlman Street.”
Witnesses described the man as in his late teens or early 20s with short, spiky hair.

SOURCE






No escape from bat colony that terorises Maclean residents

Greenie priorities rule

ENVIRONMENT Minister Robyn Parker has refused to help get rid of a bat colony that has terrorised a north coast town and sent locals batty.  Outnumbered by bats 100 to one, Maclean residents have pleaded for Ms Parker to “choose humans over bats” — fearing that bat-borne diseases like rabies, hendra and lyssavirus could harm their children and grandchildren.

The state government and council have been ­accused of threatening local residents and wasting millions of dollars on working groups and reports.  More than 300ha of swampland was bought in the hope of moving the bats there, but that failed as well.  Licences to move bats on have tight restrictions protecting red and grey flying foxes.

Ms Parker yesterday refused any cull or extermination of the bats. “That would be illegal and we have no advice that it would be safe or effective.”

Brian Johnson, who has a property next to the bat colony, said he was threatened with a fine after trying to scare off the bats using a stick and a bin. Others have used the noise of chainsaws and car horns to try to move them on.

“I just can’t see why the politicians don’t choose humans over bats — I’d like to see them live here. I’m sure they’d change their tune pretty quickly,” Mr Johnson said.

Darryl Graney lives on the corner of Jubilee and Cameron Streets, nearest the bats, and said his car was regularly covered in droppings. At its worst, 250,000 bats roost ­opposite his home.
Clarence Valley council this week voted against buying 50 houses bordering the bushland for $15 million, after locals struggled to sell their homes.

Mayor Richie Williamson said the bat problem was the state and federal governments’ responsibility.

In 2010, teachers at Maclean High School threatened to walk off the job after being forced to wear raincoats and carry ­umbrellas to avoid bat faeces.

Ms Parker’s spokesman said “a multi-agency and stakeholder working group” had been set up by her department.  “There is a risk that dispersed bats will simply relocate to a nearby area,” he said.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is disappointed that the ALP is still supporting the mining tax

Aggressive  Aboriginal Gang Assaults White People  -- Perth City, 17th March 2014

Aboriginal gangs roam unchecked in the city center of Perth attacking white residents for vengeance against the Europeans successfully conquering their lands. In this shocking footage 10+ Aboriginals of all ages attack 2 white males for seemingly no reason. The Aboriginals shout "White dogs!" "See what they do!?" over and over whilst taking cheap shots and hitting the men who are trying the stop the fight.

No mention of the matter in the mainstream media, of course, but you can see the video here.

The report below of 15th may however refer to the same offenders

Group of up to five men wanted for multiple assaults and robberies from Croydon to Norwood overnight

OPERATION Mandrake detectives are investigating a series of violent crimes in which a group of men terrorised multiple victims across Adelaide today.

Up to five men are believed to be responsible for as many as six robberies across western and eastern Adelaide and in the CBD between midnight and noon today.

Weapons, including a metal pole and a screwdriver, were brandished in some cases and in four of the robberies the victims suffered injuries.

The spree started at West Croydon, where the men armed with a pole stole a necklace from a woman at the intersection of Torrens Rd and Rosetta St just after midnight.

At nearby Liberton Ave, Croydon Park, a man was robbed of a phone, wallet and watch, suffering minor injuries.

About 15 minutes later, two women were assaulted and robbed of their handbags in a supermarket carpark at Welland.

One of the victims suffered a cut head and was treated by ambulance officers.

About 2am, the group then approached a woman and two men on Sydenham Rd, Norwood and, armed with a metal pole, demanded property.

The victims refused and were assaulted. The man was taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital for treatment.

Two women were threatened by the men on Victoria Drive in the city about 6.20am. One had her bag stolen.

A home invasion at Ridgehaven just before midday, during which the elderly resident was threatened with a screwdriver, may also be linked.

The suspects for all robberies were described as Aboriginal men aged 20-28.

Operation Mandrake was established in 2003 to crack down on a group of hard-core Aboriginal offenders – the so-called Gang of 49.

They are assisting Western and Eastern Adelaide police with the investigation.

The men were seen in a maroon or burgundy Holden VK Commodore with registration WEK596 during the early morning robberies.

The registration does not match the car and it is likely stolen numberplates have been used.

The car involved in the home invasion was a maroon or burgundy Holden VK Commodore with registration WER181.

Police have not discounted it being the same car.

SOURCE







Palmer United Party members slam single-minded party pooper Clive Palmer

CLIVE Palmer’s own members say their leader’s “bullshit and razzamatazz” is ­undermining the party.

Days after the Palmer United Party failed to win a seat in the Tasmanian poll, several members have spoken out about Mr Palmer’s mistakes.

Former candidates and members from Mr Palmer’s own party say their leader must ditch his conspiracy theories and “loud” presidential-campaign style if he has any chance of wooing voters in Queensland.

Mr Palmer has already begun letterbox drops in Queensland, touting Gaven MP Alex Douglas as the next Premier.

But he has been urged to stand aside as leader, with accusations he failed to understand his audience and shoved aside local candidates in favour of grandiose advertisements featur­ing himself.

The Member for Fairfax – who claimed the poll was not “legitimate” and that someone had tampered with ballot boxes – has also been warned by party insiders to stop spouting conspiracy theories.

Chris Lester, who says he was selected as a candidate in Lyons before pulling out just before the official endorsement, blasted Mr Palmer’s lack of organisational structure and his tendency to try to “just bulldoze it through”.

The Derwent Valley councillor said senior party figures had told him he was about to be endorsed, but he walked away because the campaign began to involve “talking too much crap”.

“There was really too much bullshit and razzamatazz – it was all a very, very loud campaign,” he said.  “It was so loud, in fact, I think people got sick of it. My personal view is that unless Clive steps down as the head of the party and they actually run it as a political party, it won’t go anywhere – I think it will fizzle out.”

PUP state candidate for Franklin, Michael Figg, said the Tasmanian campaign was hampered by “too much of Clive and not enough of the real people”.

“He didn’t understand his audience,” he said. “At the end of the day, we’re not voting Clive in, we’re voting ­Michael Figg and the other people. Down here, it was vote Clive Palmer, Palmer United Party – so Michael Figg or the other candidates, apart from the lead candidates, got very little or no ­exposure at all.”

Former federal PUP candidate for Maribyrnong Philip Cutler has also taken aim at the party leader.

He says “arrogance and over-the-top self belief” has crippled PUP and that Australians don’t care what Clive has to say. He announ­ced on Sunday via Facebook that he had left the party.

Clive Palmer said it was a question of “saying bad things about individuals”.  “When people lose elections they get very disappointed,” the Federal MP said.  “A lot of politicians have false expectations and they’re going in there for the wrong reasons,” he said.

“It’s not a question of pointing blame. It’s not a question of saying bad things about individuals.”

The PUP Leader declared he was personally not “important”.  “It’s not my credibility I’m standing for. It’s not the money I get for being in Parliament I’m standing for. It’s the ideas for the Australian community,” Mr Palmer said.

He defended the party’s campaign in Tasmania.  “Our party was only registered one day before the writs closed, three weeks before the election,” he said.  “So if you look at the swing in Tasmania we had the second biggest swing to us in the election and that’s not bad for three weeks.”

