Head of Leftist outfit condemns Australia for mining coal

He calls Australia "the country that plans to ruin the world", would you believe?   His grip on reality is clearly shaky.  Like all of the Green/Left, he is amping up the hysteria to counter the 18-year LACK of any statistically significant global warming.

The Australia Institute describes itself as "the country’s most influential progressive think tank".

AUSTRALIA is the “little country that wants to ruin the world”, and it might just succeed thanks to Tony Abbott’s push to increase coal mining.

That’s the view of The Australia Institute’s chief economist Dr Richard Denniss, who says our government’s attitude to mining is “bat sh*t crazy” and warned it could undermine global efforts to stop climate change.

Speaking at an event in London, Dr Richard Denniss said government-backed plans to ramp up Australia’s coal output to more than 604 million tonnes a year was very dangerous. "To put it simply, if the world wants to tackle climate change and Australia wants to double its coal exports, someone is going to lose,” he said.  “If we succeed in our stated ambition of building mines that dwarf European cities, some countries, then there is no way we’re going to tackle climate change.”

The comments come as Kiribati’s President Anote Tong launched a global appeal to leaders and companies to support a moratorium on new coal mines ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this December. It’s billed as the most significant event since the Kyoto Protocol for securing an agreement to tackle carbon emissions.

However Dr Denniss said Australia could single-handedly scupper these global efforts by putting downward pressure on prices which flood the market with cheap coal and make a transition to renewables less likely.

He said Australia’s share of the seaborne coal market is greater than Saudi Arabia’s share of global oil and “our plans are going to have consequences far beyond our borders.” “If you think Saudi Arabia doubling the oil output would put downward pressure on price, then Australia doubling coal exports would put downward pressure on price.”

“We’re a little country that plans to ruin the world and our politicians are not going to stop this.”

The Abbott government has made mining and infrastructure investment central to their economic plan with the Prime Minister saying coal is “good for humanity” and will power the world for “decades to come”.

Earlier this month Mr Abbott accused the judiciary of “sabotage” for holding up approval of the Carmichael coalmine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin after conservation groups raised concerns about native animals in the area. The massive and controversial project from Indian energy giant Adani includes plans for a mine, railway and port in the Great Barrier Reef that has been in the works for five years and is now awaiting final approval.

The government has claimed it will add 10,000 jobs to the area, though this figure has been disputed and comes at a time when the mining industry is shedding workers, losing more than 33,000 jobs between May 2014 and May 2015.

Dr Denniss said a moratorium on new mines makes good economic sense as it would keep coal prices high and prevent the “green paradox” — whereby the threat of action actually forces companies to ramp up production.

“If you owned a truck full of ice cream and the refrigerator broke, what would you do? You would drop the price and sell as much ice cream as you could. Just like Australia is planning to do.”

He also said it’s crucial Australians “get their heads around” the scale of the development and don’t hang their economic future on what many believe to be a dying industry.  “We’re an insecure country that worries about our place in the world and when big companies promise us big things it inspires a group of Australians to feel safe,” he said.

SOURCE





Scandal engulfing dishonest Police Minister Jo-Ann Miller driving wedge through Qld. State Government

THE scandal engulfing Police Minister Jo-Ann Miller has driven a wedge through the Palaszczuk Government with Left-wing unions demanding she remain in the ministry.

The Courier-Mail can reveal the CFMEU and ETU have flexed their muscle on the Labor caucus, demanding MPs they backed at January’s election fight any push to kick Ms Miller out of Cabinet.

“They [the Leftist unions] destroyed the Bligh government over asset sales and they’ll do it again,’’ a senior Labor source said.

A Labor-dominated Parliamentary committee this week referred Ms Miller for investigation for signing a “deliberately misleading” statement over her handling of top-secret corruption watchdog documents.

Almost 90 documents were left in a safe given to Ms Miller in her previous role as deputy chair of the Parliament Crime and Corruption Committee even though she signed a statement declaring she had destroyed or returned them.

The safe was later forwarded to Opposition MP Ann Leahy.

Nine Left-faction MPs including ministers Mark Bailey and Leanne Enoch were supported by the CFMEU and ETU in the lead-up to the poll.

Ms Miller is considered the chief spear-carrier for the powerful unions in the caucus and narrowly lost a battle to lead Labor’s Left faction against Deputy Premier Jackie Trad.

According to senior Labor sources, the Police Minister’s detractors within the Left are being blamed for “throwing her under a bus” by revealing she signed the statement and referring her for investigation.

While several of the union-backed MPs have told colleagues they believe Ms Miller should resign, there are fears it could descend into retribution and threats to withdraw support.

The power play by unions has buoyed Ms Miller who is confident she will remain a minister. “They’re saying to her dig your heels in, stay. They can’t sack you,’’ a Labor source said.

SOURCE






Unions say Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon should stand down due to being ‘partisan against ALP’

UNION lawyers were forced into an embarrassing backflip at the Royal Commission yesterday after accusing Commissioner Dyson Heydon of deliberately releasing doctored documents.

For 12 long minutes Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union lawyer John Agius, SC, claimed an email had been released with a line deliberately deleted to hide Mr Heydon’s support of the Liberal party.

But after delivering his damning address he was forced to his feet to explain that actually the email was part of a chain, the “doctored” line had been dropped automatically and was on the original email.

The ACTU, Australian Workers Union and Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union all made applications in the Commission for Mr Heydon step down because of their alleged perception that he is biased.

Those unions have been hardest hit by the Commission’s inquiry, which has seen four arrests and 26 union members referred to 11 agencies including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Heydon pulled out of the Sir Garfield Barwick address which is scheduled later this month and has said he did not know it was a Liberal party fundraiser. He released emails to back up his point.

Mr Agius originally claimed that said that a copy of the emails given to the union this week had an attachment for a state donation compliance form that had been deleted from the original email released by the Commissioner

He said this would make a fair minded observer have “serious concern” that the earlier email release was “at best a partial disclosure” or a “doctored document which had been edited to remove the reference to state donation.”

After a short break, Counsel assisting the Commission Jeremy Stoljar, explained the emails were the same. “There is no basis whatsoever for the serious allegation that the version of (the email) was altered or doctored in any way.”

Mr Agius blustered: “I did not make the submission that the copy was doctored or altered. I said that a fair minded observer might form that conclusion, which is a different matter.”

Australian Council of Trade Unions barrister Robert Newlinds SC quickly backed away from the serious allegations. “I want to make it clear that I do not adopt any submission to the effect that any documents have been doctored,” he said.

Mr Newlinds pulled back from suggesting that Mr Heydon was actually biased against unions.

Instead he fell back on the weaker legal argument that a “fair and reasonable observer” would believe Mr Heydon was biased for accepting an offer to speak at a Liberal lawyer organised function.

“If I can put it bluntly people don’t speak at fund raisers of a political party unless they believe in the cause of that party and they certainly don’t speak as fundraisers of a political party if they support the other side of politics,” said Mr Newlands.

Mr Newlinds repeated the union argument that “the Commission was created by the Abbott government and it has been said that it was created for purposes of hopefully damaging the Labor Party.”

He said the Commission had not been set up for the “sexy” things such as exposing crooks in the union movement but to change the laws regulating unions.

“The union stated public position and the Labor Party’s public position is that the don’t think that any law reform is necessary. They think the way they are structured is perfectly satisfactory.”

He said Mr Heydon’s perceived bias undermined any law reform. “It can’t be allowed to happen that people can just walk around after reform and say don’t worry about that report, that was old Mr Heydon and he was biased. He told us he was biased.”

Mr Heydon is expected to give his judgement on Tuesday.

SOURCE   






Religious groups warn students will leave state schools after SRI is dumped in Left-run Victoria

Axing religious instruction from the Victorian curriculum could drive students away from state schools and into the non-government system, religious providers have warned.

The state government's announcement on Friday that special religious instruction would be moved out of regular class times from 2016 was warmly welcomed by the Australian Education Union and many public education advocates, who have long argued that the current arrangement was at odds with a secular public school system.

But chaplaincy organisation Access Ministries, the main provider of religious instruction, said the decision had eroded "equality and opportunity".

Access Ministries spokesman Rob Ward said state school parents who could not afford, or chose not to send their children to faith-based schools would suffer.

"The decision seems to emphasise secularism at the expense of faith."  He said it would lead to more parents choosing faith-based schools over state schools.

Under the changes, weekly 30-minute SRI classes will be moved to lunch time or before and after school, making way for new new content on world histories, cultures, faiths and ethics, and respectful relationship education.

United Jewish Education Board president Yossi Goldfarb said removing SRI from the curriculum could deter Jewish families from sending their children to state schools.

