Three tales of the same Tweed River

“The Tweed Shire council have funded a report on boat wake and river bank erosion. The report is very misleading, inaccurate and BIAS towards boat wake. The report does not comment about how the natural environment and human kind has an effect on the river banks or even the recent floods on the Tweed!
There is a group called TRAC (Tweed River Awareness Committee) and they have uploaded a website for YOU to have your say to all of the Tweed Shire Councillors! WE NEED to have our say because we are up against a minority group that have do not have anything better to do then voice up and complain!”  howled rubberjohnny. Rather strangely ignoring the fact that this study did take the natural environment into account and definitely looked at flood impact.

Over at tweedriverusers.org an unknown voice was getting all shouty about sneaky bans being just around the corner for Tweed boaties. Mr. Unknown seemed to believe that just because a river erosion study on the NSW South Coast did not identify wave action generated by boats as a problem this applied as a natural law to all Aussie rivers.

Apparently this Tweed River ban will be capable of blinding and strangling water skiers as well – if this pic is to be believed.

Of course Tweed Council is doing little to douse the conspiratorial flames, because the Mayor foolishly tried to play down the fact that recommendations in the Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study did contain Supplementary Bank Enhancement Measures which listed “Vessel management to restrict boat wake waves” and that council “has oversighted the preparation and implementation of detailed management plans for specific sections of the river and specific issues eg. bank erosion” according to NSW Roads & Maritime Services.

Turn it up, fellas! Any fool can see power boats won't be banned from the river - they'll just have to keep to a 'below hoon' speed and maybe stop towing water skiers in particularly vulberable areas.

More New England madness.........

From A Clarence Valley Protest on 27 March 2012:

Those New England vandals have reared their heads again

Goodwood Island in the Clarence River estuary
Click on Google Earth image to enlarge

Former President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, member of  the federal Ministerial Advisory Council on Regional Australia, current Inverell Shire Mayor and Chair of Regional Development Australia: Northern Inland NSW  Mal Peters, along with fellow RDANI committee members Les Parsons, Heather Ranclaud, Neil Argent, Scott McLachlan, Ray Tait, Matt Patterson, Jane Kreis, Melanie Dowell, Sue Price, Ian Lobsey, and Anita Taylor (in company with Inverell councillor David C. Jones) have turned their greedy eyes towards the Clarence Valley.

With a view to wrecking not only the Clarence River below Harwood Bridge, but a good part of the Valley as well.

It seems these individuals are promoting the idea of creating a Moree to Iluka-Yamba rail line running into a bulk shipping/coal terminal probably situated on Goodwood Island after deep water dredging a channel from the river mouth and, in 2010-11 formed plans to ask for an estimated $1 million to conduct a feasibility study.

Mayor Peters apparently lobbied for this idea at the inaugural meeting of the Regional Australia Advisory Council in Melbourne in mid-2011.

However, Clarence Valley residents only became widely aware of this scheme when The Daily Examiner published an article on 5 March 2012, along with this diagram:

Click on image to enlarge

As has come to be expected from industry groups and local government over the Great Dividing Range, there is little to no consideration of the environmental, cultural, economic and social costs this scheme would impose on coastal communities.

The photograph below shows the infrastructure of one typical Australian coal terminal.

Unfortunately this is exactly the type of crudely executed vandalism which would appeal to the develop to death, mining at any cost heart of the new NSW Nationals Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis.
__________________________

See A very shortsighted view
__________________________

Quote of the Week

“Australia has been tagged the “dumb blonde” of the world. It’s attractive, but shallow – a kind of Pacific Paris Hilton, “living every day as if it’s your birthday” from inherited, unearned resource riches.”
{Makemycitywork.com on 1^st March 2012}

A trip down memory lane for that grand denier Tony Abbott

http://youtu.be/e5jtiJPlv4Y

Melbourne and Monash university academics help Journal of Medical Ethics create the perfect storm

Ethics debates often go where angels fear to tread in order to define the range of moral dilemmas and this appears to be one sensitive example.

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Full article After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? at the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME)  on February 23, 2012.

Responses to this JME article published online:

My opinion on controversial paper published about infanticide

Manuel Menes

J Med Ethics published online March 28, 2012

[Full text]

Response to After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Philip Dawson

J Med Ethics published online March 27, 2012

[Full text]

Singering from the same hymn sheet... [CORRECTED VERSION]

Matthew J Wilson

J Med Ethics published online March 27, 2012

[Full text]

Six propositions on end-of-life decisions in neonatology

Sofia Moratti

J Med Ethics published online March 26, 2012

[Full text]

After- birth abortion and infanticide: the controversy lingers on

Robert Kar Ngai Yuen

J Med Ethics published online March 26, 2012

[Full text]

Re:After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? An Answer

Elvira Parravicini,

Federica Fromm, Giuseppe Paterlini, Patrizia Vergani

J Med Ethics published online March 19, 2012

[Full text]

A human being's right to live is a moral axiom

Agata Mizerska

J Med Ethics published online March 16, 2012

[Full text]

Re:Awkward Truths Should Make People Re-evaluate Routine Practice

Coral D Carmichael

J Med Ethics published online March 16, 2012

[Full text]

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? An Answer

Dina Nerozzi

J Med Ethics published online March 16, 2012

[Full text]

Re:A response to 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Maria Gabriella Gatti

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Consistency Required

Cadi S Palmer

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Slippery Slope Slipped Upon

Mel Beckman

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Accepting Infanticide

Ellen Simoni

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Defining a person is morally crucial

Andrew R Cress

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

After birth abortion

Fiona E Beavan

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Where there is no love...