Mr Palmer also appeared to reject Mr Lester’s comments.  “The guy wasn’t even endorsed for our party, he pulled out beforehand. He wasn’t even a party member, didn’t pay his membership.”

The self-proclaimed billionaire then told reporters he’d been working as an MP for free.

“I haven’t taken a salary since I got to Parliament. I haven’t taken an electoral allowance. I paid most of my own airfares to come down here. I’m here to serve the people,” he said.

“I have not received any salary. I have refused to sign the form. It’s my view that I think people should serve their country based on service.”

SOURCE






Finally, Some Real Climate Science

The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned

The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.

The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara).[1] The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.

By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.

The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.[3]

First, a sub-committee has looked at the recent 5th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  and formulated scores of critical questions about the weak links in the IPCC’s methods and findings. In effect, it’s a non-cosy audit of the IPCC’s claims on which the global campaign against CO2 is based.

Second, the  APS Panel’s review sub-committee, after ‘consulting broadly’, appointed a workshop to get science input into the questions. The appointed  workshop of six expert advisers, amazingly, includes three eminent sceptic scientists: Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Judith Curry. The other three members comprise long-time IPCC stalwart Ben Santer (who, in 1996, drafted, in suspicious circumstances, the original IPCC mantra about a “discernible” influence of manmade CO2 on climate), an IPCC lead author and modeler William Collins, and atmospheric physicist Isaac Held.

Third, the sub-committee is ensuring the entire process is publicly transparent — not just the drafts and documents, but the workshop discussions, which have been taped, transcribed and officially published, in a giant record running to 500+ pages.[4]

Fourth, the APS will publish its draft statement to its membership, inviting comments and feedback.

What the outcome will be, ie what the revised APS statement will say, we will eventually discover.  It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the world’s collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

The APS audit of the IPCC makes a contrast with the Australian Science Academy’s (AAS) equivalent efforts. In 2010 the AAS put out a booklet, mainly for schools, ”The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers”, drafted behind closed doors. The drafters and overseers totalled 16 people, and the original lone sceptic, Garth Paltridge, was forced out by the machinations of  then-President Kurt Lambeck.

The Academy is currently revising the booklet, without any skeptic input at all. Of the 16 drafters and overseers, at least nine have been IPCC contributors and others have been petition-signing climate-policy lobbyists, hardly appropriate to do any arm’s length audit of the IPCC version of the science. Once again, the process is without any public transparency or consulting with the broad membership.

More HERE





As warming slows, denunciation grows

By Don Aitkin (Don is a very eminent Australian academic.  Google him)

Two little essays, both published on The Conversation (13 and 14 March*), and a compilation of surveys, provide the basis for this post. I’ll start with the surveys first, which come courtesy of Donna Laframboise, who has written an amusing little piece on surveys about ‘climate change’. Imagine, she asks, that you are on a transcontinental rail journey. You go to eat in the buffet car, and at every meal you are asked what you would like — but, whatever you ask for, the food is always vegetarian. She says opinion surveys and political oratory about global warming are like that.

American surveys routinely place global warming or ‘climate change’ last in the list of important issues, so far as the electorate is concerned, and the same is largely true both of the UK, and of the United Nations’ own global surveys. In Australia the poll evidence is that Australians are more concerned than Americans, but there are no truly equivalent poll results. Ms Laframboise points out that despite this lack of interest, politicians and the ‘concerned’ go on telling us that we are wrong: we should be concerned like them, and must be deficient in sense and altruism for not being so. She lists Secretary of State John Kerry as a Cassandra example, pointing to the same speech that I wrote about three weeks ago.

So the orthodox go on waiting impatiently for the warming to return, and becoming even louder and more aggressive in their contempt for those of us who ask for good argument and good data and point out what seem to be problems in the orthodoxy. The decline in interest in AGW is certainly connected to the lack of significant warming to match the increase in carbon dioxide, but there is a lot more to it, I think. So to the first of these  articles, which is by Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director of the ANU’s National Centre for Public Awareness of Science. What do you think of this?

The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over. We all know what the overwhelmingly vast majority of climate science is telling us. I’m not going to regurgitate the details here, in part because the facts are available everywhere, but more importantly, because this tactic is a core reason why climate messages often don’t resonate or penetrate. If, like me, you’re convinced that human activity is having a hugely damaging effect on the global climate, then your only responsible option is to prioritise action.

I don’t think that what he proposes is at all a ‘responsible option’. The most responsible surely would be to look hard at what you think are the facts. Like Bernie Fraser, however, of whom he speaks well in this essay, Mr Lamberts knows what ‘the vast majority of climate science’ is telling him, though he won’t tell his readers. I’m certainly not sure what it is, and I think by now I have a reasonable understanding of ‘the science’. We don’t need any more facts, he says, we need action. Nor is it clear what sort of action he has in mind, other than noisy behaviour.  But then we get this: What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means.

That really worries me, and it should worry anyone. That is not how democracies should behave, and indeed it is what people object to about people who think they know The Truth: they are always telling the rest of us what to do. Mr Lamberts says that deniers should just be disregarded.  Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. I object to this sort of talk, especially from an academic at the ANU, from which I have my PhD. It is stormtrooper stuff, and has no place either in universities or in a website funded by universities.

The second essay is by Lawrence Torcello, an American academic who teaches philosophy in the USA. It is not in any way a sensible article, and while I wonder why it was accepted for publication in Australia it is certainly another good illustration of the aggressive style which you can find from the ‘believers’. Here is a sample:

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus… What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

Nowhere in this is any attempt to define anything; apparently it’s not needed by philosophers like Mr Torcello, though I would have thought ‘climate denial’ at least needs some kind of explanation if funding it is to be regarded as criminal behaviour. As I’ve said a few times, I am simply unaware of any funding that flows to me or to the others with whom I discuss AGW. Nor can I see any ‘sustained campaign to undermine the the public’s understanding of scientific consensus’. What does Mr Torcello have in mind?

No matter. Any innocent reading this will come away with the view that ‘climate deniers’, whoever they are, should be jailed. It’s different stormtrooper talk, and just as objectionable. Neither Lamberts nor Torcello deserves much respect, on the evidence of these essays, but I put to them that it is indeed time for a debate, a real debate, the kind that I mentioned in my piece on Bernie Fraser last week. The more they denounce citizens who ask questions about ‘climate change’ the weaker their position becomes. Let us discuss these ‘facts that are available everywhere’, and in public. And soon.

SOURCE

A good comment by Colin Davidson that appeared on Don's site below the article above:

Don,

I think you have done a great service by drawing attention to academics wanting, nay advocating, the shutting down of free speech, and the sanctioning of anyone who dares to oppose their own beliefs.

And I would also add that skeptics in general, and I in particular, do not want to stop the proponents of action from having their say. The nasty sentminent that opponents must be coerced into agreement is coming almost wholly from the proponents of action. Dictators to a man. Lovers of concentration/extermination camps. Nazis.

There is no other way to say it. That group represents a group which does not believe in the rule of law, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. It believes in slavery for us all, and is working hard to achieve that.

Cut their funding, I say. I'm happy for them to be whackos, play with their doodles, boil their sweets. But not on the public purse. Let them exist on the funding that skeptics receive - as I think Jo Nova pointed out skeptics receive very little funding, and certaimnly no public monies. On the orther side there are vast rivers of Government Gold pouring into the coffers and funding halfwits like the two turkeys you mention.

