The Australian gets caught out kicking at The Greens

No incentive for jobseekers to get off disability pension opined journalist Patricia Karvelas in The Australian  on 9 March 2011 with this opening shot at The Greens:

NEW social security rates reveal that the "payment gap" between disability pensions and the dole has risen dramatically to $127.20 a week, as welfare groups vow to ramp up the issue -- with Greens support -- ahead of the May budget.

They argue there is no incentive for people to get off the more lucrative pensions and into work……

This was the outcome of the inevitable complaint to the Press Council of Australia:

Adjudication No. 1511: Naomi Anderson/The Australian (September 2011)

Document Type:

Complaints

Outcome:

Adjudications

Date:

23 Sep 2011

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by Naomi Anderson about a report in The Australian on 9 March 2011 concerning the difference in payment rates between the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and the Newstart Allowance.

The headline of the article was No incentive for jobseekers to get off disability and, after mentioning welfare groups and Greens, the second paragraph read: "They argue there is no incentive for people to get off the more lucrative [DSP] and into work". Later paragraphs quoted a named representative from the National Welfare Rights Network and another one from the Greens. No other person was quoted or mentioned.

Ms Anderson complained that the article was inaccurate because the representatives did not say that there was no incentive to get off DSP or that DSP is "more lucrative" than Newstart. She said this inaccuracy was unfair to the representatives and to people receiving DSP. She also complained that the headline presented a matter of opinion as if it was a fact.

The newspaper said the second paragraph accurately and fairly summarised the quoted comments. It said that the headline was a fair summary of the opinions expressed in the article, not a purported statement of fact.

The Council has concluded that the second paragraph inaccurately described the quoted comments in the article because those comments did not assert that there was no incentive to get off DSP or that either the DSP or Newstart could be described as in any way "lucrative". Those misstatements were unfair to the quoted people and to people receiving DSP. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

The Council has concluded that the headline presented as a matter of fact an assertion which is actually a matter of opinion. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

 Well done, Naomi.

Southern Ocean Sky 2011

Ocean Sky from Alex Cherney on Vimeo

It has to be a joke, Joyce

You’d think I would be used to the idiocy coming out of the Nats camp and the Coalition Gazette, but this takes the blue ribbon:

“ROCKER Angry Anderson is eyeing two federal seats in NSW as he plots a bid to represent the Nationals in Canberra.

The 63-year-old anti-carbon tax campaigner has the Labor-held seat of Throsby, based in Wollongong, in his sights, but could also make a run for the northern NSW seat of Page, at the suggestion of Tony Abbott.”

Angry Anderson representing Page? Fair dinkum – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

The eejit says he's "been reading the science" and doesn't believe it. He knows global warming doesn't exist because scientific opinions are "polluted by a wage", carbon dioxide is a natural harmless element, pollution is not new -its been around since the industrial revolution, it's all a U.N. conspiracy and he didn't design power generators so "it's not our fault".

Pic from Google Images

Water Administration Ministerial Corporation has to pay own costs after judgment in its favour

From the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office - a case of poetic justice as the the WAMC is left holding the legal bill:

With assistance from the EDO , the Snowy River Alliance (SRA) recently challenged the validity of the Snowy Hydro water access licence in the Supreme Court. The challenge was unsuccessful. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party must pay the successful party's legal costs. However, the Court can make an exception in public interest litigation so that persons seeking to represent the public interest are not deterred by the prospect of paying the other party's costs. But this exception only applies when the litigation is genuine public interest litigation, and where there is ‘something more' that justifies a departure from the general rule. In this case, Justice Hislop held that the proceedings could be characterised as public interest litigation because there is a wide public interest in the protection of the Snowy River , and because the plaintiffs were not pursuing any personal gains. There was also ‘something more' in these proceedings because they dealt with issues that were novel and important. Therefore, the Court ordered that the SRA did not need to bear the defendant's costs.

For more information, please click .

Judgment[PDF 3.08 MB]