Perhaps Clarence MP should change his sources

The gauntlet has been thrown down in the direction of Steve Cansdell, the Member for Clarence.

Last week Cansdell was reported to have said, "As I'm told, the magistrate said these guys dodged a bullet."
(The Daily Examiner, 17/5/11)

Cansdell made that remark when he said he wasn't surprised that charges against juveniles who were alleged to have participated in the Yamba "riot" were dropped after the adults charged were found not guilty.

Solicitor Mark Spagnolo, who advised barristers representing two acquitted adults and three acquitted juveniles charged over their part in the incident, said Mr Cansdell’s comments were ill-informed and relied on hearsay. (The Daily Examiner, 23/5/11)

Mr Spagnolo said comments made by Mr Cansdell in the story about the youths’ riot charges dropped (The Daily Examiner, May 17), that he was told the magistrate said the accused dodged a bullet, were completely false.

“The statement made by Mr Cansdell was not said by the magistrate at any time,” he said

“Mr Cansdell should check the facts before making inflammatory comments as they do not assist the community.”

NCV has been very reliably informed that a reading of the trial's transcript will show it was the police prosecutor who said something about "escaping a bullet" and it was made in relation to one (singular) of the defendants, not the group collectively.

Sources: The Daily Examiner, 17/5/11 and 23/5/11

Abbott tries to calculate a carbon price on goods produced by a church-owned health food company

Here’s Tones in crusading mode last week as he began his latest media blitz against a national price on carbon pollution:
“This carbon tax is going to be so toxic because it's going to make the price of manufacturing everything here in Australia much, much higher,” Abbott told the Herald Sun at the NSW Sanitarium Health Foods factory, which makes the popular Weet-Bix breakfast cereal.”
Oooh, aah, we won’t be able to afford our hot weeties on a cold winter morning if the dastardly Gillard gets her way!
Hold on – isn’t there a small problem with this scenario? Not only is the manufacture of health foods, spreads, snacks and breakfast cereals not listed among the highest polluting industries in Oz, but the Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd (trading as Sanitarium) is owned by the very conservative Seventh Day Adventist Church, a charitable institution operating on Christian based principles.
Which is really a polite code signifying that its profits are protected in large measure (eg. Income Tax exemption, GST concession, FBT rebate) and under the new rules proposed by the Federal Government loss of tax exemption status will not apply to its existing commercial activities for some years to come.
So if anyone could absorb the probably low flow-on costs from a so-called carbon tax introduced in 2012-13 it would surely be this church-run business.
In fact the only price rises Sanitarium itself is foreshadowing are due to rising global commodity prices (including cereal grain prices) which affect its supply of raw materials. Something I'm sure they quietly told Tones. Along with the fact that the industry peak body to which it belongs told the Gillard Government in early 2011 that it agreed with a carbon pricing mechanism:
"AFGC is of the view that it is not a question of whether Australia should become more energy efficient and reduce emissions, but by how much, by what means and at what cost to the economy.
The most critical response to climate change is a globally consistent approach, including a common price signal for all greenhouse gas emissions. In this global context, Australia should develop a strategic national approach to emissions reduction and carbon pricing policy measures".

Every child is the responsibility of everybody says former magistrate

FORMER children’s court magistrate Barbara Holborow has implored communities to play a greater role in the lives of young people.

Ms Holborow was critical of a decision to make all new magistrates take a turn on the children’s court bench, where they were once hand picked for the job. ‘‘When you get on the children’s court bench you need to be able to speak to children, to relate to children, to understand children and for them to be able to relate to you,’’ she said. ‘‘That’s not happening now [and] it’s a tragedy.’
Ms Holborow said it was always her desire to hear what children had to say. She recalled the case of a young boy whose grandmother lived at Cronulla.
‘‘I had a little four-year-old boy come before me. His solicitor said he wished to speak to me ... [so] we went into my chambers,’’ she said, recalling the moment he sought protection from his mother’s boyfriend.
‘‘He said ‘I want to stop him from making my nose bleed’. I promised him, ‘If he makes your nose bleed again he will go to jail’. [Then] he said, ‘I want you to stop him from making mum’s nose bleed’.
‘‘That is when I got really angry.
‘‘Where was this mother when her son’s nose was bleeding? Where was he when her nose was bleeding; letting him witness that violence?’’
With the mother pregnant to her boyfriend and reluctant to leave, Ms Holborow was back in the courtroom when the child’s grandmother said she would take custody of him so he could still see his mum every day but would be safe.
‘‘I did not see [him] again which probably means everything worked out,’’ she said.

