And they say that comparisons with Viet Nam are false......

Afghanistan this week.

BBC NEWS - "The US defence secretary has asked the country's commander in Afghanistan to step down, saying the battle against the Taleban needs "new thinking".
Robert Gates confirmed Gen David McKiernan would effectively be sacked less than a year after taking command.
He will be replaced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who is seen as having a better understanding of the conflict.
The change comes as the US boosts troops numbers in Afghanistan and prepares for a change in strategy.
Gen McKiernan's time as US commander in Afghanistan has coincided with a surge in violence.
His successor currently serves as the director of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was previously a director of special operations forces."

TELEGRAPH UK - "They do come in and out of Afghanistan," Gen Petraeus told CNN. "But al Qaeda – precise al Qaeda, if you will – is not based per se in Afghanistan. Although its elements and certainly its affiliates... certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of Eastern Afghanistan."

CHINA VIEW - "The joint Afghan and U.S. team who are investigating civilian causalities in eastern Afghan province of Farah, would also look into the using of chemical weapons, a spokesperson of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said Monday.
"On the specific issue of chemical weapons, we are aware of that reports and certainly it would be something that referring to. Joint investigation team will look into the possible report taking place in the province," Haleem Siddique told a questioner in a weekly press briefing.
Siddique noted that the safety and welfare of Afghan civilians must come first during the planning and implementation of any military operation.
According to Afghan officials, over 147 civilians have been killed in an airstrike by international troops in eastern Farah province of Afghanistan while U.S. military said that the number is exaggerated."

THE AGE - "IF THE war in Afghanistan is to be won, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds must first be won. The surest way to lose that battle is to discount the lives of Afghan civilians killed in military operations against the Taliban, whose alliance with al-Qaeda provoked the invasion that ended their rule. Indeed, in Iraq, insurgents' disregard for civilian lives backfired as local forces that had been opposed to foreign troops turned against al-Qaeda and its allies. In Afghanistan, however, the US and its allies are losing support because of the civilian toll they have caused.
Civilian deaths are highly damaging in themselves, but when foreign forces fail to apologise properly and provide redress, the backlash is potentially disastrous. That is why a cover-up of the findings of an Australian military investigation into the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians in Oruzgan province in July 2006 is of immense concern.
On the whole, Australian forces appear to have acknowledged such deaths with full apologies and compensation. By contrast, the US military has at times seemed downright careless about the civilian toll in air strikes. Human Rights Watch estimated last year that air strikes had killed at least 1633 civilians from 2006 to 2007, and allied forces had killed another 828 civilians by the end of last year."

THE CANADIAN PRESS - The first contingents of an additional 21,000 U.S. combat troops and trainers have begun to hit the ground in Afghanistan in a surge expected to continue throughout the summer.
The overwhelming combat might of the U.S. is reshaping the way NATO conducts the bitter counter-insurgency war. Analysts and some opposition politicians have expressed fears that American military policies and doctrines, such as the use of air strikes, will be forced on allies.

The Greens apply a blow torch to Conroy's belly

Senate Notice Paper No. 66 on 12 May 2009:

*1495 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy—
(1) With reference to the hearings of the Environment, Communications and
the Arts Committee additional estimates of 23 February 2009, in which an
officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
stated 'As you may recall, Senator, every six months those overview
profiles of the number of investigations that we have done and the
breakdown—whether it was RC [Refused Classification], child
pornography, X and so on—are tabled in parliament. If we look at one of
those six-month reports, there is a lot of information on what we do
regarding our investigations there' (Committee Hansard, 23 February 2009,
ECA 108): was the officer referring to the Co-regulatory Scheme for
Internet Content Regulation reports; if so, have those reports been prepared
and tabled since the report for the period July to December 2005; if so,
where can copies of these reports, for the 3 years since 2005, be obtained.
(2) If the answer to (1) above is no:
(a) what are the six-monthly reports to which the officer referred to;
and
(b) where can copies of these reports be obtained.
(3) Does the ACMA charge a fee to filter suppliers for the ACMA's blacklist
and/or updates to the blacklist; if so:
(a) is the fee $15 000 (as reported by a filter supplier on 26 March 2009
at http://www.crikey.com.au); if not, how much is the fee;
(b) for what period of time does the fee cover (for example, annually,
half-yearly, monthly, etc); and
(c) when did the ACMA commence charging a fee.
(4) Does the ACMA charge a fee, or does it intend to do so in future, for the
supply of its blacklist to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who provide
server-level filtering; if so, how much.
(5) What procedures or systems does the ACMA have in place to ensure that
filter suppliers promptly add and delete Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)
on notification of updates by the ACMA, for example, does the ACMA
undertake audits of filter suppliers' copies of the ACMA's blacklist; if so,
how often.
(6) In regard to media reports in March 2009 that the ACMA stated that a page
containing photographs by Mr Bill Henson had been incorrectly added to
the ACMA's blacklist as a result of a 'caching error': (a) what is a 'caching
error'; and (b) can the ACMA prevent a 'caching error' happening in
future; if so, how.
(7) When the ACMA adds to its blacklist the URL of a hacked page on an
overseas-hosted web site, that is operated/maintained by an Australian
resident or Australian-based business, does the ACMA notify the
Australian resident/business of the existence of the prohibited content so
that it may promptly delete such content and have its page promptly
removed from the blacklist; if not, why not.
(8) How does the ACMA determine whether web page content has 'an
Australian connection', for example, does the ACMA base this
determination on the geographical location of the business/person to whom
the IP [Internet Provider] address of the web site's domain has been
allocated, the geographical location of the business/person identified as the
registrant the administrative or the technical contact of the domain in the
'whois' information.
(9) In regard to the ACMA's blacklist:
(a) how many URLs on the blacklist are main domain addresses, for
example, http://www.example.com (not the address of a sub-page
on a web site);
(b) when the ACMA notifies filter suppliers of a domain address, are
filter suppliers required to block only that particular page (that is,
the site's 'home' page), or all pages on the domain; and
(c) if filter suppliers are required to block all pages on a domain, by
what means does the ACMA determine that there is a substantial
likelihood that all pages on the domain are, if classified,
potential/prohibited content.
(10) In regard to the ACMA online content statistics for the month of December
2008, ACMAsphere No. 38, states that 237 overseas-hosted items were
actioned and 22 items were 'R18+ Language', while the ACMA's Internet
statistics web page states that 253 overseas-hosted items were actioned, no
items were 'R18+ Language' and 22 items were 'X 18+ Actual sexual
activity' and given that there are also other discrepancies between the two
sets of reported statistics:
(a) which statistics are accurate; and
(b) what caused the discrepancies.
(11) For each of the following periods: 20 January to 31 June 2008 and 1 July
2008 to date:
(a) how many items of Internet content did the ACMA submit to the
Classification Board for the purpose of complying with clause 116
of Schedule 7 (samples of content to be submitted for classification)
of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; and
(b) how many of these items were content that did not have an
'Australian connection'.
(12) In regard to ACMA Internet content assessors:
(a) why are the names, dates of appointment and short biographies of
the assessors not made publicly available (as has long been the case
in relation to members of the Classification Board and Classification
Review Board);
(b) are content assessors, like members of the classification boards,
appointed by the Governor-General; if not, who appoints them;
(c) in selecting and appointing content assessors, are there requirement
that they have the capacity to assess, identify and represent
community standards;
(d) are content assessors initially appointed for a fixed term of service;
if so, what is that period of time;
(e) is there a statutory or other limit on the maximum term of service
for a content assessor; and if so, what is that period of time;
(f) for each content assessor, what was the date of their initial
appointment;
(g) how many content assessors are:
(i) former full-time or part-time members of the Classification
Board,
(ii) former temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iii) current temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iv) former members of the Classification Review Board, and
(v) former employees, in any role, of the former Office of Film
and Literature Classification; and
(h) for each content assessor referred to in (12)(g) above, what is each
of their total period of service in the abovementioned former roles.
(13) Do ACMA content assessors undergo regular training by the Classification
Board to help ensure consistency of decisions; if so, how often does such
training take place.
(14) How many content assessors view and assess an item of Internet content
prior to an ACMA determination that it is 'potential prohibited content'
because there is a substantial likelihood that it would be classified by the
Classification Board as:
(a) RC, 'RC-Child Depiction';
(b) RC, for any other reason;
(c) X18+;
(d) R18+; and
(e) MA15+.
68 No. 66—12 May 2009
(15) In regard to the page on an anti-abortion web site that was determined by
the ACMA to be 'RC-Violence' in January 2009 and the criteria for RC in
the national classification code:
(a) was the content determined to be prohibited/potential prohibited
content under clause 1(a) of the criteria for RC (depictions of
violence that offend against the standards of reasonable adults) or
under clause 1(c) (promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or
violence); and
(b) how many content assessors participated in making a decision that
there was a substantial likelihood that the content would be RC if
classified.
(16) In regard to the ACMA's 'Restricted Access System Declaration 2007', the
explanatory statement to the declaration and the ACMA's web page titled
'new restricted access arrangements' state that the requirements in the
declaration apply only to content that has an 'Australian connection' (is
hosted in Australia or provided from Australia):
(a) what procedures/systems are available to providers of
overseas-hosted content to enable them to ensure that content they
provide that is, or would be classified R18+ or (commercial)
MA15+, is not added to the ACMA's blacklist; and
(b) if these procedures/systems comply with the 'Restricted Access
System Declaration 2007', how can the ACMA, and Australian
Internet users, know that an overseas content provider is complying
with the Australian National Privacy Principles under the Privacy
Act 1988, as required by the Restricted Access System Declaration
2007, in relation to use/disclosure etc of proof of age
documentation/information they acquire and are required to keep for
2 years.
(a) why not;

