NSW North Coast a winner in 2010 WetlandCare Australia National Art and Photography Competition

Nicholas Duckworth, Grafton - Open Photography Prize

Other North Coast winners were:
Anna Jackowiak-Hoare, Bonalbo - Open Art Prize
Oliver Lifford, Teven - Children’s Art Senior Prize
Isabella Laura Jones, Ballina - merit award Children’s Art Senior Prize
Blair Trigger, Byron Bay - merit award Children’s Photography

The winning works from the WetlandCare Australia National Art Competition 2009... are now on display at the Cooee Heritage Centre in Gilgandra, central west NSW. The Heritage Centre doubles as the information centre for Gilgandra, so there are plenty of visitors passing through who will get to enjoy the artworks.
The exhibition is hosted and sponsored by the Central West Catchment Management Authority, who sponsored the Children's Art Senior Category in the 2009 competition.
The works will be on display until August 31.

Congratulations to everyone who took part in the competition.

Abbott leaves himself exposed by choice of shadow ministers

It was not a good week for Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott.

Former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull rises to his feet and takes a scalpel to the Coalition's greenwash climate change policy and, in full election mode, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey declares to anyone who would listen;"There is a very clear message to the Rudd Government from the Reserve Bank: Stop spending so much money (or) interest rates will rise" only to be knocked down by every blogger capable of reading what the Reserve Bank had really said.

Tony Abbott weathered the very public Turnbull defection and that whopper from his #1 protegee only to be faced with this:

Let me see if I'm getting this right because, you know, things move by at pace. First up, shadow treasury spokesman Joe Hockey took the obvious course when confronted by a growing perception that the conservatives were losing ground in the revered 'preferred economic manager' category of the national polls: He appeared on commercial television clutching a pink tutu and a magic wand. This was an approach clearly designed to offer a point of colourful comparison that made 'maverick' opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce look a little more greyly bankerish and restrained.

Just after Shadow Minister Finance and #2 boy Barnaby Joyce, red faced and almost incoherent, came out with a real jaw dropper when he claimed that Australia was in danger of not being able to meet its sovereign debt leading to this online new excerpt:
Economists have joined the Federal Government in branding Senator Joyce's comments irresponsible, especially at a time when financial markets are jittery and overseas investors might take his comments seriously.
Credit ratings agencies that monitor sovereign risk say the Opposition finance spokesman's assessment is nonsense.Brendan Flynn, who analyses sovereign risk for Standard and Poor's, gives the Federal Government the highest triple-A credit rating.......
"With the triple-A rating, that's indicative of the extremely strong ability to meet financial obligations and therefore in our opinion, very little chance of defaulting on debt," Mr Flynn said.
"We rate all of the Australian states triple A or double A-plus, and the double A-plus is our second-highest rating - our opinion of a very strong ability to meet debt obligation."

A number of voters are not amused with this from rod3000 out in the Twitterverse; "Sir Barney Bjelke-Petersen" I like it Emmo :-) #qt and this from no_filter_Yamba; Why is it that Queensland seems to throw up politicians with serious neurological deficits? Barnaby Joyce needs to be retired pronto!

UPDATE:

Another Hockey moment to make Abbott cringe; Coalition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey called for an end to the stimulus, saying the big issue was no longer unemployment but interest rates. ''It's time for the government to explain how spending money on school halls in 2012 is going to create jobs and help address the economic downturn in 2008,'' he said.
In the same The Age article Deutsche Bank answered his question; Since mid last year almost 8000 primary schools have been building halls and computer labs and libraries with $14 billion [of stimulus funding] … It looks as if in January, with school about to return, the tradies put on more blokes. ''It has to be the stimulus. Private non-residential construction is flat, private industry isn't investing outside the mining sector.''