Let them fund their beliefs by themselves. I hate it that my taxes are going to academics who, rather than being seekers after the truth, are just ill-educated, lazy thinkers, full of themselves up to the hilt.

Amazing that they can walk.

Lots of relieved people in W.A. today

Judge Sleight is now a PROVEN fool.  Why has this scum been allowed to get away with so much?  My guess:  He is Aboriginal

One of Western Australia's worst sex offenders has been arrested for allegedly breaching a supervision order condition, just days after being released from prison.

Police arrested the man, known only as "TJD" for legal reasons, on Wednesday afternoon after alleged breaches of his reporting conditions.

The man was being "processed" by police late this afternoon. Charges have not yet been laid.

A WA Police spokeswoman said officers from the sex offender management squad were advised by the Department of Corrective Services about the alleged breach.

She said specific details about the allegations and when the alleged incident happened were not yet available.

On Wednesday, the offender's release from jail on a 10-year supervision order provoked community outrage, while the state's Attorney-General says he wouldn't have let him out.

The offender was last week freed from prison by a Supreme Court judge.

Commissioner Kevin Sleight revoked an indefinite detention order handed to "TJD" in 2011, after he attacked 13 women, including seven occasions when he used a weapon or replica weapon to threaten his victim into submission.

Mr Sleight said he was satisfied "TJD" - who has a history of assaults on women dating back to when he was 15 - could be released under a strict 10-year supervision order, which will include wearing a GPS tracking device.

He will have to abide by a night-time curfew and is banned from unsupervised access to children.

As talkback radio airwaves were swamped by callers horrified by the man's release, WA Attorney-General Michael Mischin said he had "an awful lot of sympathy" for people who felt the man presented too high a risk to the community.

"I share the community's concerns about this," Mr Mischin told Radio 6PR on Wednesday.   "This man has a very bad record."

Mr Mischin also said he felt for the man's victims, who would be fearful of running into him.  "I am very sorry that they are being put through this."

He said he couldn't tell the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions what to do as it was independent, but had asked for more information about the matter.

"Probably, on the material that I've seen, I would have come to a different decision.  "What I can do is get a report from the DPP's office as to the reasoning underlying the decision.

"If there is a systemic problem there, I will address that. If there has been a bad judgment call in this case, then I will take what steps I can in discussions with the director to ensure this judgment call is not repeated."

WA opposition leader Mark McGowan said that, if he was the attorney-general and knew the offender's indefinite detention order was coming up for review, he "would have had words with the DPP about the approach".

"I don't think that is inappropriate and I think it's a gross failure and a gross negligence on the part of the attorney-general not to have done so," Mr McGowan said.

SOURCE





Why did this lying woman get a cent?

A young woman claiming she suffered debilitating back pain in a car crash was caught out after boasting about her active social life online.

Monica-Leigh Reitano's compensation claim in the Supreme Court in Mackay serves as a cautionary tale for social media users.

Ms Reitano was 17 when she was taken to the Mackay Mater Hospital with back pain after her car was rear-ended by a four-wheel-drive at a roundabout in 2008.

The now-23-year-old sought compensation from RACQ Insurance in July last year, saying she suffered ongoing back and chest pain, which worsened with certain activities.

Ms Reitano said she suffered intermittent spasms, numbness, tingling and sleep issues, which severely hindered her home, social and academic life.

But Justice David North expressed doubts about both her mental and physical injuries, saying her conversations on social media and her highschool blog posts presented a very "different picture".

"The plaintiff admitted that she told doctors that she had become scared to go out, but it was plain from her evidence and from other documentary sources that the plaintiff attended music festivals, events at hotels, and that she had been a bridesmaid," he said in a just-published judgment.

Ms Reitano claimed her injuries had robbed her of the opportunity to pursue a career as a foreign correspondent.

However, Justice North said Ms Reitano had blogged as a schoolgirl about her ambition to be a psychologist and listed journalism as her third preference on her application for university admission.

The court also heard Ms Reitano had also made false claims about purchasing a house, planning a trip to the UK and receiving job offers on social media.

Justice North said he accepted some social media accounts "might be attributable to the vagaries of youthful and forgivable exuberance or indiscretion".

Ms Reitano was awarded $139,026 damages, although Justice North said her account of her "pain and suffering" could not be accepted.

The payout included general and special damages, past and future economic loss, interest and lost superannuation.

SOURCE





Abbott sweeps the podium

THE really big and largely unheralded winner from the elections in South Australia and Tasmania was Tony Abbott.

Importantly, he won on two subtly different levels — as Abbott the politician and Abbott the prime minister. That is to say, he is now impregnable as party leader; and he will be even more the dominant determinant of policy.

This might seem an odd thing to claim as neither election had anything much to do with federal issues or with Abbott’s leadership, but rather utterly inept (especially south rather than west of Victoria) state governments.

And, yes, I know, as politicians and commentators claim repeatedly, state elections are not about federal issues. That voters always distinguish between the two, frequently electing opposite parties at the two levels.

Well, that’s ‘always’ claimed by those ‘insiders’ — when they are not claiming the exact opposite. The alternative claim is usually of the variety.

Or when they try desperately, as both Labor and the Greens did in these two state elections, to make them about the dreaded ‘AbbottAbbottAbbott monster’ — to paint the possible local Coalition government as a future working partner of ‘the evil one.’

Well, let’s take Labor at its word. These elections were all about Abbott: South Australian voters backed him 53-47 per cent; and Tasmania even more resoundingly with 53 per cent of first preferences. Labor and the Greens were shredded.

Also, add that to the Griffith by-election where the Prime Minister (and true, a very good local candidate) scored a rare by-election swing to the Government — and they did so, against Labor’s imprecations, and the easy option of being able, to ‘send a message to Canberra’, and to Abbott in particular.

Arguably, the mindless March ‘march’ madness protests on the weekend made Abbott’s indirect but utterly decisive victory all that sweeter; underlining as it did the fringe nature of street noise. Along with, an awful lot of media so-called commentary.

Gee, you’d think the Liberals would take the advice and finally learn just how awful Abbott’s been for them.

Ever since he won leadership of the party, all he’s done is lose. Not content with ‘losing’ one prime minister, Kevin Rudd, he was so careless that he ‘lost’ a second, Julia Gillard. What on earth would Oscar Wilde have said about him ‘losing’ a third, recycled Rudd?

Now, he’s proved such a ‘successful’ focus of Labor attack, that he’s managed to ‘lose’ Labor every state and territory government, bar the ‘beltway cocooned ACT’, and if not also South Australia, only because of an outrageous gerrymander that would have sent the already ruddy-faced, the late Tom Playford, even redder with grudging admiration.

The more the crazies outside parliament scream against Abbott, the more the ‘smarties’ on the Labor benches inside parliament target Abbott, the more they succeed in cementing his dominance of both party and Cabinet room, and the more they extend his support in the broader community.

We’ve already seen one big policy consequence — the government’s ‘tough decisions’ to refuse SPC and Qantas what they wanted, after the ‘easy ones’ to not embark on a, almost certainly fruitless, chase after Holden and Toyota.

