How Australians used online social media in October 2012

 

Essential Report 23 October 2012:

 

Use of online media

 

 

52% say they use Google at least daily and 46% use Facebook at least daily.

Google is used more by – aged 18-24 (74% daily), aged 25-34 (63%), Greens voters (65%), income $1,600+ pw (61%).

Facebook is used more by – women (53% daily), aged 18-24 (82%), aged 25-34 (60%), Greens voters (55%).

Newspaper websites are used more by – aged 25-34 (28% daily), Lib/Nat voters (25%), income $1,600+ pw (30%).

Other news websites are used more by – men (42% at least several times a week), aged 25-34 (48%)

Blogs are used more by – aged 25-34 (38% at least once a week), Greens voters (45%), income $1,600+ pw (28%).

Campaign websites are used more by – aged 25-34 (31% at least once a week), Greens voters (40%).

Twitter is used more by – aged 18-24 (24% at least once a week), aged 25-34 (29%), Greens voters (26%).

 

Dumbing Down The News: Google decides tourism promotions with a biblical theme are important news

 

This nonsense was displayed by Google News on 28 October 2012:

 

A date with biblical history

 

The Dead Sea is the stuff of biblical legend and mystery. In the book of Genesis, Moses explains the Dead Sea was formed when God told Lot and his family to flee the area. They were told not to look back. Lot's wife couldn't resist, and when she did look back, she was turned into a pillar of salt - and the Dead Sea was born.

 

A ride from the airport to Dead Sea Spa Hotel

 

Setting sail in the Dead Sea

 

“You know Jordan is a country rich with biblical history, Dead Sea which is mentioned a lot in the bible is where I am taking you people. You will be residing in a hotel which is constructed along its shores, another place you should not miss to see is Mt Nebo which is famously known in the world history because it is the place where Moses died and his remains where buried there.”

 

We checked in to the Spa Club Hotel

Administrative Decisions Tribunal decision will allow the community to see true cost of logging the NSW's native forests

 

The Daily Examiner 29 October 2012:

 

An Administrative Decisions Tribunal decision in late September will allow the community to see "the true cost of logging the state's native forests for the first time", according to the Nature Conservation Council of NSW (NCC), the state's peak environment organisation.
The NCC had appealed against a Forests NSW decision refusing to give information about wood supply agreements in the state's north.
In its judgment the tribunal stated "there is a clear public interest in an agency that is dealing with public assets being accountable for the manner in which it contracts to sell those assets."
For years we have been told by governments and bean counters about the importance of the "user pays" principle. This undoubtedly means the costs of an operation should be covered by those reaping the benefits of the operation.
There are both administrative and infrastructure costs to the public purse in providing logging companies with access to the community's forests.
While logging companies have been paying royalties for the trees they have harvested, their payments have not covered these costs. Indeed Forests NSW has been running at a loss for years, particularly with regard to its native forests operations.
Given various state governments' concerns about expenditure and recouping costs, it is astounding that State Forests has for so long been able to operate at a loss. Perhaps the fact that wood supply agreements have been kept secret has helped delay any move to remedy this situation.
North Coast Environment Council (NCEC) president Susie Russell stated, "For too long the high price of the environment and the community is paying to see the state's native forests being cut down has been kept secret. This decision will now contribute to more sustainable management of our native forests."
A 2009 auditor-general's report into native logging found that if existing pricing arrangements were rolled over without being subject to careful and fair review the community would incur economic loss. Hopefully, now that the existing arrangements can be made public, there will be an increased incentive for the government to ensure that the community's timber resources will be appropriately priced.

Leonie Blain

Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

 

So why did Grafton have to lose its gaol and the Clarence Valley economy take a hit when the O'Farrell Government's budget was in surplus by June 2012?

NSW Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament, 31 October 2012:
 

The 2011-12 Budget Result was a $680 million surplus, $1.4 billion better than expected.....

The Budget Result was $1.0 billion better than predicted in the 2012-13 Budget Papers published in June 2012.....

Total revenues and expenses for the whole-of-government were $71.3 billion and $69.6 billion respectively, resulting in a Net Operating Balance of $1.7 billion surplus....

The State had around $10.0 billion of cash and cash equivalents at 30 June 2012 ($11.8 billion). Most of the decrease was due to the transfer of $3.8 billion cash to the State’s superannuation investments. This cash was the proceeds from last year’s electricity transactions.

Total revenues, including revenue from taxation, grants and subsidies, sales of goods and services, interest, dividends and income tax equivalents, all increased in the year ending 30 June 2012. The State is fat with Commonwealth grants and subsidies, currently has over $300 billion in assets, mostly property, plant and equipment and still has a AAA international credit rating.
 

