Spot the Difference - today's grey matter testing material

NCV has had reports that versions of Ginger Meggs appearing in APN publications, including The Daily Examiner, are being used in schools and retirement villages to test the grey matter of both the young and old.

1. Ginger Meggs in today's Examiner

2. Jason Chatfield's Ginger Meggs as it appears at gocomics

 

A couple of wags have noticed that APN's version appears a day or two (or three) after the real version appears elsewhere.They suggested NCV provides an advance copy of the Ginger Meggs that is scheduled to appear in the following day's APN productions. They reckon they can work out what APN's edited version will look like. Well, that's food for thought.

Let's give APN another chance to get its house in order and fix up this dreadful situation. Over to you, APN!

Is much of the media coverage of Prime Minister Abbott during the October 2013 bushfires accurate, misleading or downright false?

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was apparently ‘discovered’ almost by accident as he anonymously went about fighting NSW bushfires over the last six days:

Pictures circulating on social media show Mr Abbott riding in the fire truck and giving the thumbs up to onlookers before he posed for photos with fellow volunteers.

However, it appears that it was not just an onlooker or ordinary volunteer who snapped Abbott – it appears to have been the former Senior Studio Director at Skynews whose efforts were first tweeted via a Canberra-based political reporter at Sky News.

Here is one of the three tweeted pictures – all apparently originating in Sky News on 20 October 2013:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust

Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited Network was not content with republishing these images allegedly snapped at around 8am on 20 October – it also used additional images in some of its reporting. Unfortunately those images can only be described as false reporting.

According to The Australian on 21 October 2013:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/tony-abbott-puts-himself-in-line-of-fire/story-fngw0i02-1226743492769

According to Newzzly post two weeks and six days before that, this image actually belonged to the period covering the fire on Barrenjoey headland:

http://www.newzzly.com/en_au/n/milder-conditions-help-fire-fight/142252

This was The Daily Telegraph on 16 October 2013:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/tony-abbott-always-set-to-come-out-fighting-fires-that-is/story-fni0cx12-1226740600883

And this is what a peek at The Daily Telegraph’s 16 October photograph properties revealed:

I am now wondering if any of the Abbott as fire fighter images, being published in mainstream and social media reports on NSW bushfires this month, are in fact genuine.

UPDATE

Found on Twitter:

Lucy J Evans is a young woman who has been active on Facebook since January-February 2012.

On 19 October 2013 The Hawkesbury Gazette published this photograph (photographer unknown) of Tony Abbott at Bilpin on its Facebook page:

US Government-funded Australia Pacific LNG & Queensland Curtis projects at heart of American lawsuit to protect the Great Barrier Reef

