Strange coincidence

The stars must have been aligned this week for nit nose pickers. First, Jason Chatfield's Ginger Meggs appeared in Wednesday's Daily Examiner:

Then, Dr Joan Croll had this piece in the letters columns of The Sydney Morning Herald:

Credits: www.gingermeggs.com   The Sydney Morning Herald

Examples of NSW legislators' very own handiwork are cause for concern

If the 2011-2012 Register of Disclosures by Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly, which was tabled in the chamber recently, is anything to go by then there's enough evidence to say that some of those so-called honourable persons should be sitting a NAPLAN-style test of their own to examine their capacity to perform basic literary and numeracy tasks, and thus satisfactorily perform their roles as representatives of their constituents.

Honestly, some of them are struggling to attain primary school levels of attainment.

Take a look at these examples:


That, believe it or not, is the work of a Minister. Phew!
Comment: Pathetic! The Minister has a Masters Degree. Perhaps a ghost writer helped with the Minister's thesis.


That one was submitted by a first term MP who resides on the Government benches in the chamber.
Comment: Must do a lot better. Pay attention in class and complete all set homework.


That, too, is the the work of a Government MP.
Comment: Sympathies are extended to ratepayers in the MP's local government area.

Several MPs have difficulties with their principals and principles (see below).

Those MPs aren't half smart. The effort of another MP has shown them up well and truly - if in doubt, use short-cut method #1.

Or, to throw readers off the trail completely, do something completely different and use method #2.

Okay, so who did what?

The samples have been taken from the disclosures by:

1. The Hon. Donald Loftus PAGE, BEc, MEc, DipRurAcctg MP

Member for Ballina

Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast
Member of the The Nationals

2. Mr (Chris) Christopher Stewart PATTERSON, MP

Member for Camden

Member of the Liberal Party

3. Mr (John) Giovanni Domenic BARILARO, MP

Member for Monaro

Acting Speaker
Member of the The Nationals

4. The Hon. Linda Jean BURNEY, HonDEd, DipEd MP

Member for Canterbury

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister for Planning Infrastructure and Heritage, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation, Shadow Minister for the Hunter, and Shadow Minister for the Central Coast
Member of the Australian Labor Party

5. Again, the work of Mr Barilaro who is, quite obviously, a serial offender.

6. Ms Tania MIHAILUK, BEc, LLB MP

Member for Bankstown

Shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Shadow Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Shadow Minister for Volunteering and Youth
Member of the Australian Labor Party

7. And, who were the smarties?

#1. Mr John ROBERTSON, MP

Member for Blacktown

Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister for Western Sydney, and Shadow Minister for the Illawarra
Member of the Australian Labor Party

#2. Ms Clover MOORE, MP

Member for Sydney

Independent

Sources:

1. 2011-2012 Register of Disclosures by Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly

2. MPs' profiles shown on the NSW Parliament website

Cripes! Andrew Stoner - rapidly elevated and staged a political takeover

Seems Andrew Stoner is now Australia’s Acting Premier and Minister for Trade and Investment. Well, that's what an international publisher for the exhibition, conference and events industries is saying.

Read it for yourself:

AUSTRALASIA - Australia’s Acting Premier and Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Stoner will be the inaugural Patron of Business Events Sydney’s (BE Sydney) Ambassador Programme, a business development programme that helps to secure international events for Sydney and the state of New South Wales.

The publisher is aptly named. It's Mash Media. Perhaps Stoner provided MishMash with the information in the first place.

Richmond Valley Council declares moratorium on new coal seam gas projects. When will Clarence Valley Council do likewise?

Today's Northern Star reports:

Richmond Valley Council has joined the growing list of Northern Rivers councils to declare a moratorium on new coal seam gas projects.

Councillors voted to approve the moratorium (Stuart George, who works for Metgasco, and Charlie Cox excluded themselves from the vote) despite previously having opposed a moratorium.

NSW Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham, who is the party's spokesman on mining, said it was clear the coal seam gas industry "has not got a social licence to operate in NSW".

"Local government is acting to fill the void left by the state government's failure to implement a moratorium on coal seam gas," he said.

"Santos Chief Executive David Knox's assertion that opposition to coal seam gas has 'peaked' is just wishful thinking. We saw a massive rally in Sydney recently, and 7,000 people marched through Lismore just last weekend. Community understanding and concern continues to grow.