So why was it so urgent to suddenly close Grafton Gaol in June-July 2012 and put at least 100 local people out of work at short notice?

 

Ah, of course - O'Farrell & Co could get their sums right for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund but couldn't add up when it came to the General Government Sector and decided to cry poor.

Since the announcement that the NSW Government now has a budgetary surplus, there have been two conflicting political untruths uttered:

When asked if restoring the Grafton jail to its former capacity was a possibility in light of the surplus, [NSW Deputy Premier] Mr Stoner said 'it was all in the mix.'

"It (the surplus) is not there. The underlying position of NSW remains in deficit," [NSW Treasurer] Mr Baird told reporters in Sydney on Wednesday.

UPDATE:

A third conflicting political untruth has been put forward by the NSW North Coast Nationals; Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis said the billion-dollar surplus was merely the result of dodgy accounting on the part of the Federal Government.
"This billion-dollar surplus is just extra revenue the Commonwealth has brought forward," said Mr Gulaptis. "It is just a combination of stimulus funding and the Federal Government bolstering their position." 

Will you help to save your local NSW Environmental Defenders Office?

This isn't just about coal and coal-seam gas -- this is about the Left agenda to destroy the economy - NSW Minister for Resources and Energy Chris Hartcher in The Australian 26 October 2012

Minister Hartcher should visit Lismore and surrounding areas. At the recent local government elections a poll showed nearly 87% of Lismore voters rejected CSG exploration and production in their council area. I'm sure the residents of Lismore would be amazed to find that they are part of a "Left agenda to destroy the economy" - Cr Simon Clough, Lismore City Council, in The Northern Star 30 October 2012

 

Will you help us to save your EDO? After nearly 30 years of helping the people of NSW to protect their environment and heritage under the law, EDO NSW faces an unprecedented threat to its survival and we need your help to ensure we can continue to assist you in public interest environmental matters. Please read on to better understand the problem and what you can do to help. POLITICAL PRESSURE In recent days, the NSW Energy Minister attacked EDO NSW's involvement in last weekend's community conference in Gloucester. The conference provided an opportunity for community members to obtain information on developments across NSW and was attended by farmers, elected representatives and the broader community. This latest comment follows months of repeated attacks in The Australian newspaper, the National Civic Council and in NSW Parliament, mainly by Shooters and Fishers Party MPs. These are unjustified attacks on our work as lawyers for the environment.  Click here to see our letter of October 19th 2012 to NSW Government Ministers and MPs responding to these attacks. FUNDING CRISIS The NSW Government is now being urged to stop EDO NSW funding under a review of legal assistance services. At the same time, the major source of our annual funding - which comes from the Public Purpose Fund of the Law Society of NSW (PPF) - has been cut. We have been receiving PPF funding since 1996, normally under three-year grant agreements, and our work has been actively supported by the Trustees. The first cut was to 6 months (July-December 2012); and as of this month has been reduced to only 3 months (January-March 2013), with the dollar value cut by a quarter.  As a result, both our PPF funding, and NSW Government funding, must now be considered at risk. THE PROBLEM This damaging uncertainty makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a strong, independent EDO, that can offer ongoing help to clients, and serve the wider community, while operating free of the politics of the day. If our PPF funding is not restored and public funding affirmed then EDO NSW as you know it will be decimated if not destroyed in the New Year. This is occurring at the same time as the Government is pursuing its signature reform of the planning laws, with the avowed intention of restoring community participation and public confidence after the dark days of fast-tracking major projects under Part 3A. THE SOLUTION The uncertainty can be solved by the NSW Government making clear its strong and unambiguous support for ongoing PPF and public funding of EDO NSW, ideally with cross-party agreement in the Parliament. In this way, community participation and public confidence in the planning and environment system can be maintained. WHAT YOU CAN DO We need our many supporters to speak up long and loud. Please do any or all of the following: Contact your local Member of Parliament to call for their support to save EDO NSW, and to express your support. You can find contacts for your local MP at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3Home Contact the Premier (office@premier.nsw.gov.au or ph: (02) 9487 8588), the Attorney General the Hon. Greg Smith (office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au or ph: (02) 9228 5246) and the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure the Hon. Brad Hazzard MP (office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au or ph: (02) 9228 5258) Speak to your local media and look for opportunities to support us such as calling in to radio talkback Share this email with anyone you think might care about EDO NSW. We also welcome your donations to EDO NSW OUR FUTURE If the current situation goes unchanged, it means we will have to lay off most of our valuable, highly professional and tireless staff early in the New Year, and begin dramatically scaling back or shutting down our popular key community services including: Free legal advice telephone line – we took nearly 1500 calls last year Community workshops – 95 across NSW in the past three years, with about 95% in rural and regional areas Rural and regional work – a major focus for the past 10 years, with a regional office in Lismore, and support to communities on key issues like native vegetation, water plans, coal seam gas, mining, private conservation and local planning Indigenous program – unique support to the Aboriginal community on culture and heritage Education and publishing – major guides/handbooks, and 40 much-used Fact Sheets, and a major new guide on mining set to be published Policy and law reform – including extensive input to the current major reform of the NSW planning laws, with 2400 hits on our online guide to the Green Paper during the submission period Court cases and mediation – ensuring high quality cases get heard and those with poor prospects are filtered out, which has led to many important environment cases on behalf of communities from the cities to the bush If NSW loses its EDO, the community's only source of accessible, independent, expert, public interest legal advice on planning and environment matters since 1985 will disappear. If that alarms you, then please take a stand. Help us to save your EDO. Yours sincerely, Jeff Smith, Executive Director P.S. We are trying to reach as many EDO NSW supporters as possible so our apologies if you receive this email more than once. Thank you for taking the time to make your voice heard for your EDO. Address: Level 5, 263 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: 02 9262 6989 Email: edonsw@edonsw.org.au Website: edonsw.org.au

