Friday 16 September 2011

Did Clarence MP, Steve Cansdell, do an "Einfield"?

Shock! Horror!
Steve Cansdell, the NSW MP for Clarence, has thrown in the towel and is quitting state parliament after serving just six months of the current parliamentary term of four years . Early reports suggest the former pugilist may have taken one punch too many, causing him to sign a statutory declaration that contained something significantly less than the truth.

Burrunan Dolphin: celebrating Australian biodiversity in 2011



Monash University September 15, 2011:

Congratulations to Kate Charlton-Robb, Lisa-ann Gershwin, Ross Thompson, Jeremy Austin, Kylie Owen, and Stephen McKechnie for spending those long hours to bring Australia this welcome news and thankyou to Monash University and the unidentified funding stream which allowed this research.

PLoS ONE article here.

Who is further along the human evolutionary path?

Picture 1
Picture 2

Question: Who is further along the human evolutionary path - the unknown male Australopithecus sediba in Picture 1 or the unidentified members of the Republican Party represented by the orange line and the Tea Party represented by the dark red bar in Picture 2?
Answer: The young fella in the first picture. Republicans and Tea Party-ites seem to have stopped evolving before hominids developed opposable thumbs and here's the proof.

Thursday 15 September 2011

O'Farrell Government to rob 68,000 NSW pensioners of millions every year



In 2009 the Rudd Labor Government increased the base rate of Australian pensions.

Since then those NSW pensioners renting social housing (who comprised less than 5 per cent of all public/community housing tenants in the state in 2010) have been fighting a rapacious state government which immediately saw this increase as a jam pot which it could dip into in order to improve its fiscal bottom line.

It would do this by taking 25% of the payment increase from the approximately 68,000 pensioners in NSW public housing, nearly one-third of whom are probably 65 years of age or older.
The windfall would come to an estimated $13.2 to $16.5 million annually for the NSW Government – depending on how many lone person households there are in this group.

In September 2011 the O’Farrell Coalition Government announced in the budget papers that it intends to commence stealing these millions from elderly, disabled and widowed pensioners.

NSW Nationals MPs who dominate North Coast electorates are remarkably silent concerning this theft. Why should they care - after all they are sitting quite comfortably on a salary package of over $140,000 per year plus an electoral allowance.

Those old hoax emails are doing the rounds again



A case of what goes around, comes around……..

A hoax email tailored for local scenes:

***
Subject: CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS/THIS IS NOT A JOKE PLEASE READ

CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT


I bought a bunch of stuff, over £150, & I glanced at my receipt as the cashier was handing me the bags. I saw a cash-back of £40. I told her I didn't request a cash back & to delete it. She said I'd have to take the £40 because she couldn't delete it. I told Her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came & said I'd have to take it.. I said NO! Taking the £40 would be a cash advance against my Credit card & I wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!! If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order & re-scan everything! The second time I looked at the electronic pad before I signed & a cash-back of £20 popped up. At that point I told the cashier & she deleted it. The total came out right. The cashier agreed that the Electronic Pad must be defective.

Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered me the £40 at the beginning. Can you imagine how many people went through before me & at the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?

Just to alert everyone. My co worker went to Milford , Sainsburys last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for a receipt and the cashier was annoyed and gave it to her. My co worker didn't look at her receipt until later that night. The receipt showed that she asked for £20 cash back. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR CASH BACK!

My co-worker called Sainsburys who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money. She then called her niece who works for the bank and her niece told her this. This is a new scam going on. The cashier will key in that you asked for cash back and then hand it to her friend who is the next person in the queue.

Please, please, please check your receipts right away when using credit or debit cards!

This is NOT limited to Sainsburys; they are one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents.

I am adding to this. My husband and I were in Sainsburys and paying with credit card when my husband went to sign the credit card signer he just happen to notice there was a £20 cash back added. He told the cashier that he did not ask nor want cash back and she said this machine has been messing up and she canceled it. We really didn't think anything of it until we read this email.

I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one????

To make matters worse ...THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!!

BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!

THIS COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE. CHECK YOUR RECEIPT BEFORE LEAVING THE STAND. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE DO JUST THAT. NOW I'LL START! PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS, KIDS, LOVED ONES.