Josephine M Treloar

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Newborns, really?

Christina C

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

The fetus and the newborn, what is the difference.

Sheena L Queen

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

What about the dad?

Nancy M Heitschmidt

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Re:Awkward Truths Should Make People Re-evaluate Routine Practice

Grzegorz Nowakowski

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Definition of terms

Randall L. Norstrem

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Can Moral Value Be Quantified?

J. O. Lay

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Adoption as a solution

Melanie M. Rudquist

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Competing interests and infanticide

Dirk C. Baltzly

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Re:Awkward Truths Should Make People Re-evaluate Routine Practice

maureen mckane

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Infanticide and termination - an inexorable progression of logic

charles soper

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

A Modest Proposal

Bruce M Anderson

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Can after-birth abortion do harm?

Joshua P. Cohen

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Re:A response to 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Ronald E. Ledek

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Re:A response to 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Tom Koch

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

A Modest Proposal

Alan W.H. Bates

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

Re:A response to 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Tracey M Upchurch

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

The fallacious argument of 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'

Martin Rhonheimer

J Med Ethics published online March 14, 2012

[Full text]

A response to 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

David J Pohlmann

J Med Ethics published online March 5, 2012

[Full text]

Awkward Truths Should Make People Re-evaluate Routine Practice

Tim M Reynolds

J Med Ethics published online March 2, 2012

[Full text]

NSW Upper House Whip gets caught out telling political whoppers on Twitter

Apparently NSW LC Government Whip Dr. Peter Phelps likes to tweet from the floor of the Legislative Council and keeps his Blackberry fairly smoking.

Here he is on 2^nd April 2012:

Peter Phelps‏ @PeterPhelpsMLC

Just slammed Greens in NSW for crying crocodile tears for TWU, when their policy calls for major attacks on road transport industry #nswpol

Peter Phelps @PeterPhelpsMLC

Another Labor MP quotes verbatim Wikipedia for their contribution to LC debate, this time on 99 year leases #ffs #nswpol #thatsnotresearch

Intrigued, I opened Hansard up and took a good look at the CENTENNIAL PARK AND MOORE PARK TRUST AMENDMENT BILL 2012 second reading debate which began about 9.02pm. After sorting his interjection chaff from the record and discovering the rather meagre Phelps contribution to the business of the day, I began to think there was something rather odd about his "Wikipedia" tweet.

Yep, you guessed it – no "verbatim" quoting of Teh Wiki by a Labor MP.

So, not only is Phelps an arrogant self-proclaimed troll on Twitter – he tells whoppers as well.

Correction: Gulaptis DID speak in the debate, but ...

This corrrespondent has a confession to make. Just after 5.20pm yesterday the phone rang at my place and my attention was diverted away from the parliamentary webcast of proceedings in the NSW Legislative Chamber where the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Offender Nomination) Bill was up for debate.

Consequently, the contributions made to the debate by two north coast National Party MPs, Geoff Provest (Tweed) and Chris Gulaptis (Clarence), were broadcast to an empty room at my place.

Hansard shows Provest spoke at 5.24pm followed by Gulaptis at 5.34pm and then Tony Issa (Liberal MP for Granville) at 5.42pm.

What was interesting about the contributions Provest and Gulaptis made to the debate wasn't their support for the bill (that was a given) but a couple of other things.

Provest:
I mentioned that Sextons Hill is a number one black spot. Yesterday the new southbound lanes were opened. There has been argument about this issue but I will set the record straight. That project is about to be finished, at a total cost of $359 million. The Federal Government contributed $349 million and the New South Wales Government contributed $10 million. That verifies previous arrangements.

Gulaptis:
If companies do the right thing and nominate the offending driver, they will avoid facing additional penalties. These legislative measures are directed at companies that do not do the right thing, and we know who they are.

While Provest came clean in relation to funding for the Sextons Hill project, Gulaptis left a void that could easily have been filled. Why didn't the Member for Clarence name and shame the companies he knows that are not doing the right thing?

Will Clarence MP speak up?

Yesterday in the NSW Legislative Assembly the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Offender Nomination) Bill had another airing. The Bill is designed primarily to get companies to reveal the identity of persons driving their vehicles when they are guilty of road camera offences.

Proceedings in the chamber made for interesting viewing via the parliamentary webcast.