BARBARA'S VIEWS:
On ageing
‘‘A few years ago I fell and broke [my] left femur in 10 places. When I came out of rehab I was on a walking stick. People think you are deaf. Then I got a walker. Now they think I have lost all my marbles.’’
On children today
‘‘Children have become monosyllabic and I blame computers. I ring my grandchildren ... and they answer [questions] with one word. It’s like pulling teeth. I want to throw every computer away. I really think we need to keep conversing with children.’’
On keeping children in school until they are 17
‘‘There are kids that should be leaving school at 14 and 15 and put in a trade because they are not academic. They will never be academic, even though their mothers and fathers and our PM want them to be. Give them something that they feel good about themselves rather than force an education on them.’’
On curfews
‘‘I would like to see 12, 13, 14, 15-years-olds with a curfew. And if they are out I would like to see them taken to the police station and mum and dad phoned to collect them. Parents have to take responsibility for their own children. Be parents for goodness sakes and stop trying to be their best friend. Kids will have a lot of best friends. Be their mother or their father and be their strength.’’

Read the full story here

Source: St George & Sutherland Shire Leader

So the Gillard Government's response to keeping the Murray-Darling Basin river systems alive is going to be a purely political one after all?

In The Age on 21 May 2011 it was reported in Key scientists cast doubt on Murray water return that:

LEADING scientists have walked away from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority because of serious concerns over changes being made to the volume of water to be returned to the river.
The Wentworth Group of scientists were advising the authority but have called on it to hold an independent review of the science that determined the volume of water to be returned to the river system after hearing that the proposed amount is now 2800 gigalitres.
The original draft plan found that 3856 gigalitres would be a minimum volume of water that would need to be acquired from the 11,500 gigalitres of irrigators' entitlements to maintain the river……
The group did not attend a two-day science forum on the project on the basis that it did not believe the science being discussed was independent. It was there that the executives revealed the authority was going to draft a plan that recommended returning just 2800 gigalitres.

One has to suspect this wide divergence, from those rather conservative science-based recommendations found in the original Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (produced by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority), has a political basis and one doesn’t have far to look for the former state politician and lobbyist a beleaguered Gillard Government placed in a position to recommend this short-sighted, piecemeal ‘fix’ once Tony Abbott et al had stirred up a high level of rural hysteria against the government of the day.

A fix, I might add, which will continue to leave NSW east coast rivers exposed to the possibility that continuing problems with Basin water security will see one or more of these coastal rivers dammed and diverted to meet the unrealistic expectations of Basin communities, agriculture and industry.

Excerpt from transcript of evidence given before the House Standing Committee on Regional Australia’s Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Regional Australia on 25 March 2011 by Mr. Craig Knowles, Chair, Murray-Darling Basin Authority:

Mr Knowles—Thanks, Tony, and thank you to the members of the committee. I apologise right at the outset for not being able to be with you, but as I suspect you know I am on a fairly extensive move around the basin over the last few weeks and for the next couple of weeks. I am more than happy to catch up again in the future, if that is what you would like to do. I think I should put on the record right at the outset my position as I have explained to people as I go around the basin in relation to the guide and all of the problems that arose out of it.
Whatever failures individuals might think it had, my principal concern was that it showed very little respect to people and their efforts, both historically and indeed their desire to be involved in matters that are obviously very dear to them when it comes to water management. That is why I have said, frankly, that I do not have a high degree of ownership of it and I would like to think that, symbolically, my appointment offers the hope of a fresh start and an opportunity to reengage with communities and incorporate their wisdom and their desires, as best as they possibly can be, into the work that I will do with the authority over the next little while.
I talk about also the need to better acknowledge history of effort in things that relate to water savings, whether they are various state programs or some of the Commonwealth programs historically. The work that has been done by many of us over many years seemed to be absent from the guide and from the dialogue with communities. I think probably your committee, Tony, is hearing the same things that I hear as I get around the basin and that quite clearly is, ‘Not only do we want to be heard but we want some of the things we’ve done historically taken into account, because we believe that we have made a contribution to this concept of a healthy working basin. We believe if we are farmers that we respect and understand the need for good environmental health of our landscapes and our riverscapes and to be put in a position where we have to defend that knowledge and that history is what rankles a lot.’
Equally, I liken the basin guide to a bit of a blunt instrument. It certainly created the impression, whether it was intended or not, that whatever number you picked it was a big cut all happening on one day and that clearly is not the case. First of all, whatever the number is, the thing I am trying to pursue at the moment is how much have we already done and what is left to do and how much time do we have to do it, because it certainly will not all happen on one day and it certainly will not happen with things like water cuts or buybacks alone. There will be any number of Commonwealth and state programs in infrastructure and the activities of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state water holders and all those sorts of things which will make up a more complete set of initiatives over time to achieve the desired concept of a healthy working basin.
With that in mind, I have been talking to stakeholders about how we go about engaging them again, hoping to re-establish relationships where they have been fractured, and that includes also the Commonwealth and state agencies. I am talking about SEWPaC in particular, but of course the state agencies who play a vital role in all of this. In the end, in terms of implementation, they have had well in excess of 100-odd years of doing this and have enormous resources and skills that need to be incorporated.
But the most fundamental thing I talk to people about and I hear back in my journeys around the basin—and, I suspect, nothing different to what your committee has heard, Tony—is the need for much higher levels of localism in the implementation and, indeed, the engagement of the processes to make this work in a far more fine-grained sense in the recognition that what might work in one place almost certainly will not work in another because catchments are different, hydrologies and geologies are different and we have to respect all of that and have structures in place that both encourage localism as best we can and make sure that that fits into the overarching strategic directions.
There are many models for localism. At this stage I have refrained from putting my own views about what localism might look like, but I have certainly been throwing the imagery out there, encouraging individual groups and states and territories to consider what localism might look like to them. I do not think it will be a one-size-fits-all approach, but certainly if I could encourage your committee to consider anything. It is again how you go about devolving as best as is possible opportunity, responsibility, capability and resources, of course with all the necessary accountabilities, to ensure that we go about not having this as my plan or the authority’s plan or the Commonwealth’s plan or the states’ plan, but that people have a far greater degree of ownership in it; so the better alignment of all those Commonwealth and state programs imbued with anything I might do, the concept of a healthy working basin, and creating an opportunity for people to actually genuinely be involved.
You would have all seen, I am sure, as I have after many years away from water policy, the quite excellent efforts of local communities in managing both water for consumption and production and for environmental management. Very frequently local communities are filled with people with diametrically opposed interests but, because they all know each other, they tend to turn up at each other’s cricket matches on Saturdays and things like that, they can sort it out far better than the sort of totemic arguments that take place with the peak groups and lobby groups, as important as they are. But in the end this is about making sure things happen in local settings, recognising local constraints and local needs, and I would obviously seek to impress upon the committee the strong view that I have that this is an important feature of anything we might do going forward. I will stop there because I am conscious that there will be many questions. Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIR—Thanks, Craig. We are hearing similar messages and obviously if we had our ears open we would all be hearing similar messages. The localism issues, the local solutions, as we have moved through a number of the subcatchments, when you do engage with people they do come up with various scenarios.
Mr Knowles—Yes. Tony, it sort of reinforces that concept that there just cannot be a one-size-fits- all approach here. It has to be valley by valley, catchment by catchment and even subcatchment by subcatchment. It does not have to be lowest common denominator stuff. In fact, a lot of the organisations and groups, catchment management authorities and so on are heavily imbued with very competent people who are more than capable of incorporating good, quality information into sensible and appropriate tailor-made approaches to managing their system, both in terms of environmental imperatives and environmental health, as well as strong productive capacity.
Mr Knowles—Do you mind if I call you Sharman?
Dr STONE—Please do.
Mr Knowles—Sharman, I have been asked this. I have a number of components to my response, so I will try and be as brief as I can. First of all, importantly, I am comfortable that I have enough room and scope within the act for me to proceed in the way I wish to and I think my public position about not being able to separate or provide precedence to one of the triple bottom line objectives is well recorded. I just cannot conceivably understand how you could not have the balance of environmental, social and economic objectives, and that is the way I wish to work.
I say that for a couple of reasons. One is that the legal advice that has been tabled is highly consistent with anything else I have seen. I think I can assert reasonably that I have done a considerable amount if not a large amount of my own environmental legislating over the years, in forestry, catchment management, native vegetation and water, and I have had all of those various—Ramsar and JAMBA and CAMBA—agreements to wrestle with, and there is no difference with this Water Act.
Importantly, my point that I do make to people is that in many ways it is really not my problem. The parliament, and your work, and indeed the Senate inquiry that Senator Joyce has got up and running, is the place for this conversation, particularly the specific references of the Senate inquiry. Parliaments make the laws. Parliaments change the laws. If there is a view that it needs to be amended, I think the inquiry should work that out, but in the meantime I think somebody has got to get on with the job.
The reason I say that is that I too hear—as you have heard in the evidence you have received from some of those interest groups—the commentary about the act, but it does tend to be limited to the peak lobby groups, the professional lobbyists and indeed—with no disrespect; I was one once myself—the politicians out there on the ground. I rarely hear it raised with me unless those peak groups are with me on the road, and they have been over the last few weeks. Importantly, most people just say to me, ‘Would you please get on with this.’ They are less interested in the lawyers’ picnic that surrounds these arguments, they are more interested in somebody getting on with it, and I think the prospects of success are getting on with it and working on those objectives that I have outlined in as balanced a fashion as I possibly can.

