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.

A little aromatic? No, Tony - you said cr@p and you meant cr@p

ABC TV The Insiders Sunday 7th February 2010:

"BARRIE CASSIDY: You see the credibility problem for you is that you're a conviction politician. You call it as you see it. And yet you seem to be slightly half hearted about it. And then of course you have to live with the comment that you made, that you think climate change is crap.

TONY ABBOTT: I think what I actually said was that the so-called settled science was a little aromatic. Now you don't have to accept the totality of the science to still think that there is a reasonable argument for taking sensible precautions against possible risk and that's what we're doing."

A little aromatic? No, Tony - you said "absolute cr@p" and you meant "absolute cr@p".

Your blunt opinion was very well documented, you didn't deny the words when directly questioned in December 2009 and trying to fib now only shines a spotlight on your slippery political nature.

Now I know you have all but admitted that when you said that the science around climate change was "absolute cr@p" you were fronting what you thought was a hostile Liberal Party audience in Beaufort Victoria, but (unless you always tell people what they want to hear to save yourself a lynching) you were actually voicing your own opinion.

In fact the Pyrenees Advocate editor who attended that party function got the distinct impression that you were quite serious and reported; "In a wide ranging speech, Mr Abbott talked about climate change, the Liberal political fortunes and Kevin Rudd. Quote - the argument on climate change is absolute crap," he said."

The editor was interviewed by ABC Melbourne's Steve Martin and it's online for posterity here.

Of course this "cr@p" attitude to global warming means that you were telling the biggest of political lies when you told Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report last October:

"Well, there may be one or two, but I think if the Government substantially accepts our amendments, that will make Malcolm, in effect, the co-author of this ETS. I think that would be a good position. It would be a rare ... it would be a great win for an Opposition. Let's face it, it's quite unusual for Oppositions to effectively be co-authors of major legislation, and if they were to accept our amendments, if they were to accept that their bill was, in important respects, very gravely flawed, I think that would be a good deal for the country, and obviously a political win for the Opposition."
I think we can all recognise the lie because as I write you are in the House of Reps getting ready to vote down the Rudd Government Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme amended bills for the second time.

Download the audio file of Pyrenees Advocate interview.

Election 2010 - What's a lamb roast?

For days Tony Abbott's been popping up all over the evening tellie talking about the cost of food and shaking his head solemnly; calling lamb the "new lobster".
I couldn't afford to eat lamb chops in 2006 under Howard or in 2009 under Rudd - so why does 'Phoney Tony' Abbott expect me to believe that he will somehow make lamb affordable to poor people post-2010 if he's made Prime Minister.
Pull the other one, Abbott - those budgie smugglers are strangling your brain!

Lucky to afford mince
Maclean

The right-wing disinformation campaign is alive and well on the NSW North Coast

The political disinformation campaign is alive and well on the NSW North Coast in The Daily Examiner letters to the editor and what passes for the party faithfull are gearing up for the next federal election campaign:

Teaching, nursing students targeted

NOT so long ago when John Howard was PM and the state of our economy was actually 'state of the art', there were some anti-government voices in the Valley highly critical of Howard and the Coalition's policy on university funding through the Hecs scheme.

Where are those voices today, now that Julia Gillard, idol of their favoured political party, is forcing teaching and nursing students to pay up to 25 per cent more to gain a degree after dumping the subsidy put in place by the Howard government?

Why single out these two urgently necessary areas of university education to begin the clawback of some of the billions of dollars, mostly borrowed, that this Rudd government has squandered since 2007?

Billions tossed around like confetti at a wedding to feed not only Rudd's massive ego but the many rorts of the so-called Education Revolution. The myriad of enquiries, committees and no brainer 'Watch' programs that cost millions but amounted to absolutely nothing.

And then vital funding assistance for teaching and nursing students gets shafted.

Like the whales in the Southern Ocean, nursing and teaching students in this country have been cut adrift by this self-serving government.

FRED PERRING, Grafton

This is what the Federal Government actually put in place according to its Going to Uni website:

If you have a HELP debt, you start repaying your accumulated HELP debt when your HELP repayment income is above the minimum threshold, which is $41,594 in the 2008-09 income year and $43,151 for the 2009-10 income year.....