PDF version with second series of questions re ACMA  included here.

Links to 2009-10 Australian Commonwealth Budget Papers

Graphic from Google Images

The 2009-10 Commonwealth Budget will be released at 7.30pm, Tuesday 12 May 2009
To avoid potential delays accessing the Budget on 12 May due to heavy traffic on the Budget website, please bookmark one of our Budget co-host websites.
Co-hosts for the 2009-10 Commonwealth Budget are:
http://budget.australia.gov.au
http://www.finance.gov.au/commonwealthbudget
http://www.ato.gov.au/budget
http://www.aph.gov.au/budget

From http://www.budget.gov.au

Budget documents can be purchased from CanPrint Communications or state shopfronts.

S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g the truth for a dubious laugh

The Daily Examiner, 6 May 2009

Is it just me - or does this cartoon figure look suspiciously like Kevin 07 supposedly receiving that $900 cheque from the last economic stimulus package?

Someone needs to remind the cartoonist that Rudd's parliamentary salary alone precludes him from receiving this cheque.

Cap'n Clog to the rescue!

Nationals MP for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker is in the local media again.
This time pledging that he will fight for "the same payment for Coffs and Clarence flood victims that was given to Ingham residents".
Bravo Lukie!

Just don't tell the locals that the $1,000 for each person you are talking about was only for those caught up in a major disaster whose principal place of residence has been destroyed or significantly damaged, home was inaccessible for over 48 hours or more, as well as those who have been seriously injured and hospitalised as a direct result of the floods (according to Centrelink which distributed the funds as Disaster Recovery Payments).
Or remind locals that these Queenslanders were in 36 local government areas declared disaster zones in the one widespread flooding in 2009 and some had been inundated during similar flooding in 2008.
And keep very, very quiet about the fact that low-income earners whose homes has been damaged in the 2009 Bellingen, Coffs Harbour, Nambucca and Clarence Valley flooding could apply for Personal Hardship and Distress Grants.

In early 2009 the Liberals Ian MacDonald got to his feet in the Senate and eloquently put the case for generous assistance for northern Queensland.
Even Malcolm Turnbull spoke in support of those in northern Queensland.
I can't find any record of Luke Hartsuyker rising to his feet in the House of Reps to plead for local flood victims this year.
Instead he puts out a couple of short press releases in April, writes a letter to Rudd and becomes indignant when it is fielded to the Minister for Community Services.
If he couldn't be bothered to tell Parliament, why would anyone think that he is serious now.
When are our North Coast pollies going to realise that their past inaction is on the Web for all to see at the click of a mouse?

UPDATE:
Over 15 hours after I posted this opinion, Luke Hartsuyker finally asked a question without notice about flood payments:
"My question is to the Prime Minister. Following the recent disaster recovery payments made to residents of Queensland affected by flooding, why has the Prime Minister not acted decisively to provide similar cash payments to victims of recent flooding on the New South Wales North Coast? Has the Prime Minister broken his promise to the Australian people that he will govern for all Australians?"

Is 'The Daily Examiner' the Voice of the Clarence Valley?

The less than totally frank account of Clarence Valley Council's 2009/10 rate structure by the Grafton-based news publication, The Daily Examiner, casts serious doubt on its claim that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley.

For the second year in succession Clarence Valley Council has reduced Grafton's rate levies, leaving ratepayers in the rest of the shire to make up the service cost difference.

But instead of recognising this burden, The Daily Examiner reported on a move to "ease the burden of Grafton and Junction Hill ratepayers..." claiming "Their rates remain the highest in the valley" [DE 8.5.09].

Were they?