"I think there are certainly many Jewish families who choose a school partially because of the SRI program that is offered at the school."

Opposition education spokesman Nick Wakeling said the government had created chaos for parents and broken an election promise.

"Parents in schools across Victoria will face the prospect of juggling new and varied after-school hours pick-ups just to suit the ideological whims of Daniel Andrews."

Education Minister James Merlino said state schools would not lose enrolments.

"We've got a fantastic education system in Victoria and it's up to parents where they send their children."

Mr Merlino said it was unjustifiable to devote half an hour of the curriculum a week to only 20 per cent of primary school students.

No learning took place when SRI was provided within class time, he said.

Australian Principals Federation Victorian president Julie Podbury said it was "completely unacceptable" that her members had not been consulted about the major change to the curriculum.

"This change will cause major repercussions in some schools to school planning, staffing, programs and more importantly to relationships with community groups. These relationships have been built up over many years and are hard earned."

The number of primary school students in SRI plummeted after the state government changed its policy in 2011, requiring parents to "opt in" to the classes rather than "opt out".

Enrolments fell from 92,808 Victorian students in 2013 to 53,361 in 2014 – a 42 per cent plunge.

East Bentleigh Primary School assistant principal Sue Jackson welcomed the changes, saying they would give teachers more time to focus on an already crowded curriculum.

Ms Jackson said the primary school offered Jewish SRI to about 25 students, who have to catch up on class work after attending the religious lessons.

The school will continue offering SRI but shift it to either lunchtime or after school.

The Greens said changes to SRI did not go far enough. Greens education spokeswoman Sue Pennicuik said children needed to play, rest and socialise during lunch time, not "be cooped up in the class room doing SR."

"While the removal of SRI from formal class teaching hours is certainly a step forward, it doesn't go far enough. SRI should be removed from government schools completely."

SOURCE   







No jab, no play in Vic childcare, kindy

PARENTS who don't believe in vaccinating their children will no longer be able to take them to childcare or kindergarten in Victoria under proposed reforms.

THE state government is introducing legislation that will require children to be fully vaccinated before such attendance is allowed.
The proposed law also closes a loophole that makes an exemption for parents who choose not to vaccinate their children on the grounds they are conscientious objectors.

Children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons will remain exempt.

"What we don't accept is those who go around myth-making about the risks of vaccination," Health Minister Jill Hennessy said on Sunday.

"The public health and well-being of the broader community has to take precedence against the anti-vaccination movement."

Children not vaccinated against illnesses such as measles and whooping cough put other children and the greater community at risk, health experts say.

Despite a vaccination rate of 92 per cent for whooping cough in Victoria, the number of reported cases has increased by more than 1000 since the previous year.

"Ultimately it is a parents call in terms of how they respond, but we cannot continue to see the alarming rise in diseases like whooping cough and measles, and not respond," Ms Hennessy said.

She is confident the "no jab, no play" policy will provide an incentive for parents to make sure their children are vaccinated.

SOURCE

ZEG

In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG says that our liberties are leaking away under Leftist, Greenie and Islamist attack






House prices hurting Australia and nation's policies making it worse

Increased housing prices are what must happen when a high level of immigration hits land-use rigidities.  It is time that some categories of immigration were cut back.  Australia has already done its fair share of taking "refugees" for instance.  With both Greenies and Nimbys intent on freezing land use, freeing up land for new residential construction is politically difficult. 

The explanations given below for the problem are just ignorant Leftism -- a chance to trot out their usual myths.  I note some in the text

The massive jump in the cost of buying or renting a house is having a profoundly negative impact on Australia, and policies imposed by Canberra and state governments are making the problem worse, a housing expert has warned.

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday released Australia's Welfare 2015, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's latest two-yearly national welfare report card.

The detailed snapshot of the health and wellbeing of Australians found the country is doing well in education and health, although there were serious areas of inequity for some indigenous Australians, some elderly and disabled people, those with a disability and people with a mental illness.

The report also showed a big jump in the number of Australians in housing stress, with more people renting and a dramatic fall in the number of people who own their homes outright.

It found an increasing proportion of young Australians still living with their parents into their mid-20s.

The report shows the great Australian dream becoming an unattainable fantasy for more people. Australian homes are the third-least affordable of OECD countries with only New Zealand and Canada having a higher price-to-income ratio.

There has also been a big jump in the number of people either living in social housing, or on a waiting list for a place. The number of homeless Australians has jumped, with a quarter of a million Australians accessing specialist homelessness services in 2014, the report said –a 4 per cent rise in a single year.

Australia's housing market is becoming increasingly unaffordable, according to Kate Shaw, an urban geographer at Melbourne University and a planning and housing expert.

"This is not a natural consequence of the increase in living and health standards documented in the report," Dr Shaw said. "The severe unaffordability of housing in Australia is due to poor policy decisions and could have been avoided. This is not part and parcel of being a wealthy country."

In the year to July, Melbourne house prices climbed 10.2 per cent, Sydney 16.2 per cent, and national capital average prices by 9.8 per cent.

Asked which other wealthy countries around the world had avoided such dramatic house price rises in recent years, Dr Shaw said: "All of them, except perhaps Canada, which suffers from the same problems.  "The drivers there are the same – both Australia and Canada are regarded as very safe places to invest."

She said there should be better legislated protection for renters, who now make up a third of all households, and the federal government must remove tax concessions and incentives for investors. [More protection for renters will WORSEN the problem.  It must and always does]

"Specifically negative gearing and the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax," she said.  "If these were phased out we would have billions of dollars every year to invest in affordable social, community and public housing." [And largely destroy private construction for rental.  The woman is a Leftist  ignoramus]

There was, Dr Shaw said, "A whole layer of low to medium-income housing arrangements provided in Canada and Germany and so many other places in the world that we have just completely ignored – they don't exist in Australia. And because we don't have them, it is increasing the pressure on the private rental market."

The report found that the proportion of people in rental stress, in which households pay more than one-third of their income on accommodation, rose from 35 per cent in 2007-08 to 41 per cent in 2011-12.

And it did not get much easier for mortgage payers, the report found. "Households with low to moderate incomes who manage to acquire their own homes sometimes cut back on necessities in order to meet mortgage repayments, especially in the early years." [So what else is new?]

A majority of over-65s own a home outright but the proportion has fallen from 78 per cent in 2002 to 71 per cent in 2011.

Higher living costs are associated with an increase in the rise in the rate of people working past retirement age.  The proportion of Australians aged 55-64 who have retired fell from 49 per cent to 26 per cent between 1997 and 2012–13 and from 93 per cent to 77 per cent for those aged 65 and over.

Kerry Flanagan, acting director of the AIHW, said Australians were living longer and were healthier in senior years.  "Adult participation in the labour force is higher than 20 years ago, and while some people are staying at work longer after retirement, the majority of older Australians are not using aged-care services," she said.

Ms Flanagan said other issues flagged in the report included increases in children receiving child protection services, youth unemployment and the proportion of young people who are not in employment, education or training.

SOURCE






Australia seeks to hobble Greenie lawfare against coal mining

Canberra plans to restrict the rights of green groups to challenge government approval of mining projects, in a move to prevent what Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, says is “endless legal sabotage” that is costing jobs.

The crackdown follows expressions of concern from India over an Australian court’s decision this month to overturn approval for Adani Mining’s A$16bn (US$12bn) Carmichael coal mine in Queensland because of its potential impact on the endangered yakka skink and ornamental snake. It marks the latest stage in a battle between the government and campaigners that accuse Mr Abbott of prioritising industrial development over environmental protection.

“Everyone wants to give the Carmichael mine in Queensland a fair go,” Mr Abbott said on Wednesday.

“They shouldn’t be subject to endless legal sabotage because the law gives green groups an unusual level of access to the courts.”

The coalition plans to table legislation in parliament to alter a law that allows campaign groups to challenge government environmental approvals for major investments. Under the proposed changes, only people directly affected by a development could challenge its approvals.

The coalition faces a battle to pass the amendments through the Senate, where it needs to draw on the support of independent senators. The opposition Labor and Green parties have said they oppose the changes.

India’s High Commissioner to Australia, Navdeep Suri, recently expressed his disappointment to Andrew Robb, Australia’s trade minister, over delays to Adani’s proposed mine. This prompted Mr Robb to warn last week that green groups’ campaign against Adani’s mine was jeopardising talks over a trade deal between Australia and India.

The Federal Court of Australia’s decision to set aside government approval for Adani followed a legal action by a local green group. It forces Australia’s environmental minister to reconsider Adani’s application to build a huge mine in the Galilee basin — one of the world’s biggest untapped coal reserves.