"Last week Marrickville Council voted against allowing coal seam gas at St Peters, and Dart Energy canned their plans to drill. Narrabri Council is considering a motion to stop coal seam gas; Lismore Council has a moratorium; Moree Council, Leichhardt Council, Kyogle Council, Tweed, Byron, Wollongong Council, Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly have all expressed concern.

"There is nothing like a looming election to focus the mind of elected officials, and Councillors across NSW are recognising that the community wants to protect their land and water from the threat of coal seam gas.

"Congratulations to Richmond Valley Council for standing up for their community and a healthy environment."

Oh what a difference a day or two (doesn't) make in the media

The Daily Examiner Letter to the Editor on 11 May 2012 alerted regular readers to a problem in the veracity of its reporting:

Too much info is barely enough

IT WOULD appear that too much information is never enough for some in regards to the Education Tax Refund (or the new Schoolkids Bonus).

It has been reported (DE 8/5/12) that some families will be worse off under the new scheme, however, this is difficult to reconcile with the information provided regarding both the old and new scheme. Under the old scheme, parents were able to claim 50% of eligible expenses, irrespective of how much they spent during the year. For a primary school student, this meant that in 2011/12 under the ETR a parent could claim a maximum of $409 in rebate, which would mean they had incurred $818 or more in eligible expenses. If Ms. Franklin-Hentscher intended to claim 50% of her $2100 in expenses, for a single primary school-aged child, she would still only have received $409, which is the maximum allowable refund. She also suggests that tuition fees are claimable, which according to the ATO website is also incorrect.

Under the new scheme, Ms. Franklin-Hentscher will be eligible for $410 in rebates, and will not have to produce a single tax receipt to do so. Unless there is more information regarding this individual situation that has not been reported, to suggest that this change is "a kick in the teeth" is quite bewildering.

Michael Clark

Grafton

Editor's note: We acknowledge an error in reporting of this story and issued a correction in our online version. Mr Clark is correct and the error was based on an assumption during an interview that was not checked properly, needless to say the reporter in question was a little embarrassed.

The Daily Examiner 8 May 2012 article in question:

Not all parents better off with Schoolkids Bonus

SOME families will be worse off under the Government's proposed Schoolkids Bonus which promises an annual payment of $410 (for primary students) and $820 (for high school kids).

Those who spend more than $820 on their primary school child's education or more than $1640 on their high school child would be better off under the existing Education Tax Refund which gives parents 50% of costs back through the tax system.

Maclean mother Nicole Franklin-Hentscher, who worked out yesterday she claimed half of the $2100 she spent on claimable education items this year, described the policy change as a kick in the teeth and "the last nail in Julia Gillard's coffin".

Nicole's daughter Indiana attends St James Primary School, Yamba, and while her school fees were not claimable, tuition fees, uniforms, books, internet and other resources were.

"Julia Gillard has lied to us and given us a mining tax that wasn't meant to be there and a carbon tax that wasn't meant to be there, why not kick us a little more," she said.

She said parents who could prove they were spending the money on education were being penalised and this new handout method removed that incentive.

Others, including South Grafton mum Amy Morgan, welcomed the news.

"This seems to be great considering how much cost goes into uniforms each year and by doing it twice a year helps parents with summer and winter uniforms," she said.

Ms Gillard said the ETR had not been working as families were forgetting to keep receipts or could not find the cash to buy necessary equipment in the first place.

About 1.3m families will benefit from the bonus which will be introduced in parliament next week.

Sources in Canberra said the Schoolkids Bonus would be paid for out of the 2011/12 budget alongside the ETR.

The online ‘corrected version as of 5.06 pm 11 May 2012 differed only in the headline,
Bonus doesn't benefit everybody (which continued the published untruth), and rider at its end:

Terry Deefholts has taken responsibility for an error in reporting above. The Education Tax Refund can be claimed for 50% of specific education costs and is capped to a maximum of $794 for primary kids and $1588 for high school kids. The article above suggests that larger amounts be claimed therefore parents would be worse off under the new Schoolkids Bonus - this is incorrect. The Examiner apologises oversight.

Further information: http://www.educationtaxrefund.gov.au

Unfortunately both the letter, www.educationtaxrefound.gov.au and the 2012-13 Budget Papers clearly demonstrate that the online ‘correction’ itself is misleading in that there is still an implication that large amounts had been claimable in the past - without pointing out that the cited $794 (primary) and $1,588 (high school) caps only ever resulted in tax refunds of $397 and $794 respectively in 2010-11.