Unfortunately this Grafton-based news publication omitted from its list Grafton's average rate, despite giving the average rates of all the other centres of population within the Clarence Valley for 2009/10:-
Farmland avg rate $1036.71
Coastal villages avg res rate $992.23
Yamba/Wooloweyah avg res rate $960.48
Iluka avg res rate $738.65
Maclean/Townsend avg res rate $681.59

Gulmarrad/Woombah etc avg res rate $671.14
Lawrence avg res rate $641.69

The truth is the average Grafton rate is $879.14 and that certainly does not "remain the highest in the valley".
In fact perusal of Clarence Valley Council's past rate structures show that they have never had the highest average rates in the valley.

A news publication with any integrity would have included the average residential rate in Grafton along with the rest of the list provided by Clarence Valley Council.

Therefore any claim by The Daily Examiner that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley must be greeted with scepticism.

The subject of Grafton's rates is not new to The Daily Examiner.

Prior to forced local government amalgamation, The Daily Examiner's 30th November 2001 headline read "COUNCIL CRISIS" reporting Grafton City Council's spending commitment blowout had reduced its working capital from $500,000 to $32,000.

On the 18th June 2003 The Daily Examiner 's headline "Hip pocket nerve" reported Grafton City Council as signing off on a rate hike of 3.25% above the pegged rate 3.60 per cent to fund its lavish abundance of services.
By that time Grafton City Council already had the second highest average rate ($662.00) of local government areas in the region and this further increase above the pegged rate propelled it to the top.
Maclean Shire Council's average rate at that time was lower at $552.00.

Grafton City Council had no-one to blame for its high level of rates but itself.
It had the opportunity to reduce its level of services in line with its income, but chose instead to increase its rates.

However despite its increase in rates, its auditors reported that Grafton City Council was still unable to meet its massive service costs and after raiding its internal reserves of some $900,000 it came into forced amalgamation $412,000 in deficit leaving the Maclean Shire Council surpluses to subsidise it.

But not a word of this situation from the supposed voice of the Clarence Valley, the Grafton-based Daily Examiner's sabres were silent.

The amalgamated Clarence Valley Council's subsequent budgets reveal a rates increase for all population centres except Grafton with no additional services included.
While Grafton received a less proportionate increase with no decrease in services.

The Daily Examiner's omission of Grafton's average rate from its article of the 8th May 2009 and its incorrect claim that Grafton rates "remain the highest in the valley" was not just a failure to be totally frank with its Clarence Valley readers, it left an obvious impression that it is parochially biased and is pushing its own agenda.

As the only daily news publication in the Clarence Valley, The Daily Examiner must surely have an obligation to act responsibly, report facts accurately, be impartial and display the utmost integrity.
Otherwise it has no right to refer to itself as The Voice of the Clarence Valley.

RAY HUNT
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Blue Dolphin Holiday Resort mystery

The Blue Dolphin Caravan Park Holiday Resort mystery.

Image from HomeHound

There had been rumours drifting on the wind for some time that current and planned Mitchell family partnered developments on the Clarence Coast were not as sought after as was previously anticipated by investors.

Now comes confirmation that all is not rosy in the garden and the possibility that sell-offs are in the air:

In June 2008 we anticipated that there would be some pick up in the residential market but no further sales have been forthcoming for the Stage 1 development. After a number of reviews with the Mitchell family the decision has been made to place the development of Blue Dolphin on hold, since it is unlikely there will be significant demand for coastal resort style residential property for some time. We have therefore not taken possession of Stage 1 of the site or increased the debt facility as originally envisaged in our June 2008 Investor Update.
There have been a number of parties interested in acquiring Blue Dolphin, however the Responsible Entity (RE) has determined that current offers are not in the interests of unitholders. There are five years left on the Freespirit lease, and there is a substantial concept plan approval on the site. The concept plan approval has another 3.5 years to run before a construction certificate will be needed for a substantial commencement of the first stage, and it is expected that the residential market should pick up by mid 2010.

Selling off individual Blue Dolphin cabins does not appear to indicate confidence in the way ahead, but many Yamba residents will welcome the news that the NSW Government-approved proposed overdevelopment of this waterfront site is delayed.

As for other Mitchell interests - according to Mariner Coastal Land Fund (the unlisted property trust) Yamba Waters has unsuccessfully been offered for sale.

It is also understood that, due to the global financial crisis, Babcock and Brown is seeking a buyer for its percentage of the Angourie Rainforest Resort which it apparently accquired in 2006.