Adani’s mine, port and rail project has become a potent symbol of the battle between the fossil fuel industry and environmentalists, who say burning the coal reserves in the Galillee basin would cause catastrophic climate change and damage the nearby Great Barrier Reef.

Human rights groups warn that the government’s proposed legal change threatens to undermine core democratic freedoms.

“The ability to take legal action in the public interest is central to ensuring governments remain accountable. Locking particular groups out of the courts is heavy-handed and will mean that bad decisions will go unchecked and unchallenged,” said Ruth Barson, senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre.

Industry groups representing the mining sector have welcomed the government’s crackdown on environmentalists.

“Over recent years a large number of new projects and mine expansions have been subject to a calculated campaign of protests and harassment, including vexatious and incessant legal appeals lodged by a small band of extreme environmental groups,” said Brendan Pearson, chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia.

He said a BAEconomics study found that reducing project delays by one year would add A$160bn to national output by 2025 and create 69,000 jobs.

Research by the Australia Institute, a progressive think-tank, suggests third-party appeals to the Federal Court have affected just 0.4 per cent of all projects referred under the legislation.

The ruling Liberal-National coalition recently convened a parliamentary committee to consider how to strip tax privileges from environmental groups that campaign against resource projects.

SOURCE






Relaxed NSW prosecutors again

Former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery QC  was notorious for finding reasons not to prosecute

KARL Stefanovic has slammed the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for allowing Sydney siege gunman Man Monis to walk free, despite being linked to the murder of his ex-wife.

In a blistering attack on television this morning, the Today host blasted the Crown prosecutors.

Crucial information on Man Monis was never presented to court in 2013 because staff were due to go on Christmas holidays, the Saturday Telegraph revealed last week. “Are you not disgusted by that? I was,” Stefanovic said.

The ODPP was also caught trying to hide that one of its lawyers failed to present crucial facts about Man Monis to a magistrate who freed the gunman on bail.

The lawyer acting for the ODPP had not tendered a police document containing a list of objections to Monis being bailed, including that he was a danger to witnesses, it was revealed at the Lindt Cafe siege inquest yesterday.

Man Monis went on to take hostages in the Lindt Cafe in Martin Place, which resulted in the deaths of cafe manager Tori Johnson and mother and lawyer Katrina Dawson.

Homicide Detective Senior Constable Melanie Staples said the lawyer, whose name has been suppressed, admitted to her during the lunch recess he believed he had done a “terrible job” on the failed bail application at Penrith Local Court in December, 2013, when Monis was charged with organising the murder of his wife.

“Senior Constable Melanie Staples fought and fought and fought for Monis not to be granted bail then she was unfairly accused of criticising her prosecutor because she didn’t want this guy on the streets,” Stefanovic said.

“Imagine her frustration. Imagine the frustration from arresting officers.  “Imagine knowing this guy was a danger and seeing him walk. Now the crown prosecutor has serious questions to answer. “She fought as hard as humanly possible to keep this wacko behind bars and she wasn’t allowed to. Whose side are they working on?”

Lawyers for the families of Ms Dawson and Mr Johnson told State Coroner Michael Barnes the document should have been revealed earlier.

The damaging evidence involving the Crown Prosecutor emerged as Constable Staples was being “aggressively” questioned by counsel assisting the inquest, Jeremy Gormly SC, over her handling of Monis’ bail application.

Monis was charged in November 2013 for being an accessory before and after the fact to the murder of his ex-wife.

Emergency services found the body of Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, in a Werrington apartment block in April 2013.  The woman had allegedly been stabbed and set on fire.  Monis’ second wife, Amirah Droudis, was charged with her murder.

Constable Staples, the officer in charge of the investigation into the murder of Monis’ ex-wife, was accused of unfairly criticising the performance of the prosecutor to her Homicide Squad bosses after Monis was granted bail.

Mr Gormly put it to her there was nothing in the statement of facts she had prepared for the Crown Prosecutor to say police had concerns about Monis’ bail, including that he was a danger to victims or that he could flee to Malaysia.

“That was in a separate document,” Constable Staples said.

Counsel for the Office of the DPP, David Buchanan SC, stood and said legal privilege was claimed over that document as well as any mention of it in the officer’s statement.

It was the first anyone in the court had heard about the document, which was among those redacted under legal privilege in a controversial move by the DPP last week.

Counsel for Mr Johnson’s family, Gaby Bashir SC, said the existence of the “highly relevant” document would not have been revealed had Mr Gormly not asked that question in court. The Coroner found the document was not covered by privilege.

It was then revealed it also contained the information the murder had been committed while Monis was on bail for charges of sending offensive letters to the families of dead servicemen and was an associate of the Rebels bikies.

It also said the detective ­believed he should have been dealt with under the section of the 1978 Bail Act that not only had a presumption against bail but called for exceptional circumstances to be shown for bail to be granted. The magistrate had been told none of those things, nor was the document tendered to the court.

SOURCE






Police minister under attack at tumultuous Queensland Budget Estimates hearing

POLICE Minister Jo-Ann Miller began the final hour-long stretch of her Estimates hearing - which will focus on the police aspect of her portfolio - with a third opening statement.

“I am the police’s voice around the Cabinet table in Queensland,” she told the committee.  “I will always support our police. Our Government will always support our police. This budget... delivers on that commitment.”

Earlier, the Opposition’s interrogation of embattled Ms Miller began, but with an adjournment called within 20 minutes of proceedings commencing.

During Ms Miller’s opening statement to her Estimates hearing, in which she noted the state’s southeast prisons were collectively operating at 112 per cent capacity — she declared: “I’m very pleased to be here today, delivering on the Palaszczuk Government’s commitment to keep Queenslanders safe.”

But Opposition MPs tried their utmost to change that from the outset, launching an attack almost immediately.

Former attorney-general Jarrod Bleijie — who has spent much of this term locking horns with Ms Miller — opened his question by noting that Ms Miller had been brought out of a “protection program” to face questioning.

Mr Bleijie’s first four questions, of which some were not even allowed to reach completion, were ruled out of order by committee chairman and Labor MP Mark Furner, who declared they were not relevant to the Budget.

After those four attempts — during which Mr Bleijie attempted to list Ms Miller’s blunders and detail comments made about her by others — the Member for Kawana was warned by Mr Furner under Standing Order 185.

Mr Furner then called a brief adjournment after deputy committee chairwoman and LNP member Tarnya Smith moved that the committee express no confidence in the Minister for Police.

When the committee returned from a private meeting, Mr Furner handed questioning over to Government MPs.

Mr Furner ruled there would be no public discussion of what was discussed during the private meeting.

Under friendly questioning from Government MPs, Ms Miller talked about the donation of surplus pink jumpsuit material — left over from the Newman government’s anti-bikie crackdown — and prison issues.

The hearing was adjourned for a second time after Ms Smith moved that the private deliberations during the first adjournment be made public.

Earlier, Mr Furner denied there was a “protection racket” to shield Ms Miller from Opposition questioning.

Having had his questions blocked, Mr Bleijie turned his attention to Ms Miller’s director-general David Mackie, asking questions about the types of misconduct that would have Corrections staff disciplined.

He focused on asking about what consequences a staff member would face if there was a prima facie case of them providing a misleading statement.

Earlier this week, the Labor-dominated parliamentary crime and corruption committee passed a resolution, relating to the Police Minister’s secret documents bungle, that noted that Ms Miller had signed “an incorrect statement” and was “prima facie deliberately misleading”.

Mr Ryan on more than one occasion took issue with the questions, with his points of order including complaints about the “hypothetical” nature of some.

Mr Bleijie also tried to use reported cases relating to Queensland prisons in a bid to continue his attack.  His line of questioning was again shut down by Mr Furner, before the hearing was temporarily adjourned to discuss Ms Smith’s motion.

By 4.50pm, Ms Miller had answered just three Opposition questions, along with one from crossbencher Robbie Katter.  The Opposition questions answered all related to the distribution of a political email to rural fire service members, a matter that involved Labor MP Leanne Donaldson.

At one point, Mr Furner would not allow a question to proceed until more copies were provided of a document tabled by Mr Bleijie.

Proceedings were frequently halted due to arguments over questions or standing orders.

SOURCE







Six months of the Palaszczuk Labor Government in Queensland reviewed

Des Houghton

QUEENSLAND, what have you done?  In electing a Labor government you have invited criminal bikies back to sell ice to your teenagers.

You have welcomed back Cabinet ministers to consort with bully-boy unions.

You have ushered in a period of confusion and instability.

We are at a ridiculous crossroad where the Katter Party holds the balance of power and has issued a set of demands.

