NSW Hansard and a case of 'but, butt, but, butt, but'!

Sometimes I wonder how those hardy souls sitting patiently in the NSW Parliament recording for Hansard can actually bear the job, with exchanges like this often being the order of the day:

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama) [3.53 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge all those members who made a contribution to the debate, particularly the positive words spoken by my parliamentary colleagues the member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock, and the member for Shellharbour, Lylea McMahon. I was very pleased that the member for South Coast gave the road between Dunmore and Oak Flats, which is the matter we are discussing today, a big tick. The member for Bega asked why I did not acknowledge the Federal money in the project. I want to make it very clear that not one cent of Federal money has gone into the Dunmore to Oak Flats section of the road. They were his words. I do not think the member for Bega understands how this funding works. I agree with the member for South Coast, who said that she would be happy to see that southbound lane opened. I certainly will be because it is still creating a little traffic congestion. However, motorists can see that things are moving ahead extremely well. The member for South Coast then put her big "but" in the debate.
Mrs Shelley Hancock: Point of order: I ask the member to withdraw that remark. It is highly offensive. It is not that big!
Mr MATT BROWN: To the point of order: The member was going along positively and then she said "but".
Mrs Shelley Hancock: I ask the member to withdraw that comment.
Mr MATT BROWN: I am not withdrawing because it is a part of my argument. I did not mean any offence but after a big "but" the debate became negative.
Mrs Shelley Hancock: Madam Deputy-Speaker, I ask you to rule on the point of order I have raised. I take offence at that comment.
Mr MATT BROWN: It is a one "t" but.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kiama has indicated he is not prepared to withdraw the word "but".
Mr Andrew Constance: Point of order—
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I hope the member for Bega rises on a valid point of order.
Mr Andrew Constance: Madam Deputy-Speaker, based on your facial expressions you knew full well what the member for Kiama meant in that remark. Therefore, I ask you to direct the member for Kiama to withdraw that sexist remark.
Mr MATT BROWN: You are wasting time. If I offended the member for South Coast I apologise. It was not my intention. I was referring to the member for South Coast saying "but".
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kiama has indicated that he was referring to the word "but". The member has the call.

NSW Parliament Legislative Assembly 27th October 2009 Hansard transcript

Talking of sea level change.......

The U.S. University of Colorado has a webpage dealing with sea level change and an interactive map which allows one to plot sea levels for particular areas such as the one below using a lat/long on the NSW North Coast (based on surface height anomoly data from 1992-2009).

Click on images to enlarge

NEWSPOLLING: don't kid yerself, Kev - it's not all about asylum seekers

3rd November 2009 Newspoll release

The Australian's publication of the latest Newspoll results last Tuesday showing the primary vote now a neck-and-neck battle between Labor and the Coalition parties is not as simple as the media is attempting to make out.
It's not all about what journalists think is sexy copy of the moment - asylum seekers.
The Rudd Government is beginning to wilt in the public's eye for many reasons.
Let me count some of the ways:

• Overall policy response to climate change, particularly its pale and insignificant attempt at an emissions trading scheme
  
• The total screw-up which inevitably flowed from federal government accepting the racist premise behind the former Howard Government's NT Intervention and continuing with its provisions
  
• Conroy's obvious determination to censor what information we can access on the Internet
  
• A lazy, late and environmentally dangerous response to the Timor Sea massive oil spill
  
• Supporting a manifestly corrupt Afghan Government
  
• The shocking raid on universal health care that cut the scheduled fee for cataract surgery in half, as well as failure to fix ailing state public hospitals and inadequate dental health programs
  
• Ditto for broken promise to quarantine the one-off increase in the single pension so state government housing authorities and aged care accommodation providers couldn't take a bite
  
• Each and every Labor state government for numerous reasons, including perceptions of incompetence and corruption. 02/11/09:Bimonthly reading of New South Wales voting intention and leaders' ratings {May not be your fault Kev, but you're not helping by appearing to support these drongos}
  
• Peter Garrett and Peter Garrett and Peter Garrett.

At least half of the issues on this list would resonate with those voters under 50 who appear to be the disenchanted according to Newspoll's latest.
The way your going Kev, it's almost as if you're keen to be a one hit wonder.

It's the first Tuesday in November and they're off!

It's the day of the Melbourne Cup in Australia and like the rest of the country North Coast Voices is preparing to stand still for this historic horse race.

Back tomorrow.








Here is the field.......

Click on image to enlarge

Photograph from Google Images and race field information from Racenet

Journalist Janet Albrechtsen gloriously loses the plot and Nationals MP Kay Hull joins in

The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen decides that no-one in Australia has bothered to read the 2009 CopenhagenTreaty (which at this point is as full of caveats as any other U.N. draft document) and goes downhill towards media madness from there until she comes to a point of secret plans for world domination and Rudd Government reluctance to tell all:

SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? .............
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: "This is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.".......
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do," he says........
Put aside Monckton's comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.