In the 2009 Budget, the Australian Government announced that students who graduate from an eligible education or nursing course of study from second semester 2009 onwards will be able to apply for a reduction in their compulsory HELP repayment if they work as a teacher or nurse.

From 1 January 2010 the maximum annual student contribution amount (previously called HECS) for commencing students undertaking education and nursing units of study will be increased from the 'national priority' rate to the band 1 rate [Rate 1 set at $5,310 p.a. maximum in 2010]......

Eligible education and nursing graduates (who graduate from second semester 2009 onwards) who take up employment in these professions will be able to apply for a HECS-HELP benefit which will reduce their Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) repayments. The benefit will be available for the 2009-10 income year. The maximum benefit for that year will be $1,558.50.

An education or nursing graduate is a person who has graduated from a course of study that is required for initial entry to teaching or nursing professions.

Further information will soon be available when guidelines for the benefit for teachers and nurses are finalised.....

The maximum HECS-HELP benefit you will receive as an early childhood education teacher [working in regional or remote areas, Indigenous communities or areas of high socio-economic disadvantage] is $1,600 for the 2008–09 income year, and $1,662.40 for the 2009-10 income year. This amount will be indexed in later years.

Find out if you're eligible

A bill to ban giving support to whaling fleets is before the Australian Senate

A private member's bill Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Prohibition of Support for Whaling) Bill 2010 was tabled in the Australian Senate and read for the first time on 4 February 2010.
The bill's aim is to create new offences and penalties related to providing service, support or resources to an organisation engaged in whaling.
Although no-one would doubt the motives of Greens Senator Rachael Siewert, her identified co-sponsor Eric Abetz raises the possibility that this bill might also be a long-shot attempt by the Liberal Party to embarrass the Rudd Government and increase any Australian-Japanese diplomatic tensions in the months before a federal election.
Since the 2007 election sent him to the Opposition benches I can't recall hearing all that much about whaling from Senator Abetz before this.

We're laughing now but......

We can laugh at the joke and say never happen or only in America, but.......

Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress
Corporations are people too!

Until now, corporations only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals. But today, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. It was their dream to build the best democracy money can buy.

That's why Murray Hill Incorporated is taking democracy's next step — running for Congress. Join us and build a vision for the future we can all be proud of. Vote Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress!
Vote Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress!

Get a load of the U.S. Supreme Court judgement which caused this tongue in cheek announcement that Murray Hill is fielding a candidate at the next American election.
Apparently the American courts have moved one step closer to according corporations full citizenship rights by giving companies the same First Amendment right of free speech as a person - therefore a right to unlimited spending on political advocacy during election campaigns.
Score in 'The Best Free Speech That Money Can Buy' Contest:
U.S. Government 0 Big Business 10

Snapshot : Murray Hill Inc video

Antarctic Whale Wars 2010: claim and counter claim in pictures

Institute of Cetacean Research photograph allegedly showing impact

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society photograph of the Bob Barker

An estimated 9,000 minke whales have been slaughtered as part of the Japanese annual Antarctic whale hunt since 1988 according to an Asahi Shimbun article on 23 January 2010.

In the latest war of words over interaction between the whaling fleet and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Institute for Cetacean Research which runs the Southern Ocean whale hunts under the guise of 'scientific research' has claimed that its vessel Yushin Maru No. 3 was rammed by the anti-whaling boat Bob Barker and supplied photographs allegedly showing this encounter.

Sea Shepherd has released a counter claim stating that it was the Bob Barker which was intentionally rammed and damaged above the waterline.

Damage allegedly done to the Bob Barker during the collision

Land use in Australia and the 2010 federal election campaign

Certain rural landholders are trying to make land tenure an issue in the 2010 federal election.
These landowners are upset at state restrictions on their ability to clear land of native vegetation and hold an erroneous belief that the Australian Government has 'stolen' their ability to take advantage of any carbon credits this land might produce.
This drive to roll back state law by making the Federal Government politically uncomfortable in an election year may not be as easily undertaken as it first appeared, when the initial reaction to their announcement of a lead-off campaign rally was rather underwhelming in a regional area which has an established rural component in direct competition with a growing residential sector for occupation and use of coastal lands.