Peter Martin laid it out in pictures for the economic theory-challenged Shadow Treasurer:

Hard to get the Premier's attention? Well life's like that in regional New South Wales

On 5 February 2010 The Daily Examiner proudly announced:

TODAY four North Coast mayors and the region's three main newspapers start a combined campaign to get much-needed improvements to the Pacific Highway accelerated. Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson, Coffs Harbour Mayor Keith Rhoades, Richmond Valley Mayor Col Sullivan and Ballina Mayor Phil Silver yesterday sent letters to the NSW Premier Kristina Keneally and Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell inviting them on a highway road trip between Coffs Harbour and Ballina - a road most of us travel regularly.
It is the first step in what is likely to be an ongoing campaign to get the government to rethink its highway priorities and it is a campaign that has the strong support of this newspaper, the Coffs Harbour-based Coffs Coast Advocate and the Lismore-based Northern Star.
It is rare - most likely unprecedented - that four mayors and three daily newspapers have banded together to support a single issue and illustrates the level of concern in the region about preventable highway deaths.
Late last year the NSW Government told us there were no major upgrades planned for the area between just north of Coffs Harbour and just south of Ballina for at least the next five years because it was focusing on areas with higher traffic volumes and where pre-planning work had been done.

I'm sure a resounding cheer went up at breafast tables all over the North Coast that morning.

Five days later Premier Keneally had passed the ball to one of her ministers and the editor was reporting:

THIS is a transcript of part of a conversation yesterday between a Daily Examiner journalist and a representative of the NSW Minister for State and Regional Development, Ian Macdonald.
The representative was responding to an invitation the mayors of Coffs Harbour, Clarence Valley, Richmond Valley and Ballina sent to the Premier, Kristina Keneally, to travel the Pacific Highway between Coffs Harbour and Ballina to see its condition for themselves.
Mr Macdonald was responding on behalf of the premier.
Reporter: "And he'll do the tour?"
Spokesperson: "He'll be doing that with the mayors, wouldn't he?"
Reporter: "Yeah, they're doing a drive from Coffs to Ballina. That's the idea, to highlight the problem areas."
Spokesperson: "Coffs to Ballina, that's, what, 18km?"
Reporter: "No, it's a reasonable drive ... about two-and-a-half hours. That was the thrust of the invitation, so they (the leaders) can see for themselves how bad it is."
Spokesperson: "Oh, it's a drive."
We don't want to crucify this spokesperson; they were trying to do their best to answer our inquiries. They may have just moved from interstate with little knowledge of the region.
Certainly the minister has a better understanding of the geography of the area after being here a number of times
But the exchange helps illustrate how difficult it can be to get the message across to political leaders about what is needed on the highway.
And it also illustrates why it is so important to get ministers and the premier here first hand to see the highway's condition and not rely on the advice of staffers.
'Coffs to Ballina, that's, what, 18km?'

According to yet another article it appears that the NSW Leader of the Opposition is overseas at present - what is your excuse for staying away Ms. Keneally?

Wibbling widgets, Clarencegirl!

Sometimes the moon and stars just don't align and blogging becomes an obstacle race rather than a pleasant ride through cyberspace.

This is one of those times.

Most of North Coast Voices' regular contributors are down for the count at present due to injury or illness and, that leaves me holding the fort for the next week or so.

However, my PC has taken full advantage of this opportunity to create mischief and become highly dysfunctional - my apologies in advance for any spotty postings over the next few days.

When politicians take to writing lines.....

Snapshot from Google Trends Australia for last 12 months at 9 February 2010

Click to enlarge

Blue CPRS

Red ETS

Yellow carbon tax

Green great big new tax

The phrase "great big new tax" is being used frequently by Coalition politicians and the media but doesn't appear to be cutting through on the Internet.
Google only lists it occurring 206,000 times world-wide and Google Trends has it running a very poor last in search terms across Australia over the last twelve months.

Australian Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott is particularly fond of the phrase, but is it his own?

How about a great big new tax, to keep Earth cool, and government absolutely swimming in cash to spread around?

The highlighted phrasing sound familiar?

