Proposed 2009 NSW electoral boundary changes

Image from AEC 2009 Report of the Redistribution Committee - Maps

Click on image to enlarge

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has released its 2009 Report of the Redistribution Committee outlining proposed New South Wales electoral redistribution.

Here on the NSW North Coast the AEC proposal is to leave Richmond electorate unchanged, reduce the total number of electors in Cowper by 256, with the Page electorate picking up these 256 Elland voters as well as 1,094 voters in the area north-east of Amosfield, Sandy Hills and Ewingar State Forest in Tenterfield LGA from the Division of New England .

Lyne electorate will see the entire Gloucester Local Government Area transferred into its boundaries but otherwise remain unchanged.

UPDATE:

Antony Green's summary of proposed redistribution outcomes - NSW North Coast

Cowper
Held by Luke Hartsuyker
Very minor boundary adjustment with Page.
Old Margin National 1.2%
New Margin National 1.2%

Lyne
Held by Rob Oakeshott
Won by Independent Rob Oakeshott at a 2008 by-election. At the 2007 election, Lyne was won by the National Party with a margin of 8.6%. Gains Gloucester from Paterson.
Old Margin Independent held
New Margin Independent held

Page
Held by Janelle Saffin
Only minor boundary changes with the transfer of areas around Drake from New England.
Old Margin Labor 2.4%
New Margin Labor 2.2%

Richmond
Held by Justine Elliot
Unchanged.
Old Margin Labor 8.9%
New Margin Labor 8.9%

While out in the blogosphere Utegate goes LOLZ...

Teh Utegate tail from then to now according to various animalehs from lolpolz (in very much shortened form here):

KRudd

MalcolmAFP

KRudd

ALP

Annie from Byron

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.

One little minnow's.........

....view of the universe at I can has cheezburger.

And the political point was?

I'm still pondering why Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull thought he needed to share a recent photograph of himself with the Twitterverse - one which had no political or social significance by itself?
Get a life, Mal!

Turnbull gets a serve concerning rights and obligations of Australian public service employees

Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull gets a serve he deserves via this media release from the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Lynelle Briggs:

Media release - Disclosure of information: rights and obligations of Australian Public Service employees

Issued 6 August 2009

'It is extraordinary and quite wrong that comments are being made claiming that it is reasonable for public servants to give Government information to Opposition parties. This isn't normal practice, nor is it usual practice, and it is not whistleblowing,' the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Ms Lynelle Briggs, said today.

'It is not commonplace for public servants to meet with Opposition parties to brief them before Senate Committee hearings, and it should never happen without the knowledge and consent of their agency head or Minister.'

'As public servants, we serve the Government, regardless of its political complexion. That is the simple constitutional reality. It is not part of our role as APS employees to serve the Opposition. By convention this means that public servants should have little contact with Opposition or other non-Government parties and requests for briefings are referred to the relevant Minister's office. This is a key consideration in the way in which we manage official information.'

Ms Briggs explained that 'the integrity of the Australian Public Service (APS) is fundamental to its good standing, its credibility and its legitimacy as an important national institution'.

'The APS is required by law to be apolitical, impartial and professional, and to be openly accountable for its actions. Public servants are also required by law to behave honestly and with integrity and to act with care and diligence in the course of their employment. They must comply with all Australian laws, not provide false or misleading information, and maintain appropriate confidentiality about their dealings with Ministers.'

Ms Briggs noted that these duties are set out in the Public Service Act which contains a strong ethical framework to guide the behaviour of APS employees in their working lives.

The APS Values impose a legally binding duty on all APS employees to serve the Government, to be responsive to its requirements and to be accountable for the way in which the public service helps it achieve its goals.

Explaining what this means in practical terms, Ms Briggs said:

'It means that, as public servants, we do not allow party politics to interfere with giving unbiased and objective advice to Government; it means we implement the decisions of Government irrespective of what our own views might be about them; it means we provide the same level of policy advice, implementation and professional support to every government, irrespective of the party in power.'

Ms Briggs said that public servants who leak information are often confused in the media with whistleblowers. 'A leaker is not a whistleblower.'

The Act makes clear that a whistleblower is a public servant who believes that they have uncovered actions which breach the Code of Conduct and who reports them to an authorised person within the public service, which includes the Public Service Commissioner. Whistleblowers maintain the integrity of the system by seeking to correct perceived wrongs through reporting to authorised authorities.

'Leaking involves the unlawful release of official information and is a breach of the Code of Conduct. Leaking, whatever the motive, destroys the trust between the Government and the public service and makes it harder to carry out our responsibilities. It undermines public confidence in the independence and non-partisan nature of the public service and is unacceptable practice for any public servant', she said.

The Australian Public Service Commission clarified this issue last month in a circular to all Australian Public Service agencies (2009/4: Disclosure of official information).

Contact Officer:
Patrick Palmer
Media Liaison and Group Manager
Corporate

Email: patrick.palmer@apsc.gov.au
Tel: 02 6202 3524

Australia's water future explained?

Graphic taken from An Atlas of the Global Water Cycle

Click on image to enlarge

Australian National University E Press has published an online version of An Atlas of the Global Water Cycle.

This atlas seeks to bring together all the IPCC AR4 Climate Models for comparison and states:

We used the above-noted data to compile maps for the globe and for Australia showing precipitation, evaporation and their difference (i.e., runoff) for the historic period (1970-1999) and for the future (2070-2099). Each set of maps is accompanied by tables that summarise the precipitation, evaporation and their difference, by continent, and then by latitude that is further split into land and ocean components. The tables also summarise the differences between simulations of historic (1970-1999) and future (2070-2099) precipitation, evaporation and their difference.

While these maps and graphs are of some academic interest, there is no certainty as to which model is likely to accurately model rainfall patterns for the next 100 years across the Australian continent.

So average laypersons using this atlas are unlikely to be any the wiser when it comes to deciding on the probable level of future water security in the area in which they live, work or run a business.

Oh, Tweety Pie! Wot haz u dun?

Apparently business bots are alive 'n well and watching Twitter for unfavourable mentions.

A timely warning from ComputerWorld:
"A Chicago-area woman is being sued for $US50,000 by her landlord over a critical Tweet, the Chicago Sun-Times reported today. The landlord is quoted as describing itself as a "sue first and ask questions later kind of an organization." The tweet in question appeared to go to fewer than 20 friends of the sender.
Listen people, you can get sued for Tweets the same as you can get sued over something you post to a Web site or blog. You may think you are only tweeting to friends, but unless you select "Protect My Tweets" on your Twitter "account" page your tweets are both public and searchable. Facebook isn't safe, either.
Companies are already using bots to mind their Twitter reputations, alerting them when their companies are mentioned in Twitter conversation. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the lawyers showed up."

And other litigation ruffling Twitter's feathers is also alive and annoying in the good ol' US of A.

Another report from Computer World:
TechRadium, a provider of mass notification and emergency alert systems to school districts, municipal governments, the U.S. military and other organizations, has filed a lawsuit charging Twitter with patent infringement........
The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeks among other things unspecified damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction against Twitter.

The patents Twitter is allegedly infringing are patent number 7,130,389, granted in October 2006 for a "digital notification and response system"; patent number 7,496,183, granted in February 2009 for a "method for providing digital notification"; and patent number 7,519,165, granted in April 2009 for a "method for providing digital notification and receiving responses."

This litigation will be interesting 'cause Twitter was started in March 2006 and TechRadium only had its first patent granted in October 2006.

Cartoon from Flickr
Snapshot from Twitter
Patent image from Free Patents Online