On 2 February 2010 The Daily Examiner published this editorial:

Farmers and land use

THE notion that farmers should be allowed to do whatever they like with 'their' land needs to be debunked.

The issue was highlighted during the past two months by Peter Spencer, who went on a hunger strike trying to get a Royal Commission into government policies preventing him from clearing vegetation from his land.

Without going into the rights and wrongs of his case, there are broader issues at play.

Forget vegetation for a moment and look at water.

If a water course runs through a farmer's land, does that give him or her the right to take whatever they like and leave other landholders downstream with nothing? Of course not. Water is considered a community resource and does not belong to any individual.

If a farmer or landholder proposed a toxic industry on their land, should no-one have the right to question that industry? Again, of course not.

All landholders, urban and rural, have to abide by local, state and federal government decisions that affect what they can do on 'their' land because what they do on 'their' land has an impact on others.

It is the same with land clearing.

No landholder should be able to clear swathes of vegetation from their land without first determining what effect that has on others around them.

That said, if a farmer buys land and the guidelines for the use of that land change, the community via its government should adequately compensate them for any commercial losses they suffer as a result of those changes.

But to suggest the community has no interest or right to determine what happens on private property is erroneous.

What farmers do on their land affects others.

And this letter to the editor in the same edition:

Giving credit to switched on farmers

A RECENT letter to the editor (January 23) asserted that Australian farmers don't receive any compensation for carbon credits sold here or overseas.

Now, I don't know what the writer had been told but this is not correct. Here is a simple explanation of the issue at hand.

"Carbon credits are a financial reward for activities that reduce the levels of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere. There are a large number of different carbon trading schemes in the world, some of which date back to as early as 1995. A carbon trade can simply be an agreement between two parties. For the term 'carbon credits' to be used, the emission reduction or biosequestration to which the credits apply must be subject to verification by an accredited certificate provider." [Dr Christine Jones, March 2007]

There are many registered Australian companies offering carbon credits for sale and some farmers on freehold land are participating in creating these credits and getting paid for their efforts. The farmers who are taking advantage of emerging markets in relation to national and international greenhouse gas abatement targets are those who have done their research and decided to involve themselves - not just sit back and whinge about how bad things are.

When it comes to any carbon sequestration total which is credited to the national ledger by the United Nations under the Kyoto Protocol, neither the Commonwealth nor Australian states receive any saleable credits from this at all because this particular total is a simple inventory accounting device to measure the nation's adherence to its international undertakings, however, government entities can buy existing carbon credits on the open market to offset their own activities.

As for the NSW Native Vegetation Act also mentioned in that same letter, a little diligent research will show that the matter is not as straightforward as any speakers at the Lismore Cooee Meeting might have suggested.

This year is an election year and it behoves us all to be careful of the political aims and aspirations of vested interests.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba

White Ibis stand up to be counted and you can help on Sunday 7 February 2010

There is a state-wide community survey of the Ibis underway today and NSW North Coast residents can help by keeping their eyes open.

National Parks & Wildlife information:

The Australian white ibis, Threskionis molucca, is a highly visible native water bird in New South Wales.

What do they look like?

• Like all ibises, the Australian white ibis has a large, curved beak designed for probing.
• Their heads and necks are featherless and black, except for horizontal lines on the back of the head that vary in colour from pale pink to red.
• Their bodies in contrast are mainly white, apart from black tips to the longest flight feathers, black lacelike wing feathers and highly visible bare patches under the wings and on the breast that also vary in colour from pale pink to red.
• The legs are reddish brown to black in colour.
• Prior to the 1970s, the Australian white ibis did not breed in the Sydney region but followed the non-permanent waters of inland lakes and rivers, due to the extensive droughts and changes in water regime they have sought refuge in the coastal wetlands. Ibises have adapted well to the constant water and food supply available in urban environments and they are now a common site in our parklands where they feed on invertebrates (beetles etc) and crustaceans (yabbies etc).

How many are there? Help us find out!

The National Parks and Wildlife Service is trying to get a better understanding of the distribution and abundance of Australian white ibis at a statewide level. This will help us to develop conservation practices for these birds. One of the questions we are attempting to answer is how many of these birds are actually in New South Wales?

Since 2003, we have been running community ibis surveys. The surveys have taken place on a single day in summer. We have asked members of the public to tell us about their ibis sightings in Sydney over the day. Information from community members will help us to understand and manage these distinctive birds.