You got it wrong Queensland when you ousted the LNP.

The only projects of note are the ones started by the previous Newman government.

Labor has politicised the public service, improperly turned away developers and jobs and pandered to the loony Greens.

Labor is repealing laws to make it easier for unions to access workplaces.

Labor is winding back tough anti-bikie laws in the name of civil liberties.

Only an ignoramus would oppose the anti-gang laws which have not only repelled bikies but has left thousands fewer homes burgled by ice addicts. Car thefts have also plummeted since the crackdown.

The nation’s Border Force Commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg told it like it is on the weekend when he warned Labor not to soften the LNP’s tough laws against the outlaw gangs.

“My view is that once you create a hostile environment, and you’ve achieved what you want to achieve, unless you maintain that hostility there will be a return (of the gangs),” he said.

“I think the introduction of VLAD-type laws in Queensland, and elsewhere in Australia, has demonstrated that they have had a positive impact for enforcement on the co-ordination and organisation of outlaw motorcycle gangs.”

Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk have their heads in the sand. They are inviting the gangs to return.

Taskforce Maxima chiefs warn four major gangs — the Hells Angels, Rebels, Mongols and Bandidos — were opening clubhouses, recruiting new members and eyeing former lucrative drug markets such as the Gold Coast.

On crime, mark Labor down as a FAIL.

On job creation mark Labor down as a FAIL.

On links with bully-boy unions mark Labor down as a FAIL.

Queensland is stagnating.

SOURCE

A double dissolution coming up?

By Miranda Devine

SO let’s get this straight. The biggest scandal in Australia is that trade unions royal commissioner Dyson Heydon, AC, QC, did not speak at a function that was not a Liberal fundraiser.

This beat-up consumed Question Time yesterday, and has filled front pages for days.

Labor and the unions want to destroy the royal commission because it is forensically exposing their criminal extortion racket. And, with Bill Shorten due to be recalled over allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars of employer donations and kickbacks when he was AWU leader, they face an existential emergency.

Heydon could have picked his nose and they would have turned it into an outrage. His real crime is that he’s doing his job too well.

Less straightforward is the motivation of the media salivating over Heydon’s minor transgression of not immediately reading an email attachment which advertised the $80-a-head Sir Garfield Barwick legal lecture with a Liberal party logo.

Realising the potential appearance of bias, Heydon pulled out of the lecture before the story broke, anyway. But listening to the hysteria, you’d think the Liberal Party was the Ku Klux Klan.

Every royal commissioner has personal views. What counts is that they conduct themselves with scrupulous fairness when carrying out their professional duties. Heydon, a black letter lawyer and former High Court judge, is universally regarded as impeccable on that score, and his management of the TURC has been boringly proper. Let the ACTU test their febrile allegations in the High Court and see how far they get.

No, this confected scandal is not about Heydon accepting an invitation to deliver a prestigious law lecture. It is a proxy for bringing down the Prime Minister.

Six months since the February leadership spill that wasn’t, various media grandees and Coalition strivers have hit the reset button, making up the excuse of opinion poll jitters within the margin of error and an entitlements scandal which cost Abbott loyalist Bronwyn Bishop her job, but let off worse offenders in Labor scot free.

Heydon, frankly, is a victim of the weakness of the Abbott government.

The PM talks about loyalty — to Treasurer Joe Hockey, to chief of staff Peta Credlin and the utterly graceless former Speaker. But his greater loyalty should be to the Australian people and those, like Heydon, he has called to serve.

Passivity and inaction are no longer tolerable. Abbott can’t keep being the dope on the ropes, turning the other cheek over and over, waiting for the killer blow that will finally finish him off.

His best defence is offence. It’s time to pull the circuit breaker and call a double dissolution election on industrial relations issues. With any luck, the Canning by election in WA might even be able to be postponed until then.

This week provided the perfect trigger, with Labor’s attempts to close down the trade union royal commission coinciding with the Senate’s rejection of legislation to make unions abide by the same rules as companies.

SOURCE






Tony Abbott wedges Bill Shorten on coal jobs

Tony Abbott has escalated his ­attack on anti-coal activists and challenged Labor to stand up for jobs, by moving to ban green groups from using the courts to stop major developments such as the Adani coalmine.

The government used the ­announcement, which would strike out the provision in environmental laws that allows green groups to challenge development consent for major projects unless they have a direct interest in the project, to declare that only the Coalition was standing up for workers.

Labor and the Greens immediately declared they would not support weakening environmental protections.

The Prime Minister said the issue was a test for the Labor Party. “Are they more interested in the politics of the green movement and are they more inter­ested in the preferences of the Greens Party or do they really care about the workers of Australia?’’ Mr Abbott said.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the government was concerned that groups with a philosophical opposition to coal were determined to delay and disrupt every coal project using protracted litigation. “It is about time the Labor Party stood up for the workers,’’ Mr Macfarlane said. “We stand up for workers. How about you guys stand up for the workers for a change.’’

Adani’s Carmichael coal project in central Queensland has proven a flash point between green activists trying to stop the development of new coalmines to limit climate change and the ­Abbott government, which has backed the development on the basis it will bring up to $31 billion in investment and create 10,000 jobs. Mr Abbott this month lashed the Federal Court action that sparked the delay in the approval of the mine, warning against ­allowing the courts to evolve into a “means of sabotaging projects’’.

Attorney-General George Brandis yesterday announced the government would remove ­Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the provision that he said “allowed radical green ­activists to engage in vigilante litigation to stop important economic projects’’.

The move would return legal action against projects to the common law, meaning litigants would have to have a direct interest in the case to be given standing, such as landholders affected by a resources project.

Senator Brandis said Section 487 of the EPBC Act “provides a red carpet for radical activists who have a political, but not a legal, ­interest in a development to use aggressive litigation tactics to ­disrupt and sabotage important projects’’.

The government’s move won the immediate backing of resources groups but was savaged by green groups.

Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Brendan Pearson said a large number of new projects and mine expansions in ­recent years had been “subject to a calculated campaign of protests and harassment, including vexatious and incessant legal appeals lodged by a small band of extreme environmental groups’’.

“If unchecked, this gaming of legal and approvals processes campaign will exact a significant toll on the Australian economy,” Mr Pearson said. “This strategy has already led to a delay in the Carmichael project in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, posing a threat to 10,000 jobs and billions of dollars in investment.’’

Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said the government seemed “determined to strip ­Australians of the right to legitimate legal action to protect ­nature in this country’’.

WWF-Australia chief executive Dermot O’Gorman cautioned that proposed changes to the EPBC Act “increase the risk of corruption by removing checks and balances in government decision-making’’.

Greenpeace accused the ­Abbott government of “throwing a tantrum” and said the move would “gut national environmental protection laws’’.

Mr Abbott said the Adani issue was “a setback for the reputational risk of Australia’’ and jobs were being threatened by “the militancy of the green movement led by the Mackay Conservation Group’’.

He said the group was located 600km from the mine and was represented by the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office, which was located a 13½-hour drive from the mine.

“There has been a litany of challenges against a mine that in fact is going to power up the lives of 100 million impoverished people in India,” Mr Abbott said. “It represents $20bn of investment in Australia and 10,000 new jobs in Australia. And they are real jobs for truck drivers, train drivers, electricians, engineers, mechanics and geoscientists stretching from Cairns to Mackay, Brisbane to Perth.’’

Ellen Roberts, the co-ordinator of the Mackay Conservation Group, accused the government of seeking to divert attention from its drop in the polls.

“Coal companies should not be above the law and the government should not be doing their bidding by changing the law to remove the rights of the community to have a say,’’ Ms Roberts said.

Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler and legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus declared Labor would not support weakening environmental protections or limiting a community’s right to challenge government ­decisions.

“Since being passed by the Howard government 15 years ago, the EPBC Act has been the ­overriding national environmental protection law, including throughout the mining boom — and environmental groups are ­required to operate within this law,’’ Mr Butler said.

The government had been caught out for not properly managing the approval process for the Adani mine under the act, he said.

SOURCE





Teacher shortfall looms with influx of Gen Y into the profession

THE NEXT generation of teachers will have little loyalty to their jobs with graduates already leaving teaching after being shocked by the profession’s high demands.

In three years, Queensland will hit a significant shortfall of teachers with mature-aged teachers retiring and generation Y teachers graduating to take their place instead, Griffith University Dean and Head of School of Education Prof Donna Pendergast warned.

But Speaking at a Making Great Teachers forum last night, Professor Pendergast said the workforce would experience a huge culture shift with the new generation of teachers.