For Immediate Release, October 7, 2013 Contact:  Sarah Uhlemann, Center for Biological Diversity, + 1 (206) 327-2344 Teri Shore, Turtle Island Restoration Network, + 1 (707) 934-7081 Doug Norlen, Pacific Environment, + 1 (202) 465-1650 Lawsuit Challenges Second, Massive U.S.-Funded Fossil Fuel Project in Australia's Great Barrier Reef $5 Billion in U.S. Funding Threatens Endangered Sea Turtles, Dugongs SAN FRANCISCO— Conservation groups amended an existing lawsuit today to challenge U.S. funding for a second fossil fuel production and transport facility located inside Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The U.S. Export-Import Bank has now committed nearly $5 billion in loans to support construction and operation of the two massive liquefied natural gas facilities. Located next to each other on Curtis Island near Gladstone in Queensland, the projects threaten sea turtles, dugongs and many other rare and protected marine species, as well as the world-famous Great Barrier Reef itself. “The U.S. federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These liquefied natural gas projects will be deadly to wildlife and will only serve to export our deeply unhealthy fossil fuel addiction.” The Export-Import Bank, a U.S. federal agency that funds international projects to promote U.S. exports, provided a $3 billion loan in May 2012 for the Australia Pacific LNG project, and in December 2012, the bank loaned an additional $1.8 billion for the Queensland Curtis LNG project. Both are located on mostly undeveloped Curtis Island, near sea turtle nesting beaches, a national park and a community of families that live there year-round. The Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network and Pacific Environment sued over the Australia Pacific project last December. Today’s filing amends that lawsuit to include the Queensland Curtis project. "When I flew over Curtis Island recently I was shocked to see the devastation of the marine habitat and sediment plumes discoloring the coastal waters for miles," said Teri Shore, program director for Turtle Island Restoration Network. "I met concerned residents who are heartbroken over the number of dead sea turtles, dolphins and dugongs washing up on shore like never before due to the disruption and pollution from these massive fossil fuel projects." Sea turtles, dugongs and their habitat in the Great Barrier Reef are threatened by both direct and indirect impacts of industrialization, such as dredging, vessel strikes, fuel and oil spills and water pollution. Ship strikes alone killed 45 turtles in Gladstone Harbor in the two years after LNG-project construction began, compared with an average of two a year in the past decade. “Ex-Im Bank has a long history of committing billions of dollars in public financing to environmentally destructive projects abroad,” said Doug Norlen, policy director with Pacific Environment. “But funding two devastating fossil fuel projects in a world heritage area? It’s a new low.” The two U.S.-funded projects will include drilling 16,000 coal-seam gas wells in interior Queensland using controversial “fracking” techniques, digging nearly 500 miles of gas pipelines, and constructing two separate natural gas processing facilities and export terminals. To provide access to sites, the projects require dredging a new shipping lane in the adjacent harbor and destruction of sensitive seagrass beds. Increased tanker traffic will eventually ship the fuel across the Great Barrier Reef to ports in Asia and around the world. The Great Barrier Reef was given World Heritage status to preserve its remarkable natural beauty, coral reefs, and rare dugong and sea turtle habitat. The two liquid natural gas plants will be located within this World Heritage Area’s boundaries. UNESCO, the international body charged with overseeing implementation of the World Heritage Convention, expressed “extreme concern” over the projects’ impacts on the reef. In 2013 UNESCO threatened to add the reef to the “In Danger” list, a designation made when activities of a host country or outside entities threaten a world heritage area. The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2012 in the Northern District of California and amended today, asserts violations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, which implements American obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The case raises the unresolved legal issue of whether the Endangered Species Act applies to U.S. agency actions taken outside of U.S. borders. ###

District Court For The Northern District Of California: First Amended Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief can be read here.

This is what Metgasco and other coal seam gas miners want to turn the Northern Rivers into....

http://youtu.be/1AeWYwBreEY

If you don’t’ want this to happen – at the next round of elections vote out those local government councillors and state or federal MPs who support (or fail to genuinely oppose) the coal seam gas industry.

Roxon on Rudd

Excerpts from Ten housekeeping tips for a future Labor government by former Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.

I must say that Kevin always treated me appropriately and respectfully. Although I was frustrated beyond belief by his disorganization and lack of strategy, I was never personally a victim of his vicious tongue or temper. I did, however, see how terribly he treated some brilliant staff and public servants. Good people were burnt through like wildfire. Loosing senior people like chiefs of staff and deputies or contemptuously ignoring their advice left the government weaker.

On the “keep yourself nice” front, some of the worst behavior was very overt - brazenly sending up your own materials on TV or ostentatiously packing up your office as cameras just ”happen” to be in obscure halls of the parliament to capture the moment. If Labor MPs follow a few basic tips on decent behaviour, and pull others into line when they don’t, then we need never see such shameful behavior again....

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, for the good of the federal parliamentary Labor party and the movement as a whole, Kevin Rudd should leave the Parliament. 

Live on the NSW North Coast and wondering what types of bushfire disaster relief are available?

​NSW – North Coast Bushfires – from 9 October 2013

Australian Government Reference Number 586
Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements

The joint Commonwealth and State/Territory Government NDRRA can provide a range of financial assistance to the natural disaster declared areas in each state.