The next survey is on Sunday 7 February 2010, and you're invited to participate! If you see any white ibis on this day, anywhere in NSW, please let us know.

We need to know how many birds you have seen, along with the location and time of day. Some birds may have coloured bands on their legs or coloured wing tags, as shown in the pictures. Please provide as many details as possible about the colour of the bands or tags and their location on the bird.

To send the information to us, you can:

• Use our online sighting form; or
• Phone the Environment Line: 1300 361 967 Mon-Fri only.

Anti-climate change reading list for those nights you can't get to sleep because of the heat/intense cold/severe storm/sea surge/flooding/worry about the drought

Having a browse across the blogosphere I found EliRabbett asking about world wide web links your grandmother warned you about.
Here are just a few of the sites mentioned by his readers as either lukewarm on the issue of anthropomorphic global warming or committed to an anti-science stand on climate change:

The Lavosier Group
Junkscience.com
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (A Lukewarm View from Tasmania)
Global Warming
Cato Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth?
Greening Earth Society
CO2 science. org
The National Centre for Public Policy Research
The Australian Environment Foundation
Institute of Public Affairs
Icecap
CO₂ and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom
Science is Broken
International Climate Science Coalition
Bob Carter's webpage
Climate Police
Climate Audit
Australian Climate Science Coalition
The Marshal Institute
WattsUpWithThat?
Climate Observations
Joe Bastardi's European Blog
Denial Depot
CO2 and You

My contribution is to add the AgMates Community blog which gives house room to supporters of The Climate Sceptics Party and of course any party website which hosts the opinions of the Rt Hon. Tony Abbott would qualify.
Feel free to add to this list at your leisure!

Neutroodle green search engine is launched this month

Neutroodle has launched itself this month as a search engine with a green philosophy.
It is not the first or only Internet search engine which is advertising itself as green.
This is what this search engine promises:

Organisations should take responsibility for the entire impact of their online presence, including the energy used at the consumer end.......

Measure - each month independent climate change experts, CO2Stats, measure the impact of our website on the environment. They calculate the electricity used by all of the computers that view our website, the networks that transfer information around the world and the servers which host our data.

Manage - we take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated to produce all of this electricity as it represents the total footprint of our presence on the internet. CO2Stats determine the best way to offset this footprint, currently through the purchase of renewable energy certificates, effectively the entire process from end to end is powered by renewable energy.

Minimise - Having conducted a comprehensive analysis of our carbon footprint we then look for ways to reduce our emissions profile, not only will this help reduce emissions but it will save us money too.....

Iraq Inquiry damned in twenty sentences

AA Gill at The Times Online captures that moment when the British Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot dropped its pants and flashed its flaws:

"Lord, I thought, he's finally gone and done it. He's left parochial politics and gone into intergalactic diplomacy and had a severe facelift. The skin was drawn tight, the mouth tugged into a morticised grin. It wasn't a good look.

Fear is nature's cosmetic surgeon. It had grabbed Tony Blair by the back of the neck, pulled and twisted.......

We were looking at a man who was looking at what he thought might just be his own personal Nuremberg trial.

Then Sir Roderic Lyne, one of the interrogating panel, stumbled into his warm-up question. Couched in the avuncular curlicues of academic politeness and mumbled deference, he propped himself up on the pillows of sub-clauses and caveats and something astonishing happened.

Across the table, like a CGI trick, a coup de théâtre: Blair's old face reappeared, emerging relaxed and confident, the eyebrows arched. It was the familiar mug the protesters outside in the rain were wearing as masks. The angst let go. Ladies and gentleman, fear has left the building.

He knew this wasn't going to be a war crimes tribunal: this wasn't even truth and reconciliation. This was the wine committee of his club, the senior common room of a honeycoloured college. He was on top of this. He was all over this......

The hours slid by and Blair grew more confident, flicking the pages of his notes, uncannily finding the date, the mot-juste he needed. The questions became woollier and thinner. Blair allowed himself the occasional smirk of disdain as he did keepy-uppies with the simpler lobs."