Onya, Bob!

Murdoch
Granny Herald on 20th May 2011 reported Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown letting fly:
"Of News Limited and its coverage, Brown said yesterday what many government people say privately - but won't say with a recording device under their mouths lest they offend a powerful someone in New York or Sydney.

Brown

"It's not balanced. It is opinionated. It's not news. It's not what you would read in other countries around the world," was the pitiless Brown verdict. "I think the Murdoch media is doing a great disservice to this nation."
Needless to say, Granny isn't in the Murdoch stable.

Then on the other side of the world Al Gore via The Guardian joined in with:
"News Corporation is an international conglomerate with an ideological agenda. It seeks political power in every nation they operate. They wield that power to shut down voices that disagree with the agenda of Rupert Murdoch,"
Again, not a Murdoch publication doing the reporting.

Sometimes the young make my heart sing - Part Two

http://youtu.be/LiYZxOlCN10

Australians have just 74 days left to protect 'their' whales

Humpback Whale from Australian National Geographic

From the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS):

Australia's Environment Minister Tony Burke has released draft plans for this network, but they do not meet the benchmark set by the science evidence, and make far too many concessions to the oil and gas industry. Important whale and dolphin habitats have been left out of the proposal.

The proposal is now open for public comment.

We have just 75 days to change his mind. This is our once in a generation opportunity to make sure that proper sanctuaries are created for the blue, southern right, and humpback whales who make these waters their home.

Please send an email to Australia's Environment Minister Tony Burke urging him to make the right decision. We have prepared the email for you - it will only take a few moments of your time but could secure the future of whole generations of whales .

-----------

Text of the prepared email:
To:
The Hon. Tony Burke, Minister For Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population And Communities
I am writing to you about the proposed network of marine sanctuaries in Australian waters.
Recently released draft plans for this network do not meet the benchmark set by the science evidence. Important whale and dolphin habitats have been left out of the proposal, and once again the welfare of these animals, and others, has been sacrificed for the sake of the oil and gas industry.
8 out of 10 hotspots for marine life are still at risk. You have proposed new marine parks in the South West, but many are not in the right places.
Australia's South West has a greater level of unique marine life than even the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but currently less than one per cent of it is protected.
I feel that this is a once in a generation opportunity to make sure that proper sanctuaries are created for the blue, southern right, and humpback whales who make these waters their home, and I urge you to make the right decision.