Funding available includes:

      ·    Personal Hardship and Distress Assistance

      ·    Restoration of Essential Public Assets

      ·    Counter Disaster Operations

      ·    Concessional Loans for Small Business

      ·    Concessional Loans for Primary Producers

      ·    Freight Subsidies for Primary Producers

      ·    Concessional Loans for Voluntary Not-for-profit Bodies

      ·    Grants for Voluntary Not-for-profit Bodies

In the affected Local Government Areas of:

      · Clarence Valley

      · Coffs Harbour

Information on disaster assistance.

Information about Australian Government Disaster Assist.

Details for other regions covered by Eastern NSW Bushfires assistance can be found here.

On 18 October 2013 as bushfires raged up and down the NSW east coast, the Abbott Government performed this act of bastardry

The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (the AGDRP) provides an immediate, one-off payment to Australians adversely affected by a major disaster. [ComLaw October 2013]

Those who have lived through natural disasters before will note that the Abbott Government is no longer paying relief if the October 2013 bushfires in New South Wales have forced an individual or family out of their house for 24 hours or more, or if access to return home has been cut off or if they are stranded at home and unable to leave.

The Schedule 2 clause covering these circumstances in a bushfire major disaster formerly allowed payments if:

(iv)  the person is unable to gain access to his or her principal place of residence for at least 24 hours because:

(A)  access to the place of residence is cut off  or

(B)  the person is unable to leave a place affected by the disaster;

(v)  the person is stranded in his or her principal place of residence for at least 24 hours, or

(b)  as a result of the disaster, the person’s principal place of residence was without a particular utility service for a continuous period of 48 hours;

This is the new criteria template as set out in Social Security (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2013 (No. 5):

I, Michael Keenan, Minister for Justice, make this determination under subsection 106lL (2) of the Social Security Act 1991.

Dated   18th October 2013

Michael Keenan

Minister for Justice

1              Name of determination

        This determination is the Social Security (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2013 (No. 5).

2              Commencement

                This determination commences on the day after it is registered.

3              Definitions

         (1)   In this determination:

Act means the Social Security Act 1991.

destroyed, for a place of residence, includes a residence damaged to the extent that it must be demolished.

immediate family member, of a person, means:

                (a)    the person’s partner; or

                (b)    the person’s natural child, adoptive child or stepchild; or

                (c)    the person’s natural parent, adoptive parent or step-parent; or

                (d)    the person’s legal guardian; or

                (e)    the person’s brother, sister, stepbrother or stepsister.

Note   This term is used in a different sense to that used in the Act.

major damage, for a residence, means:

                (a)    damage to at least a quarter of the interior of the residence; or

                (b)    that the residence is structurally unsound; or 

             (c)    damage to the residence that exposes at least a quarter of the interior of the residence to the elements; or

               (d)    sewage contamination of the interior of the residence, or of the water supply to the residence.

seriously injured, for a person, means:

                (a)    the person has sustained an injury; and

                (b)    because of the injury:

                          (i)    the person was admitted to hospital; or

                         (ii)    under normal circumstances, the person would have been admitted to hospital.

  4            Person adversely affected by a major disaster

              For subsection 1061L (2) of the Act, a person is adversely affected by a major disaster mentioned in Schedule 1 if the person is affected in a way mentioned in Schedule 2.

Note   Subsection 36 (1) of the Social Security Act 1991 allows the Minister to determine, in writing, that an event is a major disaster if the event is a disaster that has such a significant impact on individuals that a government response is required.

Schedule 1  Major disaster

Only the bushfires in New South Wales which commenced on 9 October 2013 and continued in October 2013 which as at 18 October 2013 covered the affected Local Government Areas of Blue Mountains, Lithgow, Muswellbrook, Port-Macquarie Hastings, Port Stevens, Wyong, Wingecarribee.

                Schedule 2  Circumstances in which person adversely affected

A person is adversely affected by a major disaster mentioned in Schedule 1 if:

 (a)    as a direct result of the disaster:

          (i)  the person is seriously injured; or

          (ii)  the person is an immediate family member of an Australian who is killed; or

          (iii)  the person’s principal place of residence has been destroyed
or has sustained major damage; or

 (b)    the person is the principal carer of a child to whom paragraph (a) applies.