Because the federal government website states; The Education Tax Refund provides up to 50% back on a range of children's education expenses.

For the 2010–11 tax year refunds may be as much as $397 for every child at primary school, and up to $794 for every child at secondary school. The amount of the refund increases each year by the Consumer Price Index. In the 2011-12 tax year your refund could be as much as $409 for primary kids and $818 for secondary students.

While Budget Paper No. 2 states; From January 2013, every family with a child at school will be guaranteed $410 per annum for each primary school student and $820 per annum for each secondary school student. All eligible families will receive the full rate of payment and will no longer need to keep receipts as proof of expense, or wait until tax time. Eligibility for the payment will remain open to families with children enrolled and attending school who are in receipt of Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB A) or other qualifying income support payments or allowances under a prescribed educational scheme that precludes the family from receiving FTB A. [my red bolding throughout]

What is clear is that the entire premise of both these articles in The Daily Examiner is incorrect and should never have been written and then published under those headlines. Both types of rebate rise and are to be paid at the maximum rate for each child attending school.

What makes the situation worse is that an opinion piece in the newspaper's 11 May issue appeared to assert that although the journalist could be trusted to spend the Schoolkids Bonus wisely, others might spend some of it on "booze, pokies, plasma TVs, remote control cars - anything but education" and that this bonus was "not healthy". Effectively dumping on at least a million families across the country. One could almost believe that APN's Grafton masthead belonged to the Murdoch media stable.

In all fairness, the erroneous premise of the original story should have been questioned from the start by the newspaper's editor and the blame lies squarely in that quarter when it comes to allowing publication.

As for Ms. Nicole Franklin-Hentscher who so unreasonably feels cheated by the Gillard Government - there are no words to describe the level of silliness being displayed.

Unfortunately bungled reporting has a life of its own and the Internet now owns this misinformation in all its glory.

Why are NSW taxpayers forking out for this man's salary?

Why are we paying this man's salary? Must be a question many NSW taxpayers ask themselves whenever they come across statements made by arch-buffoon the Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC.

Excerpt from Hansard transcript  for NSW Legislative Council, 10 May 2012:

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [10.57 a.m.]: I agree with the Hon. Trevor Khan when he said that Mother's Day allows for an expression of love and commitment to one's mother. The nature of motherhood is unconditional love, irrespective of circumstances, irrespective of facts and irrespective of what foibles and faults our mothers have. I am pleased that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann has expanded the motion because I would like to talk about a different form of motherhood.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Talk about Lee Rhiannon and Mother Russia.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: There is no better example of this than Lee Rhiannon and her love of Mother Russia. Lee Rhiannon and the Brown family's love of Mother Russia is a wonderful example of an unconditional, irrational love that transcends all boundaries. The Brown family have loved Mother Russia for many, many years, despite all that they know. They loved Mother Russia when Mother Russia executed 20,000 people per month in the two years immediately following the Bolshevik revolution. They loved Mother Russia when the bayonets were driven into the Romanov family, including the children.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: My point of order refers to relevance. The motion is about Mother's Day. It has nothing to do with the country of Russia, which is clearly the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' line of argument.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The motion has been expanded by way of an amendment moved by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. I may well have my own motion at the end of this debate that may seek to amend the amendment. I am speaking to both the amendment and the substance of the original motion.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Members have not gone outside the purview of talking about women in this country and the relevance of Mothers Day. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is well outside the leave of this motion; he is well outside the purview of any debate within this Chamber. He is specifically talking about international relations and Russia. It has nothing to do with this debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Lynda Voltz is incorrect. The Hon. Trevor Khan spoke about the origins of Mothers Day in the United States. So we are talking about Mothers Day around the world.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion. If he intends to move an amendment I suggest he do so quickly. His comments would be relevant if they related to his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am speaking about the love of Lee Rhiannon for her family, who were staunch members of the Communist Party for many years. I can only presume that it could not have been her own intellectual rationalisation of communism which caused her to do that. It must have been a blind and unswerving adherence to her own mother, Freda Brown, a staunch member of the Communist Party, which prompted her to do it. After all, no sane and rational human being, knowing of the murder of Trotsky or the disgraceful behaviour of the Communist Party after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was announced, could possibly have done this. It must have been her mother and her love for her mother.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: In your last ruling on relevance, you advised the member to move his amendment if he wished to be generally relevant to the debate. I have not heard the member move his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I am speaking specifically about a relationship between a mother and her daughter, and the close relationship occasioned by that relationship.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Earlier you ruled that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps needed to move an amendment to be relevant. He is flouting your ruling; he has not moved the amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Further to the point of order: I am no longer speaking of international relations; I am speaking about a relationship between a mother and her daughter. If I am not allowed to use practical examples of the relationship between a mother and a daughter in an examination of Mothers Day and the nature of motherhood, then I am not sure how I can further progress the argument in relation to the original motion.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I do not uphold the point of order. While members are participating in a lively debate, I encourage them to be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: We can envisage the quaint and delightful evening scene—an idyll of bliss—around the dinner table where Bill and Freda Brown would be discussing with Lee, their young daughter, the wonders of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and how the glories of the Five-year Plan had led the Soviet Union into a new, peaceful and wonderful era.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance again. The member is now talking about the Five-year Plan in Russia. At no point in his last statement has he drawn the attention of the House to either Mothers Day and its relevance to our community or to the women of Australia.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Earlier members—including the Hon. Cate Faehrmann—raised the issue of domesticity and the enforced domesticity of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, with some critical aspect to it. During those 1940s, 1950s and 1960s there was a level of enforced domesticity where women were supposed to stay at home, cook, sit around the dinner table and chat, and look after their children. The Brown family is an example of this. I can imagine them sitting around the table, justifying the Rosenbergs' treason against the United States with their nuclear espionage.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: While the Government Whip may take great sport in defaming a woman who has been dead for three years, I do not see the relevance of this individual to the debate. The member is out of order by making references to somebody who is not relevant to this debate. What happened in the Brown household is not part of a Mothers Day debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann has previously raised issues of enforced domesticity and I am going through examples of the sort of situation you would find in a 1950s family.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is flouting your ruling on relevance. On numerous occasions he goes directly back to talking about Russian foreign policy. That is of no relevance to this debate on Mothers Day. At no time has this member spoken in regard to Mothers Day and its relevance to women in this country.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: It was clearly recognised at the time—and indeed by some left-wing academics today—that domesticity and the role of females is an integral part in understanding class theory. If one does not address this, one is basically saying that this Feminist-Marxist interpretation has no validity. I am quite happy for the Hon. Lynda Voltz to say that Feminist-Marxist interpretations have no validity whatsoever but I do not believe she is going to say that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: The member has not spoken about domesticity in the 1950s. He has constantly referred to one family and referenced that to Russia and Russian foreign policy. I appreciate that the member has now found the feminist view of history useful to him. However, I ask you to bring him back to the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member's comments need to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: As people become older, they move away from their mothers—the traditional phrase is "moving out from behind one's mother's skirt". But it appears that, for many people—especially in the 1960s—they did not merely move out from behind their mother's skirt but they took up the causes which had so enlivened their mothers. There is no better example of this than Lee Brown, as she then was, and her maintenance of strong links with Communism. She supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I feel obliged to do this and will perhaps end up doing this all day. The member is constantly flouting your ruling. He is constantly referring back to Russian foreign policy, which has nothing to do with the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Teenagers move into adulthood, and adulthood brings with it a greater understanding—especially when one becomes a mother—of one's mother's position. Certainly, that was the case of Lee Brown. As she moved into adulthood she came to appreciate her mother's position on a range of issues far greater than she had in the past. In relation to the State of Israel, the invasion of Czechoslovakia—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: If the member thinks that the particular political position of one particular mother in New South Wales is relevant to this debate, then I am mystified. This is a debate about motherhood. How could offensive remarks about one particular individual be relevant to this debate?

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order. If we are not permitted to illustrate the development of an individual, from her first contact with her mother through to becoming a mother herself and understanding the nuances and complexities of one's life as we move along that journey, how can we give true appreciation to the heartfelt sentiments behind this motion?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Once again, I uphold the point of order. I again remind the member to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Finally, I would like to say: Happy Mothers Day.

Peterintg Time was right to call Phelps a troll and it would appear from the above Hansard quote that his nasty habit is not just confined to Twitter.

Oakeshott follows Abbott's lead to the detriment of the Australian electorate

My personal views is that those findings [in the FWA report] are damning enough that the Parliament does have to respond in some form," Mr Oakeshott said.

Only in an Australian Parliament irrevocably tainted by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s politically opportunistic and totalitarian world view, would an Independent Member of the House of Representatives so forget himself as to decide that action should be taken against a fellow parliamentarian BEFORE any criminal charges were laid and the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided to go forward with criminal court proceedings which resulted in a conviction.