At last! An explanation for those gremlins in my apostate PC

Oakeshott and Saffin tell O'Farrell it's time to get busy on the Pacific Highway upgrade

The Federal Government is committed to completing the job on the Pacific Highway by 2016 and, in fact, on 21 October 2010 during question time the Prime Minister gave that commitment. We will work with it every step of the way to finish the job—this missing link—on the Pacific Highway. [Andrew Stoner, NSW Nationals Leader, NSW Hansard 9 May 2011]

That O'Farrell post-Budget dummy spit on 12 May 2011 and Hartsuyker's recent silliness over federal funding for the Pacific Highway upgrade finds two NSW North Coast federal politicians less than amused.

Independent MP For Lyne Rob Oakeshott in the House of Representatives Hansard 12 May 2011:

This $1 billion of extra and new money into the Pacific Highway project does lay down a challenge. It reaches out to New South Wales to match that commitment in what has been traditionally a fifty-fifty funding agreement for what is a very important nation-building project. The challenge is there for the New South Wales government in its first budget after campaigning heavily on this issue, visiting sites such as the site of the Clybucca bus crash and making plenty of noise that it would commit to a 2016 completion date. It will not get there unless it matches the funding that was in the Commonwealth budget. Unless an extra $2 billion goes into this project, the Pacific Highway dual carriageway will not be completed by 2016......
Personally, I have done all that I can at my level to ensure full completion of this project by 2016. We should not sneeze at $1 billion of extra money. I have read comments over the last 48 hours from members of this chamber who are local members on this highway not only sneezing at this money—
I know the member for Page is not,is not, but there are some who are really trying to bag this project and the money going in. They should be focusing on the importance of this money to getting the job done......
I reach out to Barry O'Farrell to do the deal—let us get this project done. Through cooperation, let us do what former governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal—have failed to achieve.

Labor MP for PageJanelle Saffin in a medai release on 19 May 2011:

I would have thought the State Government would have been cheering about this substantial new investment in the highway, but instead they appear to be baulking at the request for $750 million in matching NSW funding..
Just before the State Election, Nationals MP Andrew Stoner, then shadow Roads Minister, said ‘The NSW Liberals and Nationals would immediately fast track the upgrade of the Pacific Highway if elected in March.’
Just last month Mr Stoner, now Deputy Premier, said on ABC Radio: “Barry O’Farrell and I want to make sure that the State Government is a help and not a hindrance to finishing the job.....
The State National Party MPs must get their Liberal coalition partners to honour the commitment to this vital infrastructure.
This is not the time for hesitation from the State Government.

I am therefore I oppose

Here’s Liberal Party Leader Tony ‘I am therefore I oppose’ Abbott on 12th May 2011, speaking to a measure continued in the Australian Government 2011-12 Budget and one which he is probably going to eventually vote through when it comes to the crunch:
“Government will spend $350 on each pensioner’s set top box when Gerry Harvey can supply and install them for just $168. Perhaps this programme should be called ‘Building the Entertainment Revolution’. Pensioners and self-funded retirees deserve better than this.”
Abbott again on ABC Radio “PM” program 13th May 2011:
“Take, for arguments sake, the set-top box program. Now I think $305 million has been allocated to this. I just hope that none of the former pink batt installers are sorting this out, otherwise be afraid, very afraid, pensioners of Australia.”

And here are more considered positions from within the Federal Coalition he leads.

Paul Neville (Nats) in Hansard 4th December 2008:
“The British government have gone to the trouble of having a system whereby people can get set-top boxes to convert their analog TVs to digital. We need to have a similar program.”