What’s again got lost in the hysteria, is that Abbott’s tactical instincts proved best. To have taken the all-too easy path of handing SPC $25 million and Qantas a ‘costless’ debt guarantee would have undermined the necessary tough decisions those companies had to make.

Another big policy consequence is the paid parental leave scheme. Whatever the arguments of equity and budget discipline against it, if the Prime Minister wants it, and he does, we are getting it.

If he doesn’t already appreciate it, and I suggest he does — his body language at the Qantas policy announcement spoke volumes — Treasurer Joe Hockey better factor the cost into his budget.

The big thing that flows from all this, is that the Prime Minister has gained an increasingly powerful mandate to take tough and decisive action.

The two state elections and the Griffith by-election have given him the most useful mandate of it all — one where the voters have had a second, and all-too easy, chance to fall prey to scare campaigns, and instead increased their support.

Clearly, the success in ‘stopping the boats’ has been of huge, huge, benefit to the Government and to Abbott in particular, in winning post-election respect and confidence.

The message is twofold: deliver on your promises, and we’ll cop the tough decisions.

Importantly, Abbott clearly knows better than critics and (genuine, if gratuitous) advisers alike, that both sides of this are critical.

He must deliver on his promises, as a non-negotiable precondition to good government and winnable elections. It is simply not an option, to welsh in the name of budget difficulty.

Equally, the opposition in the broad and the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten specifically are proving very slow learners.

The more they demonise and abuse ‘the AbbottAbbott’ the more they cost themselves. The whole ‘misogyny thing’ certainly worked a treat for Gillard. It’s still working a treat, for this PM.

The Opposition’s virulent determination to prevent the Government delivering on its promises, just adds a further layer of help — to the Government; as it keeps announcing the Opposition’s sterility and hopelessness.

The only surprise is that Shorten hasn’t gone back to Kim Beazley’s promise to abolish the GST when and if it wins government.

SOURCE





Tony Abbott stands up to colleagues, critics on free speech

TONY Abbott has resisted Coalition rebels and defied criticism from ethnic communities over looming changes to racial discrimination laws by insisting the reforms will “reconcile” support for freedom of speech and the rejection of racism.

Acting to limit Coalition dissent, the Prime Minister intervened in a dispute between his colleagues yesterday to declare the reforms would “proscribe” racial vilification while amending rules that led to the prosecution of News Corp Australia columnist Andrew Bolt.

Mr Abbott tackled the Coalition concerns in a partyroom meeting that heard calls to maintain the section 18C provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, which make it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person on the basis of their race.

Mr Abbott issued a firm statement opposing racism but in favour of free speech and amending legislation to prevent a repeat of the 2011 judgment against the popular columnist and broadcaster. The robust discussions followed a report in The Australian yesterday suggesting Attorney-General George Brandis was considering a proposal to remove the words “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” from 18C but keep “intimidate”, and amend the “good faith” provision in section 18D, a key part of the law that led to the finding against Bolt.

Mr Abbott pledged in 2012 he would amend or repeal 18C “in its current form” if elected.

Queensland backbencher George Christensen and Sydney MP Alex Hawke spoke in support of his stand yesterday. “Freedom of speech is a God-given right - if we don’t allow the things we don’t want to hear, we don’t really believe in free speech at all,” sources claimed Mr Christensen said.

But West Australian Ken Wyatt, the first indigenous member of the House of Representatives with a long association with his home state’s equal opportunity tribunal, warned he could cross the floor if anti-vilification provisions were watered down. Queenslander Ewen Jones backed his stand.

The partyroom clash came as representatives of the indigenous, Greek, Jewish, Chinese, Arab, Armenian and Korean communities expressed their “vehement opposition” to the mooted changes to 18C and D. “These changes would mean that the federal government has decided to license the public humiliation of people because of their race,” the group insisted.

“It would send a signal that people may spout racist abuse in public, no matter how unreasonably and dishonestly. It would be astonishing if an Australian government in the 21st century was prepared to embrace such a morally repugnant position.

“It would be utterly indefensible. The suggestion that section 18D might be amended by deleting the threshold of reasonableness and good faith comes as an especially unpleasant surprise to us.”

The Human Rights Law Centre also spoke against the suggested amendments. “These proposals would substantially weaken the current laws and should be rejected,” executive director Hugh de Kretser said.

Senator Brandis said late yesterday that the government was committed to “rebalancing” the human rights debate in Australia to better protect freedom of speech.

“Accordingly, the government is considering amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act that will strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification,” he said.

“Racial vilification will never be acceptable in Australia. However, laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.”

Senator Brandis said the government was aware of the concerns among ethnic groups. It had the matter under “active consideration” and would announce a decision shortly.

A Coalition partyroom spokesman said yesterday’s debate was based on speculation rather than any firm knowledge of the government plans.

The spokesman said there was no statement to the meeting from Senator Brandis about amendments to the act, while Mr Abbott did not indicate any timeframe for changes.

The spokesman noted in relation to Mr Wyatt’s comments “there is no commonwealth statute that prohibits racial vilification in those words”.

“At the end of the discussion the Prime Minister addressed the issue and he said everyone in this room believes in freedom of speech,” the spokesman said. “(Mr Abbott) said, ‘Everybody in this room is against racism’, and he said, ‘Everybody in this room thinks Andrew Bolt should not have been prosecuted’.”

The spokesman said Mr Abbott had continued: “This is a debate in which there is a unanimity of opinion about three important values or ideas. The question is how to reconcile those three.”

After the meeting, western Sydney MP Craig Laundy, who had defended Section 18C in the partyroom, told The Australian he was not necessarily opposed to changes to Section 18D. “I don’t have a problem with D being tweaked,” he said.

Section 18C criminalises acts “reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”. Section 18D ensures that “section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith”.

SOURCE

Few listeners for the Left’s shouting

SCOTT Ludlam’s “viral” hate speech against Tony Abbott signified the moment the Left finally lost its marbles: 10.08pm, Monday March 3, 2014.

We can see them frozen in time, like the Edvard Munch painting The Scream, as the final awful realization hits home of Tony Abbott’s comprehensive victory and his determination to make his prime ministership count.

They knew before Newspoll confirmed it this week that all their dishonest, sneaky, bigoted, dog-whistling attempts to demonise Abbott and his government are falling on increasingly deaf ears.

That Monday night, to a near empty chamber, Ludlam, the telegenic Greens senator from WA, who faces political annihilation at the re-run of the WA Senate poll next month, peppered his diatribe with the obligatory “rednecks” and “murderous horror unfolding on Manus Island”.

He accused Abbott of “waving your homophobia in people’s faces”, “ever-more insidious attacks on the trade union movement and all working people” , “heartless racist exploitation of people’s fears” and leading a “benighted attempt at a government”.

He wound up with the plaintive cry of a loser: “Give us our country back”.

Sorry Senator, it was never your country. We had an election last year and the Abbott government was elected with a whopping majority. The twitterati might have gone weak at the knees for Ludlam but he might as well have been howling at the moon.

As we reach 82 days with no asylum seeker boats arriving (or fatally capsizing) refugee activists like Ludlum and his colleague Sarah “tragedies happen” Hanson-Young become ever more shrill.

