If you have family and friends in the path of Cyclone Yasi

Cyclone Yasi is currently classed as a Category Four Five event.

Issued at 11:00 pm EST Tuesday 1 February 2011

Refer to Tropical Cyclone Advice Number 9

The next Australian Bureau of Meteorology National Warnings Summary update will be issued by 2:00 am EST Wednesday 02 February 2011

Queensland Disaster Management Sevices advice:

People relocating or being evacuated from the path of Cyclone Yasi are urged to register their details with authorities.

To assist in this the QPS, in coordination with the Red Cross’ National Registration and Inquiry System (NRIS), has activated a 1300 telephone number to register people evacuated due to Cyclone Yasi.

Registrations and inquiries will be answered at the QPS Policelink Contact Centre.

The Cyclone YASI Evacuation Registration and Evacuation Enquiry Line number is 1300 993 191.

International enquiries for the NRIS can be made at + 61 7 3055 6220.

We are urging anyone who has evacuated at the direction of authorities or self-evacuated, to register on the National Registration and Inquiry System (NRIS).

People travelling in North Queensland are also being asked to register so friends and family are able to reassure themselves you are safe and that emergency services are able to concentrate on looking for individuals who may be missing as opposed to simply out of contact.

You can register your details on the NRIS system online at http://www.redcross.org.au/ or by telephone on 1300 993 191 for callers in Australia, on +61 7 3055 6220 for international callers, or by written forms at nominated evacuation centres.

By entering your data you can save needless worry on the part of those who care about you and free up valuable emergency services resources.

The National Registration and Inquiry System (NRIS) is a computer based filing and retrieval system, designed to provide families and close friends with basic details on the whereabouts and safety of people affected by major events and disasters.


Cairns Disaster Coordination Centre - (07) 4044 3377

Cassowary Coast Disaster Coordination Centre - 1300 188 505

Townsville Disaster Coordination Centre - 1800 738 541

National Enquiry Line 1800 727 077

Q&A concerning Assange

 

U.S. Dept of Defense  News Briefing with Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon on 26 January 2011

Q:  Geoff, is it true that prosecutors have not been able to tie Private [Bradley] Manning to Julian Assange and essentially make a link between the two in the case?

                 MR. MORRELL:  Well, what I would say on this is, as much as I'd like to weigh into this, this is, as you know, an ongoing criminal investigation.  So it would be inappropriate for me to speak to any -- with any specificity to these issues.

                 But I would avail myself of this opportunity to admonish or warn you all to be extraordinarily careful about how you report on this story, because one thing I can -- I do feel comfortable in telling you is that this case is being taken extremely seriously by the investigators both here in the Defense Department and, of course, at the Department of Justice.  They are hard at work at on building a case here.

                 So any pronouncements about a connection or lack of connection, those that have been found or are yet to be found, are just premature at this point.  So I'd urge everybody to proceed with caution on this, and probably most stories, for that matter…………………………

Q:  Can you tell us today if, in fact, there is evidence that Private Manning was ever in direct contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?

                 MR. MORRELL:  I think I've answered this question when it was put to me by Jennifer.  And I'm happy to repeat it if you like.  But as much as I would like to answer that more directly, I'm not in a position to. 

                 And I'm not going to elaborate on why I'm not in a position to other than to say that it would be inappropriate, given the fact that this is an ongoing investigation, for me to answer that with the specificity that I'd like to.

                 And I'd once again urge you and all to be very careful, given the fact that this is an ongoing investigation.  It's being -- you know, this has -- this has received the highest-level attention in this department, in the Department of Justice.  There are many, many resources devoted to investigating this and also bringing a case against those responsible for this breach of national security.  So I think it is way too soon to make pronouncements with the kind of definitiveness that I've seen in some of the reporting, given where we still are in this investigation.

                 Q:  Are you implying that you have information that, in fact, Manning was in direct contact with Julian Assange?  Because --

                 MR. MORRELL:  I am not -- Mik, Mik, I am not implying -- Mik, I'm not --

                 Q:  (Inaudible) -- you don't want to reveal the specifics?

                 MR. MORRELL:  I'm not implying --

                 Q:  That's the -- that's the implication you made.

                 MR. MORRELL:  You can infer what you -- Mik --

                 Q:  You said you'd like to respond with the specificity.

                 MR. MORRELL:  Mik, you can infer what you like, but I am not implying anything other than what I said, which was very clear.  I'm not going to wade into the ongoing investigation.  But I urge you all to be very careful, because it is still very much in progress.  And it would be premature to draw any definitive conclusions about where we are vis-à-visdirect connections, a web of connections, found, not found, any of that.  We're not and you are not -- no one is in a position yet to draw those conclusions.