No, it's not Mr. Abbott speaking in parliament, talking with the media or posting on his website (where he remains strangely coy about using those exact words).
This quote comes from a post discussing U.S.cap and trade on an anti-climate change blog in April 2009 at a time when Abbott was more concerned with participating in Pollie Pedal for charity and discussing the appropriateness of the earlier national apology to the Stolen Generation.

Seems that Tony might have borrowed the phrase.
Anyone else come across an earlier use of great big new tax?

The news just keeps getting worse for Senator Conroy

First it was the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking out against the evils of Internet censorship in January and now it seems the U.S. courts are expressing a view on censorship by government.

From Australia Uncensored in Stephen Conroy swims against the tide:

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." (U.S. Supreme Court on 21.01.2010)

I am confused about Federal Opposition policies

I am confused about the federal opposition policies and I hope someone, anyone can clarify them for me.

Mr Abbott is talking about being tough on boat people. It is as if one day the future refugee wakes up and thinks : “I am going to put my life into the hands of people smugglers where I'll be at their tender mercy to be ripped off, crowded onto unseaworthy boats, packed into airless shipping containers and have a very high chance of dying and for this privilege my parents are going to sell close to everything they own so I can have my great adventure.”

I know what I would say to any of my kids who suggested this to me.

If parents are willing to do this it makes me think these people are fleeing a very bad situation; no-one in their right mind would do this for fun. No parent worth their salt is going to place a child in danger.

If the indigenous population had been tough on boat people back in 1788 and employed the Opposition's policy, where would we be today?

Then I hear from Mr Barnaby Joyce that he would cut the amount of overseas aid Australia provides.
This is stupid in my mind, I would much rather money was spent overseas to help those countries that have a high refugee outpouring to fix their own problems at home.
Then perhaps their populations will not have to flee their countries and travel to mine.

Federal Election 2010: only women iron

A chapeau flourish to Malcolm Farnsworth at AustralianPolitics for uploading and Possum at Pollytics for spreading around this audio example of Tony Abbott's unrepentant chauvinism, which I cheerfully dedicate to all those Northern Rivers female free spirits who never iron!

Download Patriarchal Tony here.

Free Rice: improve your vocabulary and feed the world

The World Food Programme is possibly the largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger world-wide.

Free Rice is a not-for-profit website run by this organisation at which you can play a game aimed at improving your vocabulary while accruing rice grain points which will increase the amount of food being given out to hungry people.

Start putting rice in a child's bowl here.

Current private sector donors to Free Rice and the World Food Programme.

Greg Hunt's rubbery CPRS figures presented to Parliament

The Opposition's Greg Hunt spoke to the Rudd Government's third reading of the CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME BILL 2010 on Thursday 4 February 2010:

The ABS lists 8.7 million Australian families.

You need to multiply 8.7 million by $1,100.

Multiplying 8.7 million by $1,000 gives $8.7 billion.

You then add another $900 million, let us call it, and

that gives you $9.6 billion. We are still $2 billion short

of making up Mr Rudd's tax. We are assuming that that

component will be met off the bottom line of business,

but if business passes that through it will be more than

$1,100 per family. So remember this: it is the 8.7 million

Australian families who are the ones that have to

make up the $11½ billion. We are giving Mr Rudd the

benefit of the doubt. We are saying that they will only

have to make up $9.6 billion and that business will cop

the other $2 billion and not pass the costs through for

that, but it is likely that it will be higher than $1,100

per family.

If anyone is wondering where Mr. Hunt found his $1,100 figure:

Where do we get the $1100 figure from? It is not
just us. Whether it was the Daily Telegraph in November
on the splash front page '$1100 per family the cost
of Mr Rudd's ETS', whether it was the work of the
Brotherhood of St Lawrence...

Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott apparently pulled the same number out of the air or from a Google News search (depending on who you believe) after The Daily Telegraph article was published and specifically applied it to middle income families. A fact which Hunt studiously ignores.