They claimed it could never be done and now their false compassion and obstructionism have been exposed. They are scrabbling for the moral high ground as it crumbles before them.

Meanwhile, Abbott’s determined provocations are unhinging them.

The night after Ludlam gave his nasty little speech, Abbott delivered his own speech around the corner, in the Great Hall of Parliament House, at the annual dinner of the Australian Forest Products Association. It was an ode to the timber industry that could only be interpreted as a giant finger to the green movement.

“I salute you as people who love the natural world, as people who love what Mother Nature gives us and who want to husband it for the long-term best interests of humanity.”

He called foresters the “ultimate conservationists”. Which of course they are. They were taking care of trees long before middle-class professional Greens showed up to destroy their livelihood.

A well-kept forest is a joy for flora, fauna and human economic interests. Forest locked away as national parks, on the other hand, we have seen become incinerated moonscapes. After deadly runaway bushfires, the silence of the koalas is deafening and nothing will grow for years.

The scorched earth of a burned out national park can be seen as a metaphor for what the green movement has done to Australia. From Tasmania’s rotten supplicant economy to the corporate victims of the carbon tax, from bulging immigration detention centres to vast green bureaucracies sucking the taxpayer dry for zero environmental gain.

Abbott’s words fell on the room of foresters like a chorus of angels signifying the dawning of the light.

“Man and the environment are meant for each other. The last thing we should want — if we want to genuinely improve our environment … is to ban men and women from enjoying it, is to ban men and women from making the most of it …

Hallelujah.

The winds of change were visible in the last desperate attempts of climate alarmists to crank up the old scare campaigns this week.

No one is listening, and even Media Watch scorned claims the Opera House will be engulfed by rising seas: “Alarmist nonsense of the sort that brings journalism and climate science into disrepute.”

Bravo, at last. Common sense restored to public life.

Welcome to the new world order. No wonder Ludlam and friends are screaming.

SOURCE






Prominent Australian Warmist under attack

Aussie skeptics say they have one of their nation’s top climate alarmist professors cornered in an ongoing battle of words over who holds the high ground on scientific integrity. Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.

Their latest target is Professor David Karoly, a climatologist who they claim dishonestly championed a government campaign to depict human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as black smoke, contrary to scientific fact.

Dr Ryan reports, “On 18th February 2014 I sent an email to David Karoly with Marjory Curtis, a retired geologist, as my co-signer. Approximately 180 australian and overseas media outlets, politicians, universities, including their student newspapers, and prominent climate hysteria mongers were openly copied in.”

Ryan and Curtis are among many highly-qualified scientists who, as skeptics of the wrong-headed hysteria over supposed man-made global warming, are fighting to restore scientific integrity.

Dr Curtis says Karoly’s “error” over the CO2 as black smoke “may have been a fortuitous oversight” for the cause of alarmists who some say are trying to dupe the public on the issue.

Judy Curtis has advised Karoly all the correspondence, because of its significance to public policy, will be published as open letters. She says, “We replied 21st February and added in our fellow skeptics. So there are now close to 220 observers for Karoly’s next response. To date we have not heard back, but it is early days yet.”

The first letter and Karoly’s immediate response are below.

As with many independent scientists frustrated with the apparent bias of government climatologists, Ryan understands that such public emails are becoming a powerful tool and she provides many helpful tips on how to formulate and send them. She tells readers “Feel free to copy, paste and use  them, and if you have questions you only need to ask.”

18th February 2014

Dear Professor Karoly,

We have been writing to you for a year requesting that you provide one credible study that supports your hypothesis of catastrophic, human caused global warming (CAGW). You have not been able to provide one. The  letters and your responses are all on the public record https://www.facebook.com/DavidKarolyEmailThread?ref=hl

In March 2013 we issued you the opportunity to either renounce your alarmist claims on the ABC news, or publicly provide empirical data-based evidence, that is available for scientific scrutiny, to support them.

Almost a year has passed and still you have not provided the evidence.

We remind you that the Australian people are experiencing financial disadvantage as a result of the host of policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing or omitting or embellishing or misrepresenting relevant facts?

 The definition of fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, quote: “a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”

According to Malcolm Roberts author of the CSIROh! report  http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh%21.html , you are prominently involved in many taxpayer-funded climate bodies fomenting unfounded climate alarm. One of your roles is that you are Editor-In-Chief of the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM’s) in-house journal. On page 10 of his report’s Appendix 7, Malcolm Roberts cites Peter Bobroff’s analysis, quote: “Publishing the research. The Bureau of Meteorology has its own in-house journal: the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal (prev Aust. Meteorol. Mag.). The editor-in-chief responsible for the defence of the scientific method, elimination of all types of bias, automatic release of all relevant data and code is none other than David Karoly – the strident proponent of human causation of future catastrophic global warming. The BOM itself has taken a strong partisan position on the subject.”

Despite your BOM responsibilities, Malcolm Roberts adds, quote: “Yet David Karoly has repeatedly publicly contradicted empirical scientific evidence”.

According to their website you also appear to be BOM’s principal author. Graphs on the following pages were obtained or produced by various independents non-aligned examiners and auditors of BOM records. Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?

Every graph shows that the raw data, which shows either a flat or downward (cooling) trend has been “adjusted” to a warming trend.  Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs? If so, in our opinion it is very misleading of both you and the BOM personnel to adjust the data to the extent that it misrepresents reality. We also think that it is very misleading of both you and BOM  to omit to declare to the Australian people  that you have “adjusted” the raw data.

Under Australia’s strong democracy no one is above the law. Judges, politicians, scientists, academics, senior public servants, and managing directors can be held to account for breaching their fiduciary duty.

It seems that you have prominent roles across many taxpayer-funded entities promoting unfounded and unscientific claims of anthropogenic global warming and contradicting empirical scientific evidence. Your many prominent roles place you at the hub of the web of such agencies. You have thereby positioned yourself perfectly for answering our fundamental and straight-forward questions. As taxpayers and concerned scientists we look forward to your evidence based response. It is not a good look if you do not acknowledge this very public letter.

In closing, if there is anything we have said that you think is untrue please click reply all and let us know and we will apologise.

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

David Karoly clicked “Reply All” and sent this email within 24 hours.

On 19 Feb 2014, at 6:11 am, David John Karoly wrote:

Hi Judy,

It's interesting to receive another of your emails as they keep me amused.

If you are so convinced that I have committed fraud, I recommend that you pass the evidence to my employer, the University of Melbourne; the major funder of my research, the Australian Research Council, and to the police. In the past, your claims have been considered and dismissed, as have those from Malcolm Roberts. I am sure that you will find that further evidence of a conspiracy.

All the evidence of the human causes of global warming is assessed thoroughly in the 5th assessment report of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The specific chapter on human causation, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

 Is available at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

No doubt you will again refuse to accept this evidence.

I have no idea what you mean when you state "you also appear to be BOM’s principal author".

I am not "the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM".

I recommend that you contact the Bureau of Meteorology or look carefully at their web site for the sources of their data and the reasons for the adjustments to minimise inhomogeneities.

As always, I keep your emails and refer them to the legal office at the University of Melbourne.