However, this viewer was disappointed one local MP, Chris Gulaptis, Member for Clarence didn't push himself forward and remind the house that his very presence in that place was due to a parallel act of skulduggery committed by his predecessor, the disgraced former Member for Clarence, Steve Cansdell.

Government members queued to speak and support the bill, but Mark Coure, the Liberal Member for Oatley, said it all by remarking that companies had to stop implementing the deliberate ploy of shielding their offending drivers by not nominating them and having them take responsibility for the offences.

Perhaps, if he had the chance to do it all over again, Cansdell could have obtained an ABN and used a company car whenever he risked going within lens reach of those !@#! road cameras.

Coal Seam Gas in Australia: Is the CSIRO helping the mining industry 'manage' the debate?

If it the issue wasn’t so serious for the NSW North Coast it would have been amusing to see this in The Daily Examiner state on 28 March 2012:

We asked the Australian Science Media Centre if it could provide us with information not coloured by vested interests and it provided us with a briefing by Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance director Dr Peter Stone, University of Newcastle coal geologist and sedimentary petrologist Dr Judy Bailey and CSIRO petroleum and geothermal portfolio director Dr Edson Nakagawa.

Not coloured by vested interests is a big claim to make considering that the CSIRO is no longer the dependable, disinterested source it used to be given the number of commercial relationships it has developed over the years.

The CSIRO itself is very open about its wealth creation aims:

So let us start with the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance.

This is ABC Rural on 13 July 2011:

A commonwealth scientific body and a coal seam gas company have today announced a $14 million dollar joint research venture.

The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance or GISERA is between the CSIRO and Australia Pacific LNG.

CSIRO's deputy chief of Ecosystem Sciences Dr Peter Stone says it'll draw scientific contributions from all across the country.

He says he hopes more of the industry's companies will come on board.

Australia Pacific LNG is a coal seam gas producer and GISERA appears to act as a R&D agent for the oil and gas industry, which may eventually lead to a widespread public perception that it is riddled with conflicts of interest.

Where does Dr Peter Stone fit into this scenario?

Dr. Stone has a background in crop and food research and an interest in land management. One has to hope that he has no vested interest in relation to mining. However, at best he appears ambivilant.

This article High risk demands stronger regulation of mining projects in The Australian on 26 November 2011 does not reassure as it begins:

WHEN CSIRO scientist Peter Stone briefed federal MPs and staff on coal-seam gas earlier this month, those in the room with some understanding of the likely effects were taken aback by his low-risk characterisation of the mammoth CSG projects that involved 40,000 production wells in southeast Queensland.

What about Dr Judy Bailey?

Well, her University of Newcastle profile shows minimum involvement with mining companies – except for the Orica Australia "Mineral sequestration in the Great Serpentine Belt, NSW" 2008 $6,500 funding grant – so it is easier to see her as an independent voice.

As for Dr Edson Nakagawa?

Dr. Edson is apparently a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and prior to joining the CSIRO apparently spent twenty years working for Petrobas in Brazil, starting in 1980. Petrobas has shown an interest in Australia and, also appears to use CSIRO technology in its operations overseas.

His current role is focussed on the development and deployment of tools, technology and knowledge to advanced petroleum exploration, conventional and unconventional gas production, alternative transport fuels and the demonstration of geothermal energy in Australia according to the introduction to December 2011 Australian Science Media Centre briefing.
A profile which does not inspire confidence in his objectivity.

The Daily Examiner attempted a balanced article. It was unfortunate that it wasn't alert to problems with its less than discriminating referral source, the Australian Science Media Centre. At least the newspaper ended the article with links (originally inert):

For a full transcript of the briefing, go to aussmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/coal-seam-gas-briefing-1-transcript.pdf or to hear the presentation, go to aussmc.org/2011/12/background-briefing-getting-your-head-around-coal-seam-gas.

So you can judge the views of these individuals for yourselves and, whether you think they are likely to say one thing to regional journalists and another to government decision makers.
Whether any GISERA formal report will have a predestined pro-mining conclusion irrespective of what the science is actually saying.

Oopps! Another banana skin for the unwary Australian politician

All around the world pollies past and present are looking investor embarrassment in the face, including U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney who has  mountain of moolah earning interest over at Goldman Sachs in its many manifestations.

But none more so than Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Australia’s Federal Opposition Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband.

He of course was Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997 to 2001 and a Partner in Goldman Sachs and Co from 1998 to 2001. In 2012 he still has money invested with Goldman Sachs private equity funds, probably including GS Capital Partners V1.

Which means he was well and truly in the frame when Goldman Sachs (through its private equity fund GS Capital Partners III) purchased a 16% share in Backpage.com in 2000.

Village Voice Media Holdings now owns Backpage and Goldman Sachs is selling its share because this website has just been outed as a forum abetting the sex-trafficking of underage girls.

Goldman Sachs has all but admitted that it knew in 2010 what the website was being used for – long before the New York Times report on 31^st March this year.

This letter lists a number of U.S. sex trafficking and child prostitution court cases in which Backpage features and mention of cases involving adults or children going back to 2009-10 can be found on the Internet – including this video.