                 Q:  Are there third-parties being investigated?

                 MR. MORRELL:  This investigation is broad.  I think the best -- the best question -- it's best directed at the Justice Department.  But my understanding is that this is a very broad, very robust investigation that will look any and every place to find all those who may or may not have been involved in the leak of this classified information.

                 Q:  A follow up, Geoff?

                 MR. MORRELL:  Are you on this?

                 Q:  (Inaudible)

                 MR. MORRELL:  Okay.  Let me -- let me finish this up, and then we'll come over to you.

                 Q:  All right.  Thank you.  First of all, we're meeting first time:  Happy New Year. 

                 MR. MORRELL:  Happy New Year.

                 Q:  My question is that because of WikiLeaks, as far as this connection and he is behind bars, one, many high-level Indian military officials are under investigation but they are in jail now because of WikiLeaks.  And now what my question is, as far as WikiLeaks is concerned, this man is behind bars here.  Have you stopped, as far as WikiLeaks is concerned, for the future?  What have you done?  Because many other countries also involved as far as WikiLeaks and U.S. defense and --

                 MR. MORRELL:  For the future of what?

                 Q:  Have you stopped the WikiLeaks in the -- for the future?  And no more WikiLeaks are coming?  Or have you done something --

                 MR. MORRELL:  Listen, you'd have to -- you'd have to talk to Mr. Assange and his cronies.  I don't know what they have still up their sleeve.  You'd have to -- you'd have to talk to them.

 

NSW North Coast local crime maps

All NSW Local Government Area Crime Maps (in pdf) from NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

The 2009 crime maps for the NSW North Coast:

Ballina, Bellingen, Byron, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Tweed.

The good news is, that in general terms across many of these local government areas, the percentages for violent crime and property offence incidents appear to have fallen markedly over the last five years.

Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: Big Brother lines up the ducks

It would appear that the U.S. continues to feel hard done by because Australia is not yet the state in the Union.

Amongst other perceived barriers to trade apparently Australian state governments stubbornly continue to insist on buying local where possible and contracting for blood products procured within the country, the Federal Government still insists on subsidising medicines as part of the safety net welfare system, foreign investment rules on telecommunications are unsatisfactory and free-to-air television continues to have some home grown content.

Which perhaps gives a clue as to what may be concealed within this paragraph from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives’ latest spin on America’s attempt at a second bite of the free trade cherry through its Trans-Pacific Partnership initiative:

In addition, the TPP countries made solid progress in further framing the new horizontal, cross-cutting issues that will feature in the TPP Agreement. These include such issues as promoting connectivity to deepen the links of U.S. companies to the emerging production and distribution networks in the Asia-Pacific; making the regulatory systems of TPP countries more compatible so U.S. companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets; helping small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are a key source of innovation and job creation, participate more actively in international trade; and supporting development.

It is worth noting the difference in emphasis in what the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade has online for public consumption.

Which in turn is very different from how the AFTINET lobby group views these negotiations.

It is perhaps also worth noting that the U.S. biotech industry has a long wish list for changes to trade in genetically modified organisms as the TPP fifth round begins in February 2011 and, that this wish list with regard to labelling has a dot point (first below) which is remarkably similar in intent to Recommendation 29 (second below) recently included in the Blewett report on Australian food labelling .

One of course could take the position that Australians should be thankful for small mercies when faced with what looks suspiciously like a Gillard Government cave-in to the bullying free trade partner the former Howard Government invited in.

Because the Monsanto Corporation takes the line in relation to genetically modified food that information does not necessarily need to be physically present on a label. However, mandated information requirements must be easily accessible to consumers and cost-effective and insists It is clearly not a food safety issue, as these foods have undergone the most rigorous of food safety assessments, and are probably the safest foods on the market. In this context, we support the submission made by CropLife Australia, which clearly sets out the wealth of scientific evidence underpinning the safety of these foods. The Panel needs to bear this in mind when considering this issue. A precautionary approach is already clearly being applied in the case of food derived from GM production systems, by virtue of the extensive risk assessment criteria which have to be met by applicants.

Background can be found at:

ABC Radio LateNightLive audio 18 November 2010, which talks about free trade agreements being in reality investor rights agreements giving corporations superior rights to those of governments

Herald-Sun 28 January 2011, Blewett 'blew it' on GM review - Greens.

North Coast Voices, Monsanto-Mahyco GM eggplant toxicity study receives a fail from researcher - wonder what the opinion will be on Monsanto's latest SDA soybean effort?