David Karoly

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prof David Karoly

School of Earth Sciences

University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA

ph:  +61 3 8344 xxxx

fax: +61 3 8344 xxxx

email: dkaroly@xxxxxx.au
http://www.researcherid.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Judy Ryan ;

Subject: [execnzcsc] Re: Do These Temperature Graphs Represent Reality? That is the Question

Date: 21 February 2014 10:29:49 am AEDT

To: David John Karoly ;Dear Professor Karoly, and about 220 other observers

————————————————

Dear Professor Karoly,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 I have included other scientists, including past and present IPCC reviewers in this reply to you. These scientists are much more conversant with the Working Group Ones final, final report than either Dr Curtis or I.  But, I assure you I have read Working Group Ones final draft report, which was released to the public as an unapproved draft.  Dr Curtis and I will be looking and learning as we see the evidence  from the final, final report unfold.

 In your response below you have stated that you are not the author of the original BOM temperature graphs. But, you have not answered the second part of the question. 

It is an honest, straightforward, legitimate question.

Professor Karoly, are you the author of the BOM’s  adjusted/homogenised graphs shown below?

Please click Reply All and answer the question.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully yours

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

P.S. Dr Curtis and I  will appreciate your courtesy in addressing both of us in your correspondence.  Marjory has been an active skeptic for more than three decades, and as many of her students know, she is a force to be reckoned with.

SOURCE





Crammed Australian Curriculum needs review, says Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek

QUEENSLAND’S Education Minister says concerns that there is too much to teach in the Australian Curriculum is a reason it needs to be reviewed.

Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek confirmed yesterday that teachers had spoken to him about the issue.

His comments followed revelations in The Courier-Mail that the state’s two non-government school sectors would warn the Australian Curriculum review, which was in Brisbane, of the problem.

"Teachers tell me that in the early implementation, because it’s only been a couple of years, there literally has been too much to get through,” Mr Langbroek said. "That’s why we need to have it reviewed.”

In its submission to the review, Independent Schools Queensland warned teachers were being forced to rush children through lessons.

The Queensland Catholic Education Commission also raised similar concerns about the curriculum yesterday.

SOURCE




Joyce fends off more jobs speculation

The union parasites in the Qantas workforce -- particularly the maintenance unions -- certainly need a boot up the bum

QANTAS chief Alan Joyce will not rule out sending more jobs offshore if able to do so under legislative changes being considered by federal parliament.

The airline is committed to slashing 5000 jobs as part of a $2 billion cost-cutting program, and as the coalition government proposes changes to the Qantas Sale Act, Mr Joyce will not forecast how many additional Australian positions could be lost.

"I'm not going to rule anything in or anything out," he told a Senate hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.

The airline boss faced repeated questioning about the impact on jobs of changing the Act, which would allow greater foreign ownership of Qantas's domestic arm.

But he said the airline has done no such modelling and refuses to deal in hypotheticals.

"We have no more plans on that," Mr Joyce said when asked of the jobs impact on different divisions of the company including maintenance, flight crew, catering and management.

Mr Joyce's position at the Qantas helm, which he has held since 2008, came under fire from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, who cited a drop in share price of more than 50 per cent since his appointment.

"If it was in the interests of shareholder value ... for you to resign would you do so?" Senator Dastyari asked.

Mr Joyce insisted that he has the support of the Qantas board.

"The important thing is to have the support of the shareholders and I continuously meet with the shareholders," Mr Joyce said.

A refresh of the Qantas board is the answer to the airline's problems, not legislative changes to the Act, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Stephen Purvinas told the hearing.

"I would suggest that the government stop dealing with the current board of management until such time as they replace the CEO, they replace the chairman and they put someone with aviation background on the board," Mr Purvinas said.

He said the board is made up of bankers and people with corporate backgrounds, who lack an understanding of aviation issues.

Furthermore he said Qantas has purposefully lost money to back the federal government into a corner to change the Act.

"Qantas are intentionally creating this drama and all of the hype around them struggling internationally so that they can suck you guys into changing the Qantas Sale Act," Mr Purvinas said.

The Senate economics committee is due to report on March 24.

The ACTU forecast the number of Australian Qantas job losses would stretch to a five-digit figure under changes to the Act.

"If you add up the predictions that we have from affiliates generally in relation to Qantas group, a figure of 10,000 is obtained," union assistant secretary Tim Lyons told the same hearing.

He said staff morale at the airline was "sombre".

"The immediate impact if this bill was to go through ... would be a massive offshoring of the heavy maintenance base at Brisbane," Electrical Trades Union spokesman Matthew Murphy said.

Maintenance operations at Sydney and Melbourne would also be sent offshore, he added.

Mr Joyce labelled as "fear mongering" union claims that Qantas safety standards would be compromised if the Act was amended.

Both onshore maintenance operations and those based overseas had to be approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, he said.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is disgusted by the aggression and foul language used at the latest Leftist demonstration




Why keep letting this filth out?

A sexual sadist with a history of horrific assaults on women dating back to when he was 15 has been released from jail by a Supreme Court judge in Perth.

The inmate, referred to as "TJD" for legal reasons, has been released despite being classed as one of Western Australia's worst sex offenders.

In a decision handed down last week, Commissioner Kevin Sleight revoked an indefinite detention order handed to "TJD" in 2011, which came after attacks on 13 women, including seven times when he used a weapon or replica weapon to threaten his victim into submission.

"Great care needs to be taken to ensure that another woman is not the subject of such an attack, which is likely to have long-term and severe psychological consequences," Mr Sleight said.

However, Mr Sleight said he was satisfied "TJD" could be released under a strict 10-year supervision order, which will include wearing a GPS tracking device.

He will have to abide to a night-time curfew, and is banned from unsupervised access to children.

"Although Mr TJD is a serious sex offender, the level of supervision, monitoring and treatment is such that the risk factors identified earlier ... are substantially controlled and minimised," Mr Sleight said.

The man's criminal history began in 1991 when he attacked three women in two days - culminating in a rape of a 17-year-old girl he threatened at gunpoint in a toilet block.

After three more attacks that year, TJD was sentenced in Perth Children's Court to three years detention.

Six weeks after being released, he committed indecent assaults, which led to more prison time.

In 2000, he raped a teenager a knifepoint after abducting her as she walked home from a train station.

And in 2003, he assaulted an 18-year-old woman in a Perth cemetery as she visited her grandmother's grave.

Having been jailed indefinitely in 2011, TJD was released on a supervision order in 2012 - which he breached almost immediately.

He failed to take his anti-libidinal medication, failed to complete his psychological counselling and used cannabis, and was again jailed.

SOURCE





No more Mr Nice Guy  for illegal immigrants

People smugglers are continuing to entice asylum seekers to Australia from Indonesia, despite ramped-up efforts by the government to stop the boats.

In a report by the ABC's 7.30, asylum seekers filmed their harrowing journey aboard an orange lifeboat provided by the Australia government as they were towed back for a second time to Indonesia.

"We will die in this orange boat. It's not suitable for passing the ocean," Arash Sedigh said he told the Australian officials, as he was allegedly forced onto the small orange vessel.

To which the officials allegedly replied: "That's not our problem. That's yours. If you die in the Indonesia water, makes Indonesian government in trouble and responsible. That's not our problem."