***
Subject: SOME GOOD ADVICE
CHECK YOUR RECEIPTS BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUTA New Zealander bought a heap of stuff the other day while holidaying in Australia (over $450), and when he glanced at his receipt as the cashier was handing him the bags, he saw cash out of $20.  
He told her he didn't request any cash and to delete it. She said he'd have to take the $20 because she couldn't delete it. He told her to call a supervisor. The supervisor came and said he'd have to take it.. he said  “NO Bloody way!”
Because taking the $20 would be a “cash advance” against his credit card and he wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!!
If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order and re-scan everything! The second time he looked at the electronic pad before he pinned in his number and again cash-back of $20 popped up.
At that point he told the cashier and she deleted it. The total then came out right.  The cashier said that the Electronic Pad must be defective. Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered him any cash after either of the transactions. 
Can you imagine how many people went through before him and by the end of her shift how much money she pocketed?
His wife went into a “Coles Warehouse” last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for the receipt and the cashier seemed annoyed but gave it to her. 

She didn't look at her receipt until later that night when back at their hotel. The receipt showed that she had asked for $20 cash. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY CASH, NOR WAS SHE GIVEN IT!
So she called “Coles” who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money.  

When back in NZ they then spoke with a friend who works for one of the banks; they told them that this was a “new scam” that was bound to come to NZ, especially around Christmas time.  
The cashier will key in that you asked for cash and then hand it to one of her friends when they next come through the check-out queue.
This is NOT limited to Coles; they are just one of the largest retailers so they have the most incidents.
I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one????

To make matters worse ... THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE, AT ANY RETAIL OR WHOLESALE LOCATION!!!
IT COULD HAPPEN ANYWHERE. CHECK YOUR RECEIPT BEFORE LEAVING THE CHECK-OUT........CHECK YOUR RECEIPT!!!!!.  

I've since seen people do just that….. SO NOW I'LL START!

PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS, KIDS, LOVED ONES let’s not get ripped off.

Wednesday 14 September 2011

State of Play: budget honesty and policy costings in September 2011


This is what the Australian Gillard Government intends to implement:

1. The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011 (PSA Bill) would, if enacted, amend the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 , which governs the Parliamentary Departments, and other Acts to establish the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (the Officer), and the purpose, functions and governance of the PBO.
2. Specifically, the PSA Bill would:
· Establish the PBO as a fourth Parliamentary Department, establish the Officer as an independent officer of the Parliament, and provide for the employment of PBO staff and the governance framework of the PBO;
· Establish the mandate of the PBO to inform the Parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals;
· Establish the functions of the PBO to respond to requests for policy costings and other requests relating to the budget, from Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, with responses able to be undertaken in a confidential manner upon request outside of the caretaker period, and in a manner consistent with the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 (the Charter) during the caretaker period;
· Enable the Officer to enter into arrangements to access information from Australian Government agencies, consistent with other legislative requirements ;
· Establish the duties and authority of the Presiding Officers in regards to the PBO, including overseeing the operation and administration of the PBO; and
· Establish the duties and authority of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) in relation to the PBO, including enabling the JCPAA to consider the operations and work plan of the PBO.
3. The Bill would also amend several other Acts to enable the establishment of the PBO, namely:
· The Charter would be amended to extend the caretaker period in a manner consistent with the definition in the Guidelines on Caretaker Conventions to when a Government is sworn in following an election, clarify access to the election costing functions, minimise the duplication of policy costings, and update references within the Act;
· The Freedom of Information Act 1982 would be amended to include the PBO and the Officer as an exempt agency; and
· The Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 would be amended to ensure that the Acts encompasses the position of the Officer.
4. The PSA Bill forms an important element of broader parliamentary reforms, which will enhance the credibility and transparency of the Commonwealth's already strong fiscal and budgetary frameworks. These changes have been developed in collaboration with the relevant Ministers and their Departments, and with the Presiding Officers.
5. The proposed amendments have no further impact to the underlying cash balance as funding of $24.9 million was allocated over 4 years to establish the PBO in the 2011-12 Budget.