Nick Minchin (Lib) in Hansard 18th June 2009:
“Though no detail is provided in the bill, the department confirmed during budget estimates that the assistance would include a high-definition digital set-top box, delivered and installed; any necessary cabling in the home; and some instruction on how to use the set-top box. During questioning at Senate estimates, the department advised that they are currently putting together tender documents for the rollout of the assistance in Mildura, the first place for the switch-off, where they estimate that there are approximately 3½ thousand eligible households. They anticipate one tenderer to source the boxes, contact eligible households and arrange installation of the equipment. We trust that the department will ensure that the successful tenderer or tenderers approach the task with what will need to be the appropriate sensitivities in relation to these social security recipients.” And again at www.nickminchin.com.au 19th January 2009
“The Government also needs to finalise a strategy to assist the economically disadvantaged to upgrade their analog equipment to digital. The elderly and others may also require technical assistance and support to ensure their digital equipment is properly installed and working.
After conducting his own test, Senator Conroy concluded that installing a set-top box "is not that easy". It has been suggested that free set-top boxes might be provided to pensioners and low income earners. with in-home installation assistance offered, as has occurred in the UK.
But Australia is a huge country and getting us ready for switch-over requires a lot more than just talk. It requires specific, practical action backed by appropriate levels of additional funding, which will have to be allocated in or before the next Budget if Senator Conroy's deadlines are to be met.
The Coalition fully recognises the undeniable benefits that digital television brings, including better picture and sound quality and extra free-to-air channels to watch, and that is why in government it laid a solid foundation for Australia's digital future.”

Saffin hits back at Cansdell over coal seam gas jibe

In response to NSW Nationals MP for Clarence and member of the O’Farrell Government, Steve Cansdell, who appeared more intent on supporting mining interests and attempting to score political points against the ALP in yesterday’s The Northern Star article MP Cansdell stands by Metgasco (rather than listening to the concerns of his constituents) the Federal MP for Page issued this media release:

Saffin hits back at Cansdell on coal seam gas

Page MP Janelle Saffin has hit back at Clarence MP Steve Cansdell over his claims that local opposition to coal seam gas mining is largely inspired by the U.S documentary, ‘Gaslands’.

“I would point out to Steve that people in our community, particularly farmers and landholders – traditionally National Party supporters - first raised alarm bells over coal seam gas exploration well before ‘Gaslands’ came out.

“I also take exception to his suggestion that public figures’ support for a Coal seam gas moratorium is partly ‘based on a desire to be everyone’s friend’.

 “I can assure Steve that if I was concerned with being everyone’s friend, it would be a lot easier to sit back and keep quiet.

“As I did with the issue of aerial chemical spraying of forest plantations in Coaldale and other local areas, I have listened to the community, investigated the issue and then raised my concerns.

“Public figures have a duty to listen, to lead and to guide and where there are community concerns, particularly involving possible health and environmental risks, we are obliged to raise questions and seek assurances.

“It is for that reason, and not ‘a desire to be everyone’s friend’, that I have now thrown my support behind the call for a coal seam gas moratorium by Lismore, Kyogle and Ballina councils, Rous Water County Council and Northern Rivers Tourism.

“The moratorium may not happen, but I support the process and recognise the concerns of farmers and landholders and other local residents.

“I notice Steve says that any gas miner that breached laws and damaged aquifers needed to face heavy fines.  That is not the sort of process that inspires confidence in the community.  We need to make sure that our aquifers are not at risk in the first place.

“I have no problem with Metgasco and I welcome clean, safe, natural gas production in our region. 

“But the community needs to be assured that any mining in our region is clean and safe.” Ms Saffin said.

“At this stage, they are not assured.”

Ms Saffin plans to attend the public meeting on coal seam gas mining at the Grafton Ex-Services Club on Thursday evening, 19 May.

May 18, 2011

Media contact:  Lee Duncan 0448 158 150

Metgasco spinning in all directions on the subject of fracking coal seam gas on the NSW North Coast

Metgasco Ltd whose coal seam mining operating licences cover approximately 5,800 km² in the New South Wales section of the Clarence-Morton Basin is having a little trouble deciding which line to spin North Coast communities and their elected representatives………

Fracturing, or ‘fracing’ as it is referred to in the CSM industry, is a technique used to improve the flow of gas from the coal seam. It is not anticipated at this time that fracing will be required; however information on typical fracing impacts and management has been provided in case this should change in the future. The main impacts are associated with an increase in noise from the high pressure pumps during the fracing operation and the potential for cross contamination of beneficial use aquifers in the adjacent area.[Metgasco Ltd Environmental Assessment - RVPS & CGP: Executive Summary, August 2008]