Sh*t happens....the sequel

The clouds are that fat that they are bumping along the tops of small hills and large tree tops, scratching their bottoms like wormy dogs.
The rain has been falling and, though welcome, has had one unfortunate result - the new toilet project has come to a sliding halt.
As soon as we empty the hole it fills up again.
Since we have an imposed halt to the project and all else failed we decided to read the instructions. It was a revelation.
The consensus was it might be a good idea to start following the installation instructions; I am not sure whether our mob will be able to resist the urge to improvise though!

Sh*t happens....a composting toilet story
Pic from Google Images

For everyone who followed the David & Goliath battle 'Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited' - the judgment

In Mach 2009 the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, was reported as having rather improperly commented on a matter which was sub judice:
"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.
I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode.

This court case has now concluded and the full Australian Federal Court judgment is available here against the thirty-four applicants who took iiNet Limited to court, including Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros, Universal Studios, Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

Perhaps the Minister might like to withdraw his words?

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24

SUMMARY

1. In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court's reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at www.fedcourt.gov.au.
2. The judgment in this proceeding is necessarily complicated both as to fact and law. It is also lengthy, running for 636 paragraphs and almost 200 pages. I have decided to provide short oral reasons for the judgment which I am presently to hand down. These reasons are not intended to be a substitute for reading the judgment itself which will be accessible online this morning.
3. This proceeding raises the question whether an internet service provider or ISP authorises the infringement of copyright of its users or subscribers when they download cinematograph films in a manner which infringes copyright. In Australian copyright law, a person who authorises the infringement of copyright is treated as if they themselves infringed copyright directly.
4. This proceeding has attracted widespread interest both here in Australia and abroad, and both within the legal community and the general public. So much so that I understand this is the first Australian trial to be twittered or tweeted. I granted approval for this to occur in view of the public interest in the proceeding, and it seems rather fitting for a copyright trial involving the internet.
5. That this trial should have attracted such attention is unsurprising, given the subject matter. As far as I am aware, this trial, involving suit against an ISP claiming copyright infringement on its part due to alleged authorisation of the copyright infringement of its users or subscribers, is the first trial of its kind in the world to proceed to hearing and judgment.
6. The 34 applicants who have instituted this claim represent the major motion picture studios both in Australia and the United States. They have brought this proceeding against iiNet which is the third largest ISP in Australia. An organisation known as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft or AFACT has, on behalf of the applicants, been prominent in the conduct of the claim.
7. AFACT employed a company known as DtecNet to investigate copyright infringement occurring by means of a peer to peer system known as the BitTorrent protocol by subscribers and users of iiNet's services. The information generated from these investigations was then sent to iiNet by AFACT, with a demand that iiNet take action to stop the infringements occurring. The measures which AFACT requested iiNet perform were never precisely elucidated. However, as the evidence at trial indicated, AFACT wanted iiNet to send a warning to the subscriber who was allegedly infringing. If a warning was not sufficient to stop the infringement, AFACT intended that iiNet suspend the internet service of that subscriber. If the subscriber remained unco-operative, termination of the internet service was sought as the ultimate sanction. In addition, or in the alternative, the applicants suggested that iiNet should block certain websites.
8. The evidence of infringement gathered by AFACT utilised the BitTorrent protocol, a blueprint for a highly efficient and effective mechanism to distribute large quantities of data. This protocol was created in 2001. It has been used, or more accurately, the constituent parts of the protocol (such as the client, tracker and .torrent files) have been used by those accessing the internet through iiNet's facilities (the 'iiNet users') to download the applicants' films and television shows in a manner which infringes copyright. I shall refer to the constituent parts of the BitTorrent protocol together as the BitTorrent system.
9. The critical issue in this proceeding was whether iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, authorised the copyright infringement of certain iiNet users.
10. The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.
11. The next question was whether iiNet authorised those infringements. While I find that iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring, and did not act to stop them, such findings do not necessitate a finding of authorisation. I find that iiNet did not authorise the infringements of copyright of the iiNet users. I have reached that conclusion for three primary reasons which I now refer to.
12. Firstly, in the law of authorisation, there is a distinction to be drawn between the provision of the 'means' of infringement compared to the provision of a precondition to infringement occurring. The decisions in Moorhouse, Jain, Metro, Cooper and Kazaa are each examples of cases in which the authorisers provided the 'means' of infringement. But, unlike those decisions, I find that the mere provision of access to the internet is not the 'means' of infringement. There does not appear to be any way to infringe the applicants' copyright from the mere use of the internet. Rather, the 'means' by which the applicants' copyright is infringed is an iiNet user's use of the constituent parts of the BitTorrent system. iiNet has no control over the BitTorrent system and is not responsible for the operation of the BitTorrent system.
13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act. The reason for this finding is complicated and lengthy, and is not suitable for reduction to a short summary for present purposes so I shall refrain from attempting to do so.
14. Thirdly, I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence establishes that iiNet has done no more than to provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.
15. Consequently, I find that the applicants' Amended Application before me must fail. However, for the sake of completeness, I have considered all the issues argued before me.
16. I find that the Telecommunications Act would not have operated to prohibit iiNet from acting on the AFACT Notices of infringement. However, as I have already found that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
17. I find that s 112E of the Copyright Act would not have operated to prevent a finding of authorisation of copyright infringement against iiNet. However, as I found on conventional principles of authorisation that the respondent did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
18. Finally, I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. I have drawn assistance from United States authority dealing with similar statutory instruments in making the finding. While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.
19. The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants' films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that 'something must be done' to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.
20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.
21. In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.
22. I will now make my formal orders. For the reasons provided in the written judgment I make the following orders.
    1. The Amended Application be dismissed.
    2. Subject to Order 3 and 4, the Applicants pay the costs of the Respondent, including costs thrown away as a result of the Applicants' abandoning the primary infringement claim against the Respondent.
    3. Any party or person applying for an order for costs different to that provided by Order 2 is to notify the Court within 14 days in which event Order 2 will be vacated and in lieu costs will be reserved.
    4. If any application for costs is made as provided in Order 3 the parties and/or persons are to consult and prepare consent directions for the filing of submissions and, if required, for a hearing on costs.
23. I publish my reasons.
    