“The teacher workforce is about to undergo a literal facelift with an influx of new, mostly Y generation teachers, many of whom will not be career teachers like their predecessors,” she said.

“(They) will engage in portfolio careers with little loyalty to employers and without the tendency to be enticed to stay put for career progression.”

She said things like the high demands of teaching, the overwhelming workload, physical and professional isolation, conflict between expectations and reality and difficult initial teaching allocations could often challenge new teachers.

Around 20 per cent of Queensland teachers leave the profession within the first five years of teaching with Prof Pendergast saying the number of teachers leaving might increase with the next generation.

“That might be a really good thing, having people coming into the profession and bringing energy and interest into the role,” she told The Courier-Mail.

“When they decide it’s not for them then they are prepared to go somewhere else.”

She said the incoming generations were unlikely to “wait in line” for a promotion.

Prof Pendergast said beginning teachers who were “unrealistically optimistic” when heading into the classroom could often be overwhelmed by workload and inadequate inductions.

“One of the biggest things is student behaviour and part of that is because teacher graduates aren’t familiar with children,” she said.

“Some get into schools and realise they don’t really want to be surrounded by hundreds of children.”

Queensland Teachers’ Union president Kevin Bates said students did not always appreciate the complexities of being a teacher.

He said it was important students were given the right practical experience.  “It’s about how to teach and preparing for the curriculum, as much as it is about classroom management,” he said.

“Pre-service education is not about how to produce a completely well-rounded professional but it is about how to provide a good start to a career in education.”

SOURCE






Push to scrap nuclear power plant ban in Australia

A push to scrap federal laws that ban nuclear power plants in Australia is due to be voted on today, amid calls for MPs to support expanding the uranium industry ahead of the findings of a royal commission.

An amendment to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill was tabled in the Senate yesterday by Family First senator Bob Day.

The change would abolish section 10 of the ARPANS Act which bans construction of certain nuclear installations, including nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, uranium enrichment plants, and reprocessing facilities.

Senator Day said the change was needed to position the country — and his home state of South Australia — to take advantage of a potential nuclear industry.

A royal commission is underway to investigate the state’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle, with industry invited to submit business cases for building a value-added uranium sector.

“At the moment there is a legislated blockade — you can’t even start because an act of parliament says no nuclear,” Senator Day said.

“Let’s remove the barrier. If it does become viable then South Australia needs to be well-positioned in order to take advantage of that.”

If the amendment is adopted, a licence would still be required from state and federal regulators to establish nuclear facilities.

The federal government has made a submission to the royal commission highlighting the benefits of Australia’s nuclear activities.

“Australia has a strong reputation as a global supplier of uranium for peaceful purposes and we already benefit from our nuclear research and the provision of life saving radiopharmaceuticals that help diagnose and treat serious illnesses,” Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said.

However, the government is not expected to support the change.

The current restriction under the ARPANS Act was established in 1998 after an amendment moved by the Greens, which was supported by both major parties.

SOURCE







Aboriginal actor Alec Doomadgee furious after "racist" airline  banned him from taking his boomerangs as carry-on luggage

He expects weapons to be allowed on a plane??

An Aboriginal cultural leader is furious after Qantas refused to let him take ceremonial boomerangs on a flight as carry-on baggage.  Alec Doomadgee, an actor, broadcaster and cultural ambassador, was stopped from taking the boomerangs on a flight while at Brisbane Airport.

He was further annoyed when they were handled by Qantas staff, who could be affected by blessing or curses placed upon the culturally important boomerangs.

Qantas Corporate Communication adviser Courtney Treak told Daily Mail Australia staff members were following standard 'dangerous goods' procedure.

Qantas had not stopped him from taking the boomerangs on the plane but asked him to place them in checked baggage rather than carry on, she said.

Mr Doomadgee said he had often travelled with the boomerangs as carry-on baggage, and had never had problems before, the Brisbane Times reported.  He ended up leaving the boomerangs with a friend as he was concerned they would be damaged in checked baggage.

Ms Treak said the Aviation Transport Security Act described a number of items prohibited from aircraft cabins, including blunt objects.

'We appreciate they are very significant items to him but at the end of the day they [staff] considered it was safer for them to be checked.'

The airline was not suggesting Mr Doomadgee would use them as weapons, Ms Treak said.

Qantas had issued a public apology, but she was not sure if Mr Doomadgee had been contacted by the airline's customer care team.  'There was never any intent to offend.'

Mr Doomadgee took to social media on Monday and Tuesday to make numerous posts about the incident, sparking much discussion on his Facebook page.

He told the Brisbane Times the incident was an example of racism in Australia - instead of 'in your face KKK sh-t', 'snide, smartass remarks'.

Ms Treak said Qantas had a number of initiatives in action involving the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and the airline was committed to them. Aboriginal artwork on some Qantas planes, providing internships and trainee programmes were an example of that. 

SOURCE

Melbourne named world's most liveable city again, Adelaide ranked fifth

These rankings do tell something about the quality of life in the cities concerned but the differences are highly subjective.  Another ranking put Tokyo first!  Most of the raters in the present case would have been from England's Home Counties.  So it is amusing to note how similar to the Home Counties the highly rated cities are.  4 out of the top 5 were even English-speaking!  The same 4 were also in monarchies with the Queen as Head of State.  Mustn't laugh!  Definitely congenial places for English people. But hey! I like Melbourne too

Melbourne has been named the world's most liveable city for the fifth year in a row, achieving a near perfect score on the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) liveability survey of 140 cities.

The survey rated cities out of 100 in the areas of health care, education, stability, culture and environment and infrastructure.  Melbourne again achieved a score of 97.5, just two-and-a-half points shy of perfection.  The five most liveable cities:

    Melbourne, Australia
    Vienna, Austria
    Vancouver, Canada
    Toronto, Canada
    Adelaide, Australia

Adelaide was ranked in fifth place again with an overall rating of 96.6.

"Those that score best tend to be mid-sized cities in wealthier countries with a relatively low population density," the EIU report said.

"These can foster a range of recreational activities without leading to high crime levels or overburdened infrastructure."

Seven of the top 10 scoring cities were in Australia and Canada.

Melbourne is Australia's fastest-growing capital and the only city in the world to have won the title five consecutive times. International visits have increased by 8 per cent in that time.

While celebrating the ranking, the Victorian Government said it would "never be complacent", investing $20 billion in transport infrastructure and $5.4 billion in health and education to create a stronger economy.

"Melbourne has the best of everything and this title proves it," Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said.  "Perfect scores in health care, education and infrastructure, culture, environment and sport are all proof there's no place like Victoria."

Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle said he was "very proud" of the accolade.  "It is particularly pleasing in a year when the Economist Intelligence Unit notes that many cities lost ground," he said.  "We must be doing something right in our cities in this part of the world."

SOURCE






Australian Psychological Society uses biases and fallacies to accuse skeptics of bias and fallacies


Woolly-headed old lady leaps to the defence of something she knows nothing about

If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.

The Climate Study group in Australia published a half page advert in The Australian last week – Psychology and Climate Alarm: how fear and anxiety trump evidence.  See the advert here.

In reply, Prof Lyn Littlefield, Executive Director of the [Leftist] Australian Psychology Society wrote a letter to The Australian protesting — claiming that the Climate Study Group are the ones suffering from the confirmation bias they accuse climate scientists of.

“The advertisement, ‘Psychology and the New Climate Storm’  misuses psychology-based arguments to add credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias) they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.”

It’s the “the pot calling the kettle black”, exclaims Littlefield. But since her arguments are entirely fallacies, this is the kettle calling the pot calling the kettle black.  The Climate Study Group mentioned many scientific observations, and in reply Lyn Littlefield can’t find an error in any of them, she can only cite “the consensus”. So instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature, she wants to use keyword studies in abstracts of publications, and pronouncements of sub-committees of scientific associations.

Hey, it’s not like consensuses have been wrong before, or grants committees, journal editors, and scientists could possibly have any personal motivations, training deficits, or biases, right? But who would expect a psychologist to spot those…

Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.

The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky  Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)

Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did.
The danger of believing press releases — there is a reason “argument from authority” is a fallacy

Littlefield seems to think that if an association issues a statement it’s an accurate reflection of the members, but these societies almost never survey their members. Those of us who understand the psychology of groups know that most associations speak on behalf of the six most motivated volunteers who signed up for the sub-committee on Climate Thingys. (You’d think, maybe, a psychologist might know that?) It’s just another reason the scientific method does not include “opinions of associations”. We have almost no evidence of what the members opinions are because no one asked them, and it wouldn’t matter anyway because it’s not evidence about the climate. (Perhaps we should start a new society to supplant the Royal Society for people like Littlefield — maybe the Royal Gossip or the Royal Opinion?)