If Greg Hunt goes to a newspaper for some of his figures, where did he go to get his $11.5 billion great big tax and is it a per annum number?
We know that this figure is the estimated revenue from the proposed auction of CPRS carbon permits over two years because the Senate Economics Committee told us so in April 2009 and we also know from Frontier Economics that this original estimate is expected to fall under the revised CPRS currently before Parliament, but Hunt appears to be sticking with the original and now out-of-date projections which he insists on calling a tax on families, pensioners and small business.

Of course with this $11.5 billion being spread over two years that would mean that the spurious dollar amount Hunt is implying is an annual figure would have to be cut in half - that's $550 per family each year for the first two years of the emissions trading scheme.

Hunt is also being a trifle elastic when it comes to population numbers and needs to explain why he is distributing this 'tax' across 8.7 million so-called 'families' when he perhaps should be saying 'households'.
The $1,100 reverts to a per household basis in Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham's media release, so Greg Hunt cannot plead ignorance of what his 8.7 million represents.

Perhaps he thinks telling Parliament that it's all about Australian families reads better in Hansard and, after all the suspect $1,100 he is quoting appears to actually apply to middle-income families anyway according to other members of the Liberal Party.

And the $900 million or the Brotherhood of St Laurence and KPMG?
Well Hunt never explains where he drew that $900 million figure from.
While BSL-KPMG documents don't appear to mention the $1,100 per household but placed the additional costs at:

$494 per year additional expenditure for very low income (below $500 week gross income), high energy using households; and $478.40 for low-income (below $1000 per week gross income), high energy using households.

One rather suspects that Messrs. Hunt and Abbott have carefully included in their totals those projected cost of living price rises which are independant of any emissiosn trading scheme.

Rising to one's feet in the House of Representatives and knowingly building a dollar pyramid based on shifting sand is seen by simple folk as lying to Parliament.
Something Greg Hunt should remember before he goes any further.
Tony Abbott will of course totally ignore any parliamentary rules or conventions if it suits his immediate purpose.

ACMA snaphot of the Australian Internetz

Click on images to enlarge

ACMA Communications Report 2008—09 - released 12 January 2010

Key Indicators

Nats Luke Hartsuyker gets sprung or the local butcher gets an unfair hearing?

Sometimes comic relief is all there is in Question Time and the Nationals MP for Cowper shovels in on with a predictable response from the other side.
The question voters are left with - is the butcher an honest catalyst in this exchange?
I sorta think his use of the term "great big new tax" hints at a a more thhan passing acquaintance with the Coffs Harbour Nats.

Mr HARTSUYKER (2.40 pm)—My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. I ask this question on behalf of Mr Russell Greenwood of Russell's Prime Quality Meats of Coffs Harbour, who said today:

My electricity bill has jumped from $5,600 per quarter to $7,400 per quarter in less than 12 months. A further electricity price increase as a result of Kevin Rudd's great big new tax will cause me to shed staff and drive up the cost of meat.

Further increases in the cost of electricity will cause extreme financial difficulty for my business.

Given that Mr Greenwood will receive no compensation for his business costs under the government's emission trading scheme, how does the minister expect him to keep his business afloat in these times of rising costs?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! Before giving the call to the Leader of the House, he will withdraw his remarks.

Mr Albanese—I withdraw. Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that the member table the letter from which he was quoting.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

The SPEAKER—There is no provision for that. As I have said before, the past practice of people who have occupied the chair has been to take it on trust that a member, in quoting from a document or a case where they have actually identified a person, will substantiate that by their own word.

Dr EMERSON—Some mothers do 'ave 'em! For the member for Cowper to suggest that electricity prices have gone up in the last 12 months as a consequence of the CPRS is patently absurd. I am not suggesting—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt will withdraw his remarks and he should dampen his enthusiasm.

Mr Pyne—I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hartsuyker—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it would assist the House if I were to repeat the question, because the minister clearly was not listening.