Metgasco told the government its drilling would have little effect on aquifers since all wells are encased in cemented steel casing ''so there is no perceivable impact to ground water [as] a result of the fracture treatment'' [Metgasco spokesperson in The Sydney Morning Herald, Gas drilling goes ahead without any checks, 15 November 2010]

Metgasco takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously and is open and transparent in its activities [Metgasco Managing Director David Johnson, in The Sydney Morning Herald, letter to the editor, 24 November 2010]

The final investment decision on into production through stimulation techniques such as this project remains subject to satisfactory progress on fracture stimulation [Metgasco 2010 Annual Report]

Metgasco, had been given a licence to mine using the controversial hydraulic fracturing technique, also known as “fracking”….this method of extracting natural gas from coal seams involved pumping material that often including poisonous or carcinogenic materials into the rock to create fractures that allowed the gas to escape [Education officer for the Environmental Defenders Office NSW Northern Rivers Mark Byrne in The Daily Examiner, Poison warning as gas mining starts, 25 January 2011]

Locally Metgasco have given assurances that they don’t use any chemicals, and don’t do fracking [Steve Cansdell NSW MP for Clarence in The Northern Rivers Echo,Gas seams to be a cloudy issue, 24 February 2011]

the company had done one hydraulic fracture in the Northern Rivers region, at the Kingfisher site near Casino…. We’re happy to give a list of chemicals, the names aren’t generally recognisable but they’re all relatively common chemicals; every one of the chemicals will be in most people’s houses,….The Kingfisher frack was done at 1450m [Metgasco’s chief operating officer Mick O’Brien in The Northern Rivers Echo, Metgasco goes deep into CSG, 3 March 2011]

the company did not use hydraulic fracturing…..nor poisonous chemicals in the well-drilling process [Metgasco’s chief financial officer Glenda McLoughlin in The Northern Star, Metgasco spruiks its transparency, 16 March 2011]

we don’t use fracking in coal seam gas exploration [Metgasco operations manager Aidan Stewart in The Northern Rivers Echo, Gas meeting fails to fire, 17 March 2011]

Metgasco tell us they are not using this process [Janelle Saffin Federal MP for Page, media release, 16 May 2011]

Metgasco applies advanced drilling and production techniques to extract coal seam gas. We produce gas from certain seams by drilling a vertical well to between 300 to 700 metres from the surface. The well is then cased to prevent any water from upper acquifers leaking into the well. We then drill horizontally along the coal seam to a distance of up to 1,000 metres. The well is then lined with perforated steel casing. Water and gas are then pumped from the well and separated at the well head. This process of taking water out of the coal seams lowers the pressure in the well and allows gas to flow to the wellhead. [Metgasco website, 17 May 2011]

Bolt Report commits a furphy on taxation

I steeled myself to watch The Bolt Report last Sunday in order to give the man a chance to convince me he would be worth time spent on Channel Ten.

Alas! Only minutes into his opening statement Andrew Bolt informed Australia that only people in the workforce or of workforce age were financing government expenditure on things like pensions, schools and hospitals.

Yes, while doing a little welfare bashing he conveniently ignored the fact that almost everyone, except infants and possibly preschoolers, regularly pays a consumption tax ie. the GST and that this revenue (worth $45.5 billion in 2010-11) goes to the states to help pay for things like the public health system and capital works.

That the states spent this extra revenue in part on hospitals is indisputable if one looks at this graph based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data covering the years immediately after the introduction of the GST.

Graph found in Catallaxy archives

Ergo, the very people Bolt is bashing contributed to the hospitals he would likely access should he fall ill.

I won't even mention the fact that Bolt appears not to realise that the indexation of family support payment, Family Tax Benefit A, is not paused at a 'family' income of $150,00 per year, but the 'primary wage earner's income'.

The Bolt Report? Distorted opinion and definitely not worth wasting my time on.