We saw whales! versus Don't trash my home! The two faces of regional tourism

 

The Daily Examiner publishes a letter from another satisfied holidaymaker on 25 October 2012:

 

Good stuff, council

I just spent a delightful week in Yamba.
Can you imagine my surprise when I picnicked in Ager Park on a beautiful sunny day and the view from my picnic spot was wonderful?
Twelve months ago when I was here on my annual holiday, all I could see in Ager Park were weeds (bitou bush) and trees.
I did not know the view was so spectacular.
We saw whales.
I asked a local who had cleared this bush and I was told Clarence Valley Council.
I would just like to congratulate the Clarence Valley Council on the wonderful job; and you haven't allowed the environmental propaganda to block your view.
Three cheers to Clarence Valley Council and see you next year.

Terry Mortimer
Wagga Wagga

PS My daughter said that from Ager Park she saw a black-tailed wallaby in the Pippi Beach sandhills.

The next day the same newspaper published this:

River vandals

We have run a cattle property on an upper tributary of the Clarence River for five generations. The river habitat up here is healthy and supports a rich biodiversity, which we value greatly.
People camp illegally by the river on a TSR (Travelling Stock Reserve) that is leased by our family and although we often clean up rubbish left by campers, most camp responsibly, leaving little or no trace of their visit.
Last weekend, however, a large group came and left the place looking like a war zone. Large amounts of rubbish, including cans and broken beer bottles, were strewn everywhere. Along with disposable nappies, piles of uncovered human faeces, soiled toilet paper and fishing lure packets (despite the river currently being closed to fishing).
Worse still, areas of pasture were destroyed by reckless vehicle activity and several beautiful old bottlebrush trees were chopped down. Cleaning up the filth yesterday, I wondered, why try to make the place look good again if it's only going to encourage more people to come and trash it. I can't understand how these campers thought it was okay to treat part of the Clarence Valley with such disrespect and leave it in such an awful state.

Clinton Killen
Cangai

 

ICAC concludes Operation Jarek and publishes report into corrupt conduct in local government and public authorities

 

In October 2011 the NSW Independent  Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) began an investigation into 110 local government and public authorities.

 

Ballina, Byron, Bellingen, Clarence Valley, Lismore and Tweed  councils were on ICAC’s list.

The Commission obtained evidence indicating that gifts in excess of $116,000, including gift vouchers totalling at least $64,380, were provided to public officials working for the majority of the 110 authorities over the period reviewed.

 

In a 29 October 2012 media release ICAC stated:

 

From the outset of the ICAC's investigation, it became apparent that the provision of incentives by businesses to public officials in NSW was widespread.

Given the sheer scale of the alleged corrupt conduct and the finite resources and time at the ICAC's disposal, the ICAC decided to focus its investigation on the conduct of employees of 15 of the 110 public authorities in NSW whose staff were alleged to have received gifts from suppliers.

These 15 public authorities, selected after assessing a number of factors including the value of the gifts received, were Ballina Shire Council, Bathurst Regional Council, Broken Hill City Council, Burwood Council, Byron Shire Council, the Council of the City of Botany Bay, the Council of the City of Sydney, Lithgow City Council, Liverpool City Council, Narrandera Shire Council, Orange City Council, the Roads and Traffic Authority, Walgett Shire Council, Waverley Council and Yass Valley Council.