Joining her in this folly is none other than the Nationals MP for Riverina, Kay Hull, who told Parliament:

There will be laughter from across the chamber, I am sure, at these words. But, believe me, we are entering dangerous waters. Who will be the banker? I believe that we will have the world's biggest cartel. It will be more powerful than anything we have seen before. I was so pleased to see another journalist doing some research on this issue of who will be the banker. Janet Albrechtsen has done what other journalists were too lazy to do, or maybe they were too intimidated. On 28 October 2009, in an article in the Australian entitled 'Beware the UN's Copenhagen Plot', the journalist demonstrated enormous bravery in raising the lack of detail on the Copenhagen meeting, and her work on the draft treaty is absolutely commendable. She has covered the intentions to control the once-free markets—namely, the financial and trading markets.......

Before we all start sewing red banners to wave at our new overlords perhaps a quick reference to language; "government" has other meanings beside the body which governs a sovereign state, it can also simply mean the overarching decision-making/management body of an institution.

An explanation which makes Ms.s Albrechtsen and Hull look rather 'tired and emotional'.
Time for a cup of tea and a lie down perhaps?

Does Federal Health & Aging Minister Nicola Roxan believe that some eyes are more equal than others?

Australian Federal Minister for Health and Aging Nicola Roxon has made much of what she describes as technological advances and efficiencies reducing straightforward cataract removal to minor eye surgery requiring a lower Medicare rebate (ophthalmologists are already subject to an individual Medicare annual cataract surgery quota according to one local optometrist).

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? If it takes less time and effort to perform this surgery it makes sense that the operation is worth less than the $650.25 2008 Medicare scheduled fee - it's not just a government cost cutting measure hitting the low-income elderly the hardest by reducing this fee to $350.95 per No. 42698 procedure.

Except that according to the Australian Medical Association, a higher existing cataract surgery scheduled fee will still apply to operations performed on returned service personnel.
This fee being set independently of Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Rudd Government obviously wary of taking on the RSL has left it intact - improved medical procedures it seems in this case are besides the point.

Here is how this new schedule appears to work for all other Australians accessing eye surgery through Medicare:

On 28 October 2009 the Senate passed a motion to disallow MBS items 42698, 42701, 42702 and 42718 relating to cataract surgery, from the Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Regulations 2009 . This effectively meant there would have been no Medicare rebates available for those services from 1 November 2009. On 29 October 2009, the Minister for Health and Ageing the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, signed a Determination, in accordance with section 3C of the Health Insurance Act 1973 reinstating those items. As such, rebates will be available from 1 November 2009 at the following rates:
























The NSW Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association media release on 31 October 2009:

"Fee-free access to cataract surgery will remain available to veterans, but pensioners and others on low incomes will have to pay hundreds of dollars extra for their treatment," said Antoine Mangion, CPSA Policy/Research Officer. "One has to wonder what makes a procedure on a veteran so special as to warrant maintaining the current rebate if the Government finds it so justifiable to slash the rebate for others, especially pensioners."

The Minister needs to explain to low-income families, pensioners and retirees living on the NSW North Coast and across the rest of Australia why she considers that some people's eyesight is worth more than others. ?

Cataract remains the leading cause of blindness globally

[World Health Organisation, May 2009]

In 2007 Monsanto spent US$4M+ on lobbying, in 2008 it spent US$8M+, while in 2009....

Graph U.S. Agricultural sector lobbying expenditure 2009

Monsanto & Co. continues to expand its dominance of the world seed and genetically modified food additive markets with certain of its corporate expenses rising each year this century.

In 2006 this biotech multinational spent over US$3 million on lobbying governments and government agencies. By 2008 it was spending over US$8 million. In 2009 so far Monsanto & Co has spent over US$6 million on similar activities.

It is only one of 342 agricultural sector lobbyists in the United States listed by Open Secrets but is by far the biggest spender this year.

The U.S. agricultural lobby sector in 2009 is worth $25,721,913, has made over $2 million in campaign contributions for the American 2010 election cycle to date and Monsanto is in the top five donation contributors.

In February of this year Monsanto approached the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking a ruling that stearidonic (SDA) omega-3 soybean oil was generally recognised as safe.

Monsanto intends to market SDA soybean oil as a food ingredient in the United States in a variety of food products including baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products, milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes. SDA soybean oil will be added to foods at levels that provide 375 mg SDA/serving.

Now it is reported that Monsanto is positioning itself to release soy-based GMO omega-3 oil on the market sometime after 2010 and according to a Monsanto media release the FDA has announced this month that genetically modified omega-3 oil is safe to use (however the FDA makes it plain that it has solely relied on Monsanto's own assessment).

Are we getting close to quod erat demonstrandum?

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.