Cowdroy J
Sydney
4 February 2010

iiNet's reaction to the judgment
AFACT's reaction

Weekend Markets held on the NSW North Coast - where and when for 2010

Weekend Markets regularly held on the NSW North Coast

Assorted local market snapshots from Google Images

Saturday Markets

Brunswick Riverside Market

Memorial Park

Fawcett Street
1st Saturday of each month

Evans Head Community Market
Park Street Recreation Reserve
4th Saturday of each month

Kingscliff Beachside Market
Marine Parade
2nd & 4th Saturday of each month
Maclean Community Market
Main Street car park River Street
2nd Saturday of each month

Mullumbimby Museum Market
Stuart Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Murwillumbah Cottage Market
City Centre
3rd Saturday of each month

Sunday Markets

Alstonville Community Market
Alstonville Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Ballina Community Market
Canal Road
3rd Sunday of each month

Bangalow Village
Bangalow Showgrounds
4th Sunday of each month
Byron Bay Community Market
Butler Street Reserve

1st Sunday of each month

Grafton Old Schoolhouse Market
Lawrence Road
Last Sunday of each month

Iluka Community Market
Cnr Own & Spencer Streets
1st Sunday of each month

Kingscliff Town Market
Lions Park
5th Sunday of each month

Kyogle Community Market
Kyogle Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Lennox Lakeside Market
Lake Ainsworth
2nd & 5th Sunday of each month

Lismore Car Boot Market
Lismore Shopping Square
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

Murwillumbah Community Market
Murwillumbah Showground
4th Sunday of each month

Nimbin Aquarius Market
Community Centre
3rd & 5th Sunday of each month

Pottsville Community Market
Phillip Street Reserve
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

The Channon Craft Market
Coronation Park
2nd Sunday of each month

Uki Buttery Bazaar
The Old Buttery
3rd Sunday of each month

Yamba Community Market
Yamba Oval
4th Sunday of each month

Sawtell MarketsSawtell Market Ground
4th Saturday of each month

Woolgoolga Markets
Woolgoola Beach
2nd Saturday of each month

Bellingen Community Markets
Bellingen Park,
Church Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Ashby Markets
Community Centre
Lismore Street, Ashby
3rd Sunday of each month

Updated guide in PDF download of all 2010 NSW North Coast monthly & annual community markets and farmers-growers markets.