 

ICAC’s 29 October 2012 Fact Sheet further stated:

 

The ICAC found that the following people engaged in corrupt conduct by receiving gifts and benefits from supplier companies as an inducement to continue placing orders with these companies or as a reward for placing orders with these companies: Glen Lapham of Ballina Shire Council, Graham Gibbons of Bathurst Regional Council, Anthony Harman of Broken Hill City Council, Ronita Tompsett of Burwood Council, Robert Vagne of Byron Shire Council, Donald Harris of the Council of the City of Botany Bay, Jeffrey Duncum, Edwin Roger Martin, Christopher Myers and Robert Nies of the Council of the City of Sydney, Steven McMurtrie and Lee Warner of Lithgow City Council, Maxwell Bancroft and Amjad Maaya of Liverpool City Council, Mathew Kelly of Narrandera Shire Council, Peter Evans and Peter Lewis of Orange City Council, Phillip Burnie of the Roads and Traffic Authority, Mark Ward of Walgett Shire Council, Scott Ingwersen and Peter Naidoo of Waverley Council, and Kerry Smith of Yass Valley Council.
 

More generally, the Operation Jarek Investigation Report (October 2012) found that:

 

In NSW, most local councils and public authorities have a code of conduct and a gift register. Many have a policy banning the receipt of gifts and provide training to their staff on this policy.

Despite this, the investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“the Commission”) found that a large number of public officials across 110 agencies took gifts without declaring them, contrary to such policy and training.

The gifts accepted far exceeded any reasonable concept of token value, and included holidays, television sets, camcorders, DVD players, iPads, iPhones, coats and gift vouchers.

The Commission found that agencies generally focused on having rules in place around the acceptance of gifts, but did not consider corruption risks in the broader relationship between buyer and supplier, and the opportunity for corruption in their procurement and inventory management systems…..

 

The Commission has made 15 corruption prevention recommendations to all councils in NSW, as it is evident that the conduct uncovered in this investigation is systemic and all councils should take action to mitigate these risks.

While the recommendations are mainly aimed at local councils, the Commission considers that other public authorities can also learn from this investigation and they are encouraged to read this report and the recommendations contained herein.

 

Recommendation 1

That councils communicate to suppliers a clear set

of supplier behaviour expectations and the associated

consequences for non-compliance.

Recommendation 2

That councils develop a proactive and comprehensive

supplier engagement framework.

Recommendation 3

That councils review their codes and policies on gifts and

benefits to ensure they effectively communicate expected

behaviour in a way that the intended audience can easily

grasp.

Recommendation 4

That councils ensure that their policy provides that all staff

who hold financial delegations are prohibited from receiving

gifts of any kind.

Recommendation 5

That councils ensure that staff training on gifts has a focus

on the disciplinary consequences of accepting gifts.

Recommendation 6

That councils assess which of their staff members operate

in an environment where relational selling is commonplace,

and equip these staff members to recognise and respond to

these sales tactics, including the offer of gifts.

Recommendation 7

That councils, if they have not already done so, analyse

their procurement processes to identify points of

corruption risk and take steps to improve the design of their

procurement processes.

Recommendation 8

That councils, if they have not already done so, consider

introducing e-procurement as an efficient method of

controlling possible vulnerabilities in their system.

Recommendation 9

That councils, if they have not already done so, review

which reports are available to the managers of stores and

ensure they (councils) can generate a report showing the

orders placed by any individual across all cost centres.

Recommendation 10

That councils, if they have not already done so, analyse

inventory management systems with a view to improving

controls and reducing waste.

Recommendation 11

That councils examine options for control of their

pull-based inventory and implement an option that is

suitable for their operations.

Recommendation 12

That councils, if they have not already done so, organise

their stores so that all items are labelled clearly, stock is

securely stored and movement of all goods in or out of the

store is recorded on an integrated inventory management

system.

Recommendation 13

That councils ensure stocktakes are conducted

independently of store officers and by staff knowledgeable

about the principles of stocktaking.

Recommendation 14

That council management assesses the residual risk in its

store and, if appropriate for the organisation, conducts

random spot checks or cycle counts of select aspects of

inventory management.

Recommendation 15

That councils, if they have not already done so, consider

the risks highlighted by this report, namely,

• relational selling and gift giving

• procurement processes

• inventory management,

and, where they consider the council is at risk, add these

topics to their internal audit programs.

 

View full report