The SPEAKER—No. The member for Cowper has asked his question.

Mr Hartsuyker—I think it would help. Just the last paragraph?

The SPEAKER—The member for Cowper has asked his question.

Dr EMERSON—I am not suggesting that the small business man in question has claimed that electricity prices have gone up over the last year as a consequence of the CPRS, but that is what the member for Cowper said. As we know, the author of the question is the Manager of Opposition Business, because he repeated the question. We are quite happy for you to ask the question again.

Mr Hartsuyker—Mr Speaker, it is essential that I read the question again, because he is misrepresenting the question.

The SPEAKER—I do not think it is essential.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Cowper will resume his seat. If the member for Cowper feels aggrieved by comments that the minister has made in this response, there are other forums of the House which he can use. I am not dealing with making question time a debating session.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

The SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney, who seems to be bemused or amused by my comments, knows that I have a view that has not been adopted by the House in any changes to standing orders, but it would assist if the standing orders that apply to the questions applied to the answers. They do not, and the practice of the House has been that there are different interpretations of what is allowed. The minister is in order.

Dr EMERSON—I will wind up my remarks by saying that this is the most absurd question I have ever heard in this chamber. That the member for Cowper would read out a question written by the member for Sturt, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, asserting that increases in electricity prices over the last year have been caused by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is absurd. It is an absurd question. The member for Cowper has embarrassed himself and he should think twice about asking stupid questions in the parliament

CPRS Bills 2010: Turnbull trumps Abbott in climate change debate (transcript)

Malcolm Turnbull speaking today in Parliament on anthropomorphic global warming and an emissions trading scheme, in direct opposition to his leader's new policy position:

The White Paper estimates the CPRS will result in a one off increase in the CPI by 1.1% – compared to the 2.8% one-off increase in the CPI caused by the introduction of the GST. Most households are compensated for this increase in costs either in whole or in part.

I should note that the largest component of increases in electricity prices in NSW over the next five years is, in fact, additional network charges to recognise the increased investment in the security and reliability of electricity infrastructure. Those increases, unlike the CPRS element, are not the subject of any compensation.

But given we have an apparent bi-partisan agreement that emissions should be reduced by 5% of 2000 levels, is an Emissions Trading Scheme, at a general level, the best policy to achieve the desired reduction in emissions?

Believing as I do, as a liberal, that market forces deliver the lowest-cost and most effective solution to economic challenges, the answer must be yes.

Because more emissions intensive industries and generators need to buy more permits than less intensive ones, lower emission activities, whether they are cleaner fuels or energy efficient buildings, are made more competitive.

A brown coal fired power station, for example, pumps out four times as much CO2 as an efficient gas fired one. But gas is expensive and clean and brown coal is cheap and dirty.

If there is no cost charged for emitting carbon there is simply no incentive to move to the cleaner fuel.

Until 1 December last year there was a bi-partisan commitment in Australia that this carbon price, this exercise in reducing emissions should be imposed by means of an emissions trading scheme.

At their core these bills are as much the work of John Howard as of Kevin Rudd. The policy I am supporting today as an Opposition backbencher is the same policy I supported as John Howard’s Environment Minister.

And why did we, in the Howard Government, believe an emissions trading scheme was the best approach?

It was because we, as Liberals, believed in the superior efficiency of the free market to set a price on carbon......

The ETS allows Australian businesses to make their own decisions as to how to reduce their emissions – Government sets the rules and in part sets the cap on total emission and then lets the market work out the most efficient and effective result.

Schemes where bureaucrats and politicians pick technologies and winners, doling out billions of taxpayers’ dollars is neither good policy is neither economically efficient and nor will it be environmentally effective.

For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I will be voting in favour of these Bills.

Rather cleverly Turnbull has released his full speech here ahead of the Hansard transcript.

Shafting Abbott in this way must have given him much pleasure, with the added advantage that he appears steadfast in his views when compared to Abbott's recent volte face.