Boarding the people smuggler's wooden boat on January 27 with 34 others – including a pregnant woman and a one-year-old child – this was the second time Mr Sedigh, an Iranian asylum seeker, and his wife, Azi, had attempted the journey.

"When we arrive and Customs come inside our wooden boat, I just ask them 'Please, please, help us. Would you please take us in a safe place? They just shouted at me, 'Shut up! Shut up! Sit down!'", Mr Sedigh told the ABC.

"They pushed us. They punched us. We were just asking for our rights."

After Mr Sedigh asked for a doctor to treat the pregnant woman on board the wooden boat, and was allegedly denied by Australian officials, he became increasingly angry.

"I told them, I will kill you if you don't take us with that ship. I have nothing to lose. I will kill you. Believe me. For Jesus Christ please help us. Would you please help us?"

Responding to the program, the Immigration Department said there were "clear guidelines to govern the use of force".

"Central to these guidelines is to ensure that operations are conducted safely for both our own officers and persons who are the subject of these operations," a spokesman for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said.

"For the past 88 days there has not been a single successful maritime people smuggling venture to Australia."

Even so, Mr Sedigh says people smugglers are still trying to encourage him and his wife to try again.

"They are trying to send us again they say us: 'if you want we can send you again several times but you cannot get back give back your money'," he told the ABC.

During the boat trip capture on video, Mr Sedigh provided a running commentary to the journey.

"This put us in this f---ing orange boat and sent us back to Indonesia and the navy was escorting that ship until today," he said. "F--- Australia."

"I said to them 'you are criminals'. If later on you said 'why did they do that to America on September 11?' you should know the cause of it, is you very deeds.  "They should remember 9/11 for the United States," he said.

This is not the first time asylum seekers have described their vomitous and terrifying experience aboard the orange life boats, which are the government's latest weapon against people smuggling.

Earlier this month, asylum seekers told Fairfax Media of their forced trip inside the lifeboat back to Indonesia.

Mr Sedigh told the ABC he would not attempt the journey again.  "No, I have two times bad experiences about this trip, I don't want to make my wife in trouble again. I want her for living together, I don't want to make her die."

SOURCE





Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo backs debate over prior crimes

TELLING juries about defendants’ prior convictions is a change worth debating, according to a senior Queensland judge.

Prosecutors are not permitted to tell juries about criminal histories, an issue that was highlighted when the shocking history of Brett Peter Cowan, the repeat sex offender convicted of the murder of Daniel Morcombe, was revealed.

Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo – who was speaking as the President of the Judicial Conference of Australia – said the change was "a proper subject for public discussion”.

He added that he was not speaking about any particular case and stressed that debate must be considered and informed.

"This complex subject cannot be discussed fairly in the space of a few sentences,” Justice McMurdo said.

"But any change to the law in Queensland on this subject should be made with the benefit of the independent advice of the Queensland Law Reform Commission.”

The debate has the backing of Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie and Supreme Court Justice Paul de Jersey. Mr Bleijie said yesterday he was happy to discuss the idea.

The judge sentenced Daniel Morcombe?s killer to life imprisonment but Queensland law means despite his depraved history of child sex offences, Brett Peter Cowan could walk free in 20 years.

"The Government’s priority has been ensuring that appropriate deterrents and adequate punishments for serious criminal offences are set,” he said.

"It’s a debate that some Queenslanders have called for, and is worth having, but we need to take into account how it could affect a person’s right to a fair trial, free of prejudice.”

Similar fact evidence can be tendered in Queensland courts but a prosecution attempt to have Cowan’s convictions presented to the jury was refused by Supreme Court Justice Roslyn Atkinson.

Justice Atkinson sentenced Cowan to a non-parole period of 20 years. In Cowan’s previous cases, charges were downgraded and jurors never heard about his past criminal acts. Some commentators have said Daniel might be alive if the justice system had thrown the book at Cowan at his first or second trial.

Cowan served little time in Queensland and the Northern Territory for serious sexual assaults against children.

Last year, Justice de Jersey expressed support for change.  "Why ... should a jury be denied knowledge that an alleged rapist committed another rape six months earlier ... or that an accused charged with fraud has a string of convictions for dishonesty?” he said.

"I trust the intelligence and wisdom of my fellow citizens. I do not accept a claim that, made aware of prior misconduct, jurors would automatically say: ‘He did that so he must have done this’."

Child protection groups applauded the position but the Bar Association of Queensland opposes the move.

SOURCE





Taxman wields the axe on unsatisfactory workers

The Australian Taxation Office sacked six of its workers in the second half of last year for failing to show up to their jobs, according to the giant department's latest disciplinary snapshot.

Another six tax officials were fired for being lousy workers and five were shown the door after breaching the Australian Public Service code of conduct.

The figures were sent to all 23,000 of the department's staff on Monday morning with a stern warning to miscreants that even if they escape the sack, a disciplinary "sanction" will stay on the permanent record.

The friendly advice went out in a newsletter as thousands of tax officials discover if they have been granted their wish of a golden handshake from the organisation.

Several hundred applicants, out of 2100 hopefuls, will be notified on Monday and Tuesday if they get their hoped-for payout or if they have to stay at their desks for the foreseeable future.

Tax's staff newsletter ATO Extra reported the results of formal investigations from July 1 to December 31, 2013, reporting 17 sackings, 12 of them under the ATO Employment Principles and another five under the PS code of conduct.

Six of the employment principles casualties were dumped for "failure to conform to attendance obligations," while another six were fired for "underperformance".

Four tax officials were demoted over breaches of the public service code while another 13 had their wages reduced.

One lucky bureaucrat escaped punishment for an undisclosed breach, while another two resigned after breaking the rules.

Tax bosses also announced on Monday that more redundancies will be offered than initially announced, in anticipation of many applicants developing cold feet.

It was expected that 300 offers would be made, with another 200 redundancies offered to workers at the abolished Australian Valuation Office.

But second Taxation Commissioner Geoff Leeper told his workers on Monday that he expected initial enthusiasm for a payout to fade in some cases. "Following careful assessment of our financial position, a decision was made to offer more than the forecast number of VR offers on the basis that we expect some people will not take up the offer," Mr Leeper wrote.

Most applicants for redundancies will have been notified by Monday afternoon and have two working days to tell their bosses. A one-month "consultation" period will then follow before final offers are made.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is disgusted by the Leftist lies purveyed by Australia's public broadcaster, the ABC

Indigenous higher education gathers momentum

The number of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who have completed PhDs has quadrupled in the past two decades, according to Department of Education data.

And on past form, I am betting that every one of them had mostly white ancestry  -- JR

Aborigines entered higher education in the 1950s but the first PhD was not completed until 1980. Only 55 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students completed PhDs in Australia from 1990 to 2000 but 219 students completed doctorates in the 11 years to 2011. Although still below parity, the growth looks set to continue with a second generation of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders entering academia.

There were 143 PhDs awarded in the five years to 2012 and another 324 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were enrolled in PhDs in 2012, according to the data.

Ian Anderson, assistant vice-chancellor for indigenous higher education policy at Melbourne University, said the increase represented "a maturation of the education agenda and … a growing intergenerational achievement".

"It will enable Aboriginal people to input into the knowledge economy, inspire policy and influence political decision making, leadership and institutional reform," Professor Anderson said.