Lucky Professor Littlefield, director of The Australian Psychology Society, does not assess surveys for a living, eh?
Surveys show there is no consensus among scientists

For the record if Littlefield did some (any) research before writing to newspapers, she’d know there are a few surveys of scientists but they pretty much all have devastating news for naive fans of a “consensus”. Empirical data shows only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, that  52% of meteorologists think natural causes are more important and only 43% of climate scientists (fergoodnesssake) agree with the biblical certainty expressed in the IPCC. Clearly skeptics outnumber believers, but as a scientist, I’d never use that to defend my views. It all comes back to real evidence instead — observations from stuff like satellites, sediments, ice cores and boreholes.
Define “climate science denial” — is that where psychologists deny the empirical evidence?

Littlefield understands that the work “empirical” is a good word to use to sound scientific.  If only she knew about empirical climate data, instead of empirical data of online-anonymous-surveys. One sort of data matters:

 There is a growing body of empirical research into the psychology of climate science denial,  and a number of these characteristics are on display in the Climate Study Group’s  advertisement.

The Climate Study Group can back up their statements with empirical data, which unequivocally shows that the models are wrong, the hot spot didn’t appear (even according to the IPCC), the surface stopped warming when it shouldn’t have, and the warming started long before it was supposed too (1680 versus 1900). Logically the “climate science deniers” are the ones who think 28 million weather balloons don’t matter, but ten anonymous responses in a survey of unskeptical sites do.
A real discussion we need to have is about the pathetic state of psychology

Are the successful scientists and corporate directors misusing psychology, or is it the psychologists misusing psychology?

There are questions the Australian Psychology Society really need to answer. “Climate denier” is an abusive form of namecalling; does it have a place in university psychology? It defies any literal definition; no one denies we have a climate and no one denies the climate changes. There don’t appear to be any people who fit the definition. Even PhD students of psychology (like John Cook) are being encouraged to use it. Does accurate English matter in psychology?

Does Littlefield think it’s OK for psychologists to generate derogatory media headlines based on three anonymous responses? Does she think it’s useful to survey sites that are hostile to skeptics to find out what skeptics think? (Would she survey Jews in order to understand what Palestinians feel?) Is it acceptable to claim that 78,000 skeptics saw a link to a survey on a site run by a co-author that never hosted the link? Does the APS care about truth, or does the ends justify the means?

These kinds of “climate” psychology studies start from the “consensus” fallacy (despite the empirical evidence that the consensus does not exist) . Do they serve the taxpayer, or is it just a way of improving propaganda in order to bilk the public for more big-government funds?

There’s a unspoken potential vested interest here. Corporates, miners, and skeptics don’t funnel much money on the climate issue to research psychologists because they know how pointless it is. Big-government however seems happy to fund psychologists who use the money to promote their own personal political (big-government) beliefs. Does psychology suffer from its own “confirmation bias”?   Aren’t “climate” psychologists just government-funded activists in the Climate Change Scare Machine?

The evidence Littlefield either denies or is ignorant of is that the climate models depend on assumptions about feedbacks that observations have long proven to be false.

The models not only fail on global decadal scales, but on regional, local, short term, [1] [2], polar[3], and upper tropospheric scales[4] [5] too. They fail on humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought [8] and they fail on clouds [9]. The hot spot is missing, the major feedbacks are not amplifying the effect of CO2 as assumed.

 –see  the scientific references for those.

The consensus that doesn’t exist, depends on models that don’t work. Can anyone spot a problem?

SOURCE






Traditional marriage arrangements rejected by Greens

Australian politicians have clashed with traditional marriage advocates on ABC's Q&A, as the debate surrounding marriage equality continued to cause sparks to fly.

The fiery debate took place after an audience member asked the panel what Australia's next step in legalising same-sex marriage should be, after the Coalition government voted last week not to address the issue prior to the next election.

Greens leader Richard Di Natale got the discussion under way by accusing Prime Minister Tony Abbott of sabotaging the push for equality by using 'every tactic in the book'.

'We could have a bill before the Parliament supported by majority of parliamentarians if Tony Abbott did what he espouses and that is to respect the freedom and liberty of his own backbenchers and allow them to a free vote,' Mr Di Natale said. 'The sooner the Liberal Party change the Prime Minister, I think the country will be better for it.'

The discussion took a turn for the worse when American traditional marriage advocate Katy Faust began to list reasons why she believes marriage equality should be denied.

The controversial commentator and self-described bigot's main objection was with the alleged negative impact same-sex parents would have on their children.  'We don't want to inflict intentional motherless and fatherlessness on kids in the name of progress,' Ms Faust said, on the ABC's program.

'In (my) country, we didn't have a robust debate... It was so demonised from the beginning that anybody that supported traditional marriage was doing so based on bias or bigotry or hatred or homophobia. It totally shut it down and people felt like they could not speak up.'

Labor Senator Sam Dastyari immediately challenged Ms Faust on her comments, which he said were 'so offensive (he didn't) know where to start'.  [Would he challenge similar comments in his native Iran?]

'The politician in me tells me that I should be saying that while I disagree with your views, I wholeheartedly respect them but I find that very hard,' Mr Dastyari said.  'I find it very hard to respect a lot of your views on what you have said because I don't think it comes from a place of love. I think it comes from a place of hate.

'I worry that so much of your views stem not really with an issue with just marriage, I think some of it stems with an issue with homosexuality. You have described homosexuality as a lifestyle. You have said homosexuality drives us further away from God.

'There are people in this country who have different views on same-sex marriage. People will have the debate but we have to have it at a higher level. The American evangelical claptrap is the last thing we need in the debate.'

Mr Di Natale later took issue with Ms Faust's assertion about the harmful impact same-sex parents have on children, by saying the most important thing is a loving household and dismissing other claims as 'rubbish'.

Ms Faust shot back at the Greens leader, saying: 'Oh my, rubbish. well, it's actually not. Social science has been studying alternative family structure.'

British editor Brendan O'Neill also offered his thoughts on the debate, which focused around the alleged 'shouting down' of people who do not support marriage equality.

'Here's what freaks me out about gay marriage,' Mr O'Neill said.   'It presents itself as this kind of liberal civil-rightsy issue, but it has this really ugly intolerant streak to it.

'You really see it in this whole cake shop phenomenon... This whole thing around the western world where people are going to traditional Christian cake shops and saying to them, 'hey you, stupid Christian, make this cake for me' and if they don't they call the police.'

Mr O'Neill also went on to defend Mr Abbott's handling on the issue, saying the Prime Minister has unfairly been painted as someone from 'the Dark Ages for believing what humanity has believed for thousands of years'.

The debate comes after Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch is expected to introduce his same-sex marriage bill, seconded by Labor, into parliament on Monday, but it is not expected to be voted on.

A new poll also revealed 76 per cent want a national vote on marriage equality, according to AAP.

SOURCE






Academics hate the idea of competition

IT WAS Budget night 2014 and Professor Bruce Chapman, the man credited with inventing HECS, went to the lock-up fully expecting it to be a “bit of a bore”.

“When we heard the announcement about the planned policy reforms, I don’t know what the sound of what one hand clapping is, but I do know what the sound of three jaws dropping was,” Prof Chapman recalled.

Prof Chapman attended the Budget lock-up with two colleagues who had both worked in the office of former Treasurer John Dawkins, responsible for one of the biggest shake-ups of tertiary education in Australia, including the introduction of HECS. But those reforms paled in comparison to what the Federal Government proposed in 2014.

Prof Chapman, who spoke at a forum on university financing at ANU last week, said he had been modelling various parts of the university financing system for 25 years or more. The Abbott government’s plans were so radical he had never even considered them.

“(We) had never modelled any of this because we thought the likelihood of it ever happening were close to zero,” he said, calling them the “most radical suggested reforms to Australian higher education” ever.

The plan to deregulate university fees was rejected by the Senate, but Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will not give up on the reforms, insisting they are necessary if Australian institutions are to flourish.

Other experts are not so sure, and one US academic is concerned Australia could do more harm than good by pressing ahead.

Despite initial support for deregulation among Australian universities, there has been more scepticism about whether student fees should be deregulated, particularly if aimed at improving Australia’s ranking on international tables.

This week it was revealed that Australia now has more than half of its public universities listed in the prestigious Academic Ranking of World Universities, and four universities in the top 100.

Experts at the ANU forum also expressed concerns that universities would be encouraged to chase profits rather than educate students.

Professor Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan in the US said it was unclear why the reforms were needed.

“What problem are people trying to fix?