This is what the Coalition under Tony Abbott asserts that it wants to see, as set out in Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey's two private members bills:

· a new body, accountable to the Parliament rather than the Executive, much like the Auditor-General or Commonwealth Ombudsman;
· independent, to enhance the transparency and accountability of the budget process, and help deliver better policy and financial outcomes for Australian taxpayers;
· well resourced, to ensure it is effective;
· tasked with providing objective and impartial advice and analysis across the parliament on the Commonwealth budget and budget cycle, including the impact of major policy announcements; and
· headed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who will be appointed by the presiding officers of the parliament on the advice of a committee of senior government officials, with an office of highly trained staff, whose calibre will reflect the Office's status as an independent body.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Clause 32(4) of the Bill stipulates that:
"The appropriation of funds for the PBO in a non-election year must not be less than 3.5% of the departmental appropriation for the Department of the Treasury."

OUTLINE
The Charter of Budget Honesty Act (1998) was intended to produce better fiscal outcomes through institutional arrangements to improve the formulation and reporting of fiscal policy.
A key element of the Charter were arrangements for more equal access to Treasury and Finance costings of election commitments by the Government and Opposition.
One shortcoming of these arrangements for the Opposition is that they require the agreement of the Prime Minister for Opposition costings to be submitted to the Departments of the Treasury and Finance.
They also require the public release of the costing of a policy which has been submitted.
These arrangements create an environment where costings are not confidential and cannot be challenged or reviewed prior to being made public.
The Coalition has introduced the Parliamentary Budget Office Bill 2011 which seeks to establish an independent statutory authority which will provide objective and impartial advice and analysis on:
· The Commonwealth Budget and budget cycle;
· Medium and long-term budget projections;
· The costs of policy proposals; and
· Other matters as requested by Members and Senators.
The policy costing function of the PBO will differ from that in the Charter of Budget Honesty. Requests by non government MPs or Senators for policies to be costed will not require the agreement of the Prime Minister. Further, the costings will be confidential as they will not be able to be released to the public without the express approval of the relevant MP or Senator.
The costings provision in the PBO will supersede and make redundant the comparable provision in the Charter of Budget Honesty.
The Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment Bill 2011 removes the redundant provisions from the Charter of Budget Honesty.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This Bill will have no financial impact.

While this is what the House of Representatives 12 September 2011 debate reveals concerning the Coalition's bills:

·         Should Joe Hockey's bills fail to pass and the government's poor imitation of a costing service pass this place, the coalition will not submit its policy costings to either the Treasury or the PBO prior to the election.
··         The MP or senator requesting  a costing will control the timing of the release of the policy costing  and No longer will requests for policy costings and the costings themselves be published as soon as they are received and prepared by the departments of Treasury and Finance. This provision applies at all times, even during an federal election campaign, and the electorate may never be told of the costings advice received because it must provide for policies not to be released at all if that is the decision of the relevant parliamentarian.
·         The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot publish anything in relation to a request to provide advice made by an individual Member or Senator without the consent of the Member or Senator.
·         The Prime Minister can withdraw his/her own formal request for costings advice but the Leader of the Opposition cannot withdraw his/her own request once it has been submitted.
·         The Coalition's Budget Office would in practice be overseen in many of its functions by the Minister for Finance and not by Parliament.
·         The Attorney‑General can forbid the Budget Office to publish certain information or disclose this information to Parliament, particularly if the federal government of the day wished to keep sensitive information from a state government.

It would appear that under any future Abbott Government voters are to be kept in the dark about all problems concerning the cost implications of existing policy and/or election campaign promises.

Jaysus wept buckets - it's the other climate theory!


The basic argument which appears to be put forward here (by journalist Anne Jolis writing in The Wall Street Journal) is what has been called ‘The Other Climate Theory’ ie., solar winds affect cloud formation and clouds initiate temperature increases and therefore are a cause of global warming, which is ergo beyond human control.
“The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.”
The article attracted over 1,000 comments and gave rise to this video, that in its turn further distorts CERN’s
ongoing research which does not draw a link between clouds and climate change:




http://online.wsj.com/video/the-other-climate-theory/DDA61D17-339F-4F0F-95E3-325026562A7F.html

I have to wonder why reputable scientists bother to publish rebuttals
such as this when the Murdoch meeja just writes what it wants to believe.