Sana Mary Nakata, 30, daughter of Professor Martin Nakata, the first Torres Strait Islander to complete a PhD, teaches political theory at Melbourne University.

"I would like the intellectual potential and contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people recognised," she said.

SOURCE






Tony Abbott's war on red tape starts with repeal day

The federal government's promise to cut $1 billion in red tape annually will be put to the test on Wednesday when it begins repealing more than 8000 redundant regulations and laws.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott will begin the repeal process this week with the introduction of an omnibus red tape repeal bill, designed to cut bureaucratic compliance costs for business and households by more than $300 million.

More than a dozen other bills designed to strip away regulation and red tape will be introduced on Wednesday by cabinet ministers in their individual portfolios.

The sweeping repeal of laws and regulations will affect every sector of the economy, from small business to aged care to immigration to the rules around government procurement and grants.

The red tape reduction omnibus bill is designed to reduce the volume of regulation, eliminate duplication between state and federal governments, improve consultation with business and ensure greater transparency and efficiency within the public service.

Mr Abbott's parliamentary secretary for deregulation, Josh Frydenberg, will release a rule book for bureaucrats on Monday designed to keep red tape down.

Mr Frydenberg said the new rule book, which applies to all the public service, was designed to achieve cultural change and ensure regulation was a last resort for mandarins, not the default option.

"We do not want to get rid of every regulation, what we are on about is better regulation, only implementing new regulations after establishing what the cost of compliance is, what the impact is on key stakeholders after consultation, and what is its impact on innovation and investment," he said.

Mr Frydenberg said there were more than 80 examples of the former government ignoring its own requirement for a regulatory impact statement on new laws, and that practice had to end.

"Key legislative changes like the carbon and mining tax, the national broadband network and the changes to Fair Work laws were all exempted by the former government from the regulatory impact statement process," he said.

"All cabinet submissions that have a major regulatory impact will now be subject to a regulatory impact statement and all senior ministers are required to establish a deregulation unit within their department."

The government blames the Rudd and Gillard governments for introducing more than 21,000 regulations during their six years in power. It has promised to hold two repeal days annually.

SOURCE





Distinguished Army officer dismissed over truth telling

Criticising Islam, gays sets army major up for a fall

Major Bernie Gaynor jnr has served three tours of duty in Iraq but he is going to be thrown out of the army this week, or next, or very soon. And he is not going quietly.

Last week, I attended a conference in Melbourne called the Symposium on Islam and Liberty in Australia, organised by the Q Society, and Gaynor was one of the speakers. I also interviewed him at length about why a patriotic, articulate Australian intelligence officer, now serving in the Army Reserve, has become an unbearable presence for the Chief of Army, among others.

In his blog, Gaynor describes himself as "a conservative Catholic who writes what normal men dare not speak out loud". I put it to him that his commentary online and on Twitter had evolved into a provocation to the army.

"Absolutely," he replied.

Everyone listening to his speech in Melbourne quickly understood why, and I quote: "It is my unpleasant duty to inform you that the Australian Defence Force has a fundamentally broken approach to religion, an approach shaped partly by the triumph of bureaucratic administration over battlefield considerations but mostly by plain old political correctness.

"Political correctness has cost lives on the battlefield and resulted in completely flawed campaign strategies … [The ADF] has spent the last decade at war with people who fight for their religious beliefs. And part of the problem that comes with fighting people who are motivated by religious belief is that you need to have soldiers equally motivated to oppose them.

"As a Catholic, I understand why people are motivated to do things based on religious belief, rather than what would seem to be rational on a purely secular level. As an intelligence officer, it is a valuable insight to have … but the ADF has a fundamentally flawed understanding of Islam.

"Just look at Iraq. I was one of the last Australians to serve there. All the politicians and military hierarchy were saying the withdrawal of Western military force was based on success. And yet al-Qaeda today controls more of Iraq than it ever did while Western forces were in the country, or while Saddam Hussein was in power.

"The Iraq war was a failure because no one can say why we were there, who the enemy was or what the mission was … This has cost lives and wasted a decade and a half of war. In a strategic sense, Iraq and Afghanistan are no better for the blood shed by Australian soldiers.

"In Afghanistan, the government has a constitution based on Islamic law and teaching, just as the Taliban's regime was. So the efforts of the last decade to remove the threat in Afghanistan from Islamic groups has directly led to the creation of an Islamic state."

If it were possible to be more provocative to progressive sensibilities, Gaynor found a way. He then turned to the Muslim community in Australia: "The community's participation rate in the ADF is low. There were 88 Muslims in uniform in mid-2013. That means that, while there is one Australian in uniform in every 400, there is only one Muslim in uniform for about every 6000 Muslims in this country.

"This is not because the Islamic community is peaceful. I think there are now nine Australian Muslims who have died in Syria. On a per capita basis, that is equivalent to the ADF losing over 400 soldiers in Afghanistan. So while the Islamic community is 15 times less likely to contribute to our nation's defence, it is 10 times more likely to see its sons die on the battlefield … for a cause that hates Western life, history and culture."

While this is fire and brimstone, what got him into career-ending trouble in the army was his run-in with the gay community within the military. In early last year, Gaynor criticised a law that would prevent Christian schools from barring gay teachers. He lodged a formal complaint about ADF personnel being allowed to take part in uniform in the Sydney Mardi Gras. He cited the military's ban on engaging in political activity while in uniform.

He quoted references to political activism in the constitution of the Mardi Gras. He referred to a tradition of "religious and political vilification" at the Mardi Gras, especially of the Catholic Church. He pointed out that Catholics made up almost 40 per cent of Australian military personnel.

The details go on and on but, in March last year, Major General A. J. Campbell, DSC, wrote requesting his resignation from the army: "In short, army does not share your views, which are both offensive and divisive and not in the interests of army or our people."

The chairman of the Defence Force Gay & Lesbian Information Service, Squadron Leader Vince Chong, weighed in with a complaint that Gaynor's conduct "compromises a person's ability to work within the diverse workforce of the Australian Defence Force, which includes transgender personnel, personnel from Islamic backgrounds and women".

Although internal investigations dismissed the complaints and charges against him, largely because he was expressing personal views while serving in the reserves, the army has moved, in the absence of his resignation, to terminate his commission.

"While I was having this battle," Gaynor told me, "Defence issued a policy that if any uniformed personnel participated in an event that vilified Islam they would be severely dealt with. We now have the absurd situation where the ADF protects the religious beliefs of Islam, while tolerating the vilification of Christianity, the religion that most soldiers identify with."

 SOURCE







THE SMH’S WHITE AUSTRALIA BEAT-UP

MWD Issue 215 featured Richard Ackland’s column titled “Welcome back to the days of White Australia”.

A Sydney based avid MWD reader has forwarded a screen-shot of the very same article as it appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald website.



1. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2012-13.pdf -Page 5

2. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/australia_offshore_humanitarian_prog_2012-13.pdf -Page 20

Needless to say, the above links do not support the Herald’s assertion. Australia’s major source countries for skilled migration in 2012-13 were India, China and the United Kingdom. Moreover, according to the available figures, in 2012-13 refugees who were granted visas under the Australian humanitarian program were mostly from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

It seems that the Herald on-line’s White Australia beat-up was just misleading click-bait.

SOURCE