“If the goal is to get more money — and I haven’t seen any evidence there’s insufficient funds for teaching ... it seems to be getting more funds for research ... that would cost tax dollars and people don’t want to spend money.”

During the forum Prof Dynarski provided “gory details” of the problems in the US system, which had seen student debt double between 2001 and 2011. There was now a push to implement elements of the Australian HECS/HELP system to address some of the issues.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government wants to cut university funding in Australia by 20 per cent and allow universities to make up the shortfall by deregulating student fees. Allowing universities to increase fees would also enable it to put more money into research, which is the measure largely used to rank universities.

“It seems like what would really need to happen is a more robust system for funding research, and the grown-ups should sit down and agree to that rather than dumping (the expense) on to the kids,” Prof Dynarski said.

“This place doesn’t seem to be broke so don’t try to fix it too much because you might definitely break it.”

SOURCE






Tasteless and ostentatious ethnic ("Wog"?) wedding under fire

How NOT to win friends and influence people. The Mehajer family are Muslims, most likely of Lebanese or North African origins

He's the cocky groom who dared authorities to investigate his 'wedding of the century' after he came under fire from irate neighbours. And now his wish has been granted.

Detectives are probing how Salim Mehajer's glitzy procession of Ferraris and Lamborghinis closed an entire western Sydney street on Saturday, police confirmed to Daily Mail Australia.

The official investigation comes amid calls for Mr Mehajer, deputy mayor of Auburn Council, to be sacked after his glitzy wedding to bride Aysha caused traffic chaos.

The couple's elaborate ceremony was always set to grab headlines, featuring as it did a squadron of helicopters, a brigade of luxury cars and a cake nearly taller than the bride.

But since the ceremony more than 4000 people have signed a petition calling for Mr Mehajer to be ousted for 'treating the community, law and council with great disrespect'.

Lidcombe residents were irate after receiving mysterious flyers last week informing them their cars would have to be cleared from Frances St by Saturday or they would be towed at their expense.

A police spokeswoman said Flemington officers determined no approval was given for the entire road to be closed. 'The matter is under investigation,' she said.

Two fellow councillors told Daily Mail Australia questions will be asked about the road closure and other wedding matters on Wednesday evening.

'I think the council has certainly been very much damaged, the reputation of the council,' Clr Irene Simms said. 

A defiant Mr Mehajer dismissed he controversy as 'nonsense' in a radio interview on Monday morning.  'They can investigate all they like, I've got nothing to hide,' he told KIIS FM's Kyle and Jackie O program.

He said the wedding had permits from council 'with regard to traffic control and the vehicles there'. 'However there was a number of vehicles... that exceeded the limit, which I had no control whatsoever.'

Supporters of Mr Mehajer, who was elected on an independent ticket, rallied around the Facebook page 'Let's keep Salim Mehajer at Auburn Council' on Tuesday morning. It had more than 1000 likes at time of publication.

Mehajer's groomsmen entered the classy reception on motorcycles, revving to the applause of the crowd

Mr Mehajer appeared to be in cheery spirits the first weekday after the wedding, posting a picture of himself in the shower at an apartment near Blue's Point, on Sydney Harbour, on Monday.

'Good morning to the BEST city in the world,' he crowed. But it will be some time until he and his wife leave on their honeymoon, with Mr Mehajer saying he is needed at work until December.

The ceremony began on Saturday with the groom arriving via helicopter and guests later flocking to the classy waterfront venue Le Montage overlooking Iron Cove Bay for the reception .

The highly anticipated wedding had been held off while the groom's father, Mohamed Mehajer, served out the final months of his three-and-a-half year jail sentence for attempting to cheat and defraud the National Australia Bank of $3 million, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

The groomsmen were filmed entering the building to the roars of expensive motorcycles, with the bride and groom followed by upbeat drums and flashing fireworks.

SOURCE

Unions caught out hiring guest workers

Good old Leftist hypocrisy. They have been been energetically  opposing use of such workers by others

Unions representing some of Australia's lowest-paid workers have been caught out using imported labour, with United Voice employing nine people on 457 visas.

Two other unions - the Australian Education Union and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employee-s Association - have also hired staff on the temporary skilled work visas.

The industrial movement has long demonised the visas, including once labelling them as a "form of slavery''. Unions are seeking to scuttle the China-Australian free-trade pact because it allows for the use of 457s on large-scale projects.

It seems the union hierarchy is making use of the visas themselves, however, to hire overseas workers to fill their own jobs.

The Immigration Department has revealed that "workplace relations adviser is the most frequently- sponsored occupation'' among unions, "with the other sponsored occupations being copywriter, organisation and methods analyst, database administrator, and training and development professional''.

Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Michaelia Cash told The Australian "the revelation that multiple unions have employed subclass 457 visa holders is an act of incredible hypocrisy and duplicity given the long-term campaign the union movement has waged against the 457 program''.

Most of those on union-sponsored 457 visas are from Britain and the US, with workers also coming from India, The Netherlands, Canada and Singapore, answers- to a Senate inquiry into Australia's temporary work visa programs revealed.

The average salary is $72,497, the minimum salary is $52,080 and the highest salary is $118,502.

"The occupations . targeted by unions employing overseas workers as workplace relations advisers and copywriters gives a clear insight into their double standards,'' Senator Cash said.

"On the one hand, we have -unions employing foreign workers to do the frontline agitating of Australian unions.

"Equally ironic is the employment of copywriters as 457 workers directly employed by the union movement to help orchestrate the misleading and damaging campaign- against foreign labour provisions in the China-Australia free-trade agreement.''

Unions argue the ChAFTA will allow Chinese workers to have free access to the Australian -labour market, and undercut wages and conditions, a claim the government denies.

Departmental records reveal that in the past five years, several unions, including from the Maritime Union of Australia and the Transport Workers Union, have sponsored 41 workers on 457 visas.

"It is time for the Labor opposition and union movement more generally to stop their duplicitous nonsensical campaign against foreign workers,'' Senator Cash said.

"Not since John McTernan was employed as a communications director on a 457 visa in Julia Gillard's office, from where we witnessed a political campaign against 457 visas, have we seen such blatant hypocrisy from the union movement. I call on each union to provide evidence of the labour-market testing they undertook . to demonstrate there were no Australian workers able to undertake the roles.

"Australians would find it difficult to believe there are no Australians qualified to undertake the role of workplace relations adviser or copyrighter."

In 2013, Transport Workers Union national secretary Tony Sheldon accused some employers importing 457 visa workers of a "form of slavery''.

United Voice workers at Parliament House will take action today in their battle for fair pay, banning the cleaning of toilets.

SOURCE




PM Tony Abbott right to rain on irate rainbow parade

YOU can measure suburban grassroots support for Tony Abbott in inverse proportion to the vehemence of his opponents. And his opponents are feral at the moment on gay marriage.

Virtually with one voice the media establishment and the political class have condemned the Prime Minister for his plan to allow the public to vote on such contentious social change. Even some of his more image-conscious cabinet colleagues confidently proclaim he is on the “wrong side of history”. When have we heard this said before about Abbott?

On the republic. On climate change. On both issues he stood firm, was denigrated for it and eventually was shown to have been on the right side of history.

In the first case, a referendum on a republic was resoundingly defeated, despite elite opinion and almost every media outlet shamelessly barracking for it, and decrying Abbott, the monarchist activist, as being hopelessly out of touch.

In the second, Abbott’s defiant stand against the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme in 2009 won him the leadership of the Liberal party from Malcolm Turnbull — and subsequently an election.

Time will tell whether gay marriage will give Abbott the trifecta. But there was a clue in the overwhelming 2:1 majority in the Coalition party room — even stronger among the back bench — during Tuesday night’s marathon meeting which rejected a “free vote” — a.k.a. a “conscience vote”, a.k.a. a proxy vote — for same sex marriage.

But right now the sore losers in his government are running around briefing journalists against him or, in the case of Senator George Brandis, openly decrying a referendum.

It’s a puzzle. If the advocates of gay marriage are as confident as they claim that close to three quarters of the public is with them, then why are they so upset about the decision of the Coalition party room to allow a public vote? Either they have been lying about community sentiment or they have nothing to fear.

The only way to legitimise such a contentious and important re-engineering of the foundational institution of our society is to allow a public vote.  A democratic endorsement of gay marriage by a majority of Australians will put the matter to rest in a way a stitched-up deal by politicians with a variety of obscure motivations never will.

Turnbull, representing the third-gayest seat in the nation, is upset with the PM, because he claims a free vote would have taken gay marriage off the table so the government could get back to talking about jobs.

But the only way this debate gets off the table is if the gay marriage lobby wins. They are relentless. In the past decade there have been 16 attempts to redefine marriage, according to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. They won’t take no for an answer.

They have millions of dollars. They have the media on side. They have had a decade of funded propaganda, networking, and lawfare to prepare the ground.

Claws are still sheathed but you know their tactics will get increasingly ugly, targeting individual MPs, and branding opponents bigots and homophobes.

If you want to know how low they will go, you need look no further than Peter van Onselen’s contribution after the Coalition party room vote. The Sky news presenter declared that young homosexual Australians will “commit suicide between now and when the government finally gets its act together”.

Using suicide as a political weapon is despicable, but it’s now the official line of the Marriage Equality crowd, who say a people’s vote is “potentially dangerous”.

All the defenders of traditional marriage are asking for is a respectful, fair hearing, in which their benign advertisements are not rejected by television stations, in which bishops are not threatened with legal action for upholding Catholic teaching in Catholic schools.

A referendum to change the definition of marriage in the Constitution would resolve the issue. This binding vote would oblige the government of the day to act, one way or the other. It would also allow for equal funding of both sides of the debate. It is the option most vehemently opposed by the same-sex marriage lobby.

But if a majority of Australians and a majority of states don’t want the definition of marriage changed, what right does the political class have to override their wishes?

After all, one of the main bludgeons for change is the inevitability argument, citing polls since 2007 showing majority support for same-sex marriage has climbed to 72 per cent. What are the lobbyists afraid of?

They were cock-a-whoop when the nominally Catholic country of Ireland voted for gay marriage in a referendum, yet want to deny Australians the same opportunity.

It’s too expensive, they say. It’s unnecessary. It will cause suicides. Are they listening to themselves? The commentary is insane. On Tuesday every Coalition MP had a chance to air their views in a respectful, constructive way before the vote was taken.
What could be more democratic than that?

But the sore losers have described it as chaotic, and a threat to Abbott’s leadership. The opposite is the case.

SOURCE





Bill Shorten's climate-change policy a one-way ticket to energy hell

If you want to know what the lead-filled sock of fate has in store for us, look no further than Labor's -climate-change policies.

With barely one per cent of global emissions, Bill Shorten would have us mandate a share of renewable energy two times greater than that aimed at by the world's largest emitters.

The threat that poses to consumers, who would face dramatic increases in power bills, is obvious; but the mere possibility of so -irrational a policy - which would squander an amount equivalent to the sum of the budget deficits over the forward estimates - must compound the sovereign risk that is already damaging Australia's international competitiveness.

Of course, the renewables lobby has beamed with joy ever since Shorten announced that "Labor's ambition is to see 50 per cent of our electricity energy mix generated by renewable energy by 2030". And however poor renewables may be at actually generating power, that lobby's capacity to generate spurious arguments would make the sun shine at night.

We have, for example, been told that far from raising prices, the Renewable Energy Target reduces them. However, that is only true for so long as the growing stock of renewables adds to overcapacity in the National Electricity Market, forcing prices in that market down to the cash costs of keeping plants going. In addition to being inherently inefficient (since it makes no sense to aggravate a capacity glut), any benefit to consumers must be short-lived, as prices will rise once the surplus plants leave the market.

But it is even worse than that. In most markets, when supply exceeds demand, it is the highest cost suppliers who get knocked out, cushioning the price increases associated with a return to balance. In this market, however, the exact opposite is occurring, as the renewables mandate ensures the costliest capacity remains while cheaper capacity is prematurely scrapped.

That process is already apparent, with expensive renewables accounting for 98 per cent of the 1100 megawatts of capacity added last year to the NEM, while coal plants, which have low operating costs, accounted for 90 per cent of the 4500 MW that have been withdrawn or whose withdrawal has been announced.

Were the renewables target nearly doubled, as Labor proposes, the distortion would be even more severe. Quantifying the impacts involves myriad assumptions; but a reasonable estimate (derived using a model developed for the Minerals Council by electricity specialists Principal Economics) is that increasing the renewables -- target would raise the costs of power by $86 billion, which amounts to $600 per household per year.

Given that the average family has an annual electricity bill of some $1600, adding $600 is hardly trivial. Nor could anyone claim $86bn is small change for the Australian economy as a whole: not only is it more than twice this year's budget deficit, but it exceeds the total deficits forecast over the period to 2018-19.

And since any abatement it buys could be obtained far more cheaply by other means, it would be wasteful even were cutting emissions worthwhile.

However, the economic costs of Labor's proposal don't end there. After all, Shorten also intends to introduce a tax on carbon. While the details have not been released, it is clear any such scheme would disproportionately raise the costs of the coal-fired generators, accelerating their exit, and so further boosting prices. And by piling a carbon tax on top of the tax associated with the RET, it could make the distortions caused by increasing the RET even greater than the $86bn cited above.

The extent of the additional loss will depend both on the precise nature of Labor's carbon tax scheme and on its rate. But Treasury's modelling of Julia Gillard's carbon tax suggests that, given a carbon tax, the additional loss from raising the RET would (on an admittedly rough estimate) be in the order of $38bn, taking the total cost of Shorten's renewables policy well over $100bn.

Not that the renewables lobby would ever accept those figures. Rather, it argues that the cost of renewables will plummet as their share in the energy mix rises. But those arguments are hopelessly flawed.

To begin with, as the Productivity Commission found in reviewing the original modelling for the carbon tax, Australia's share of global investment in renewables is so small that any scale economies from doubling that share would reduce costs by less than one-tenth of one per cent. Moreover, far from falling, the economic costs of increasing wind capacity are likely to rise, as many of the best sites have already been taken, forcing growth to occur where transmission costs are high and capacity utilisation low and intermittent.

And with massive demand in the developing world for coal and gas plants, technological progress in fossil-fuel generation is at least as rapid as that in renewables, keeping it highly cost competitive.

Little wonder then that in the US, states such as West Virginia and Kansas have now decided to scrap their renewable energy mandates altogether, while Ohio has deferred the steady increases its law originally required. And as data from the US federal Energy Information Administration shows, electricity is 22.9 per cent more costly in those states with renewables mandates than in those without, competition to attract footloose capital and labour seems set to accelerate the trend away from compulsory targets.

Such a move would make even more sense in Australia, given our uniquely abundant resources of brown coal that is costly to transport. Those resources, and the very low power prices they allowed, have long underpinned our prosperity; by throwing what little remains of that advantage away, Shorten's policy, were it ever implemented, would be a one-way ticket to energy hell.

SOURCE





Aboriginal welfare innovation

BILLIONAIRE mining magnate Andrew Forrest has att-acked critics of a new cashless welfare card as useless "hand wringers and pontificators".

But one of the first WA communities to be part of its trial has raised concerns about being unfairly targeted.

Mr Forrest said the Healthy Welfare Card - an idea he created to prevent welfare recipients buying alcohol, gambling and spending money on drugs - could end the "scourge" of addiction.

"For the hand wringers and pontificators who would see our broken system for vulnerable Australians never change, please remember those who, perhaps unlike you, have been subject to the extreme pressure of drug dealers, humbug and alcohol addiction," he said.

"This presents the worst and most insurmountable barriers to education, employment, family unity and health and directly contributes to the high suicide rate and lower average age of mortality."

Legislation for a 12-month trial will be introduced to federal Parliament next week.

Kununurra and Halls Creek, in the Kimberley, are in talks with the Abbott Government about becoming trial sites after Ced-una in South Australia signed-up earlier this month.

The debit card trial has been strongly end-orsed by Aboriginal leaders, but Shire of Halls Creek president Malcolm Edwards said he wanted a guarantee the town wouldn't continue to be singled out if the trial was -successful.

Mr Edwards said an alcohol ban in place in the town since 2009 had led to sly grogging and dangerous binge drinking.

Because authorities believed it had been successful, the harsh measures have not eased.

"In principle I do support (a trial)," he said. "What I'm against is that it just remains in Halls Creek and is not expanded to the rest of the Kimberley. "That's my concern . that it's successful and then it remains for forever and a day."

Ceduna's trial would see all working-age welfare recipients get 80 per cent of their payments on a cashless debit card and 20 per cent in their existing account. It also allows aged pensioners to opt in so they won't be harassed for money.

Mr Forrest warned of the "real risk" the 20 per cent available as cash could be spent on the "debilitating harms of drugs and severe alcoholism".  He also stressed that support services were needed to help people coming off their addictions.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Alan Tudge, who is leading the consultations, is in advanced talks with East Kimberley leaders.

"I'd just stress that no decision has been made yet because we do want to consult further and make sure all of the key leaders have had the opportunity to express their views," Mr Tudge said.

SOURCE