What needs to be remembered about the last Sky News bid for the Australia Network

The Australia Network is being criticised as part of the Abbott Government attack on public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Federal Coalition Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is quoted as saying that she is concerned the ABC's $223 million Australia Network is failing to meet its charter obligations and confirming she is reviewing the service's contract and, a former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer stating that he found the Australia Network indefensible.  

In mainstream and social media discussions, the possibility has been raised that this attack is payback for what is alleged to have been a past payback against News Corporation when Sky News lost a 2011 government tender for the Australia Network it had been very confident of winning.

However, everyone is forgetting a little history.

In 2010 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advised the Rudd Government that the ABC was its preferred operator of the Australia Network. However, Treasury and the Dept. of Finance advised that a tender process would be the best option to ensure value for money.

A request for tender was released by DFAT on 4 February 2011. Only two broadcasters responded - the ABC and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd which owns and operates Sky News Australia.

The Secretary of DFAT was the official approver in the Australia Network tender process and, the chair of the Tender Evaluation Board was a former DFAT deputy secretary and ambassador. Approximately seven months later the Communications Minister became the tender approver.

The Gillard Labor Government finally terminated the Australia Network tender process in early November 2011 on legal and departmental advice, after what the Auditor-General has confirmed was confidential tender information was leaked to the Australian media from June 2011 onwards; and in the wake of the five year-long News Corporation U.K. ‘phone hacking’ scandal which resulted in ongoing revelations throughout 2011 and in the U.K. Parliament Leveson Inquiry which began on 14 November.

Australian News Channel was compensated when the tender process was terminated.

Australian News Channel is a joint venture of Nine Digital, a division of Nine Entertainment Co, Seven Media Group and British Sky Broadcasting.

At the time this tender was halted New Corporation owned a 44 per cent share of British Sky Broadcasting through its subsidiary News Limited.

Although these shares were later sold, in 2013 News Corporation (through 21st Century Fox UK Nominees Limited) still retained significant holdings of voting rights in British Sky Broadcasting shares and 21st Century Fox's President & Chief Operating Officer had joined its board of directors.

Rupert Murdoch is Chair and Chief Executive of 20th Century Fox Inc. Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch Family Trust appear to be majority shareholders.

The fact that a major shareholder in a joint venture partner in Sky News was the subject of a U.K. parliamentary inquiry must have factored into decisions resulting from what Prime Minister Abbott is now calling a 'particularly dodgy' tender process.

Given that former senior management and staff of News Corporation (now News Corp) newspapers are still on trial at the Old Bailey in London in 2014 and given the numerous U.S. legal proceedings Murdoch business practices have attracted (20th Century Fox Inc, AGM 2013,Pages 33-37), I would have thought it wise to retain the Australia Network within the ABC and not even consider handing it over to a private broadcasting corporation such as Sky News or to any other joint venture which might be progressed by Rupert Murdoch.

The Daily Examiner's new editor defends our ABC. Well done, Mr. Moase.

David Moase in The Daily Examiner, 1 February 2014, Page 10:

The witch hunt begins

If Prime Minister Tony Abbott thinks he's going to scare the ABC by accusing it of acting against the national interest and starting an efficiency inquiry, he should choose another target.

'Aunty' is more than accustomed to raising the ire of governments and has probably grown a rhino-thick hide over the years.

It should happily front up for the inquiry, lay its cards on the table and stand by its proud record established over many years. After all, the last inquiry into how the ABC spends its money found it was under-resourced.

Surely a government in just its fifth month has more important tasks to confront than launching what appears to be little more than a witch hunt.

Exactly what prompted this week's attacks in the media is unclear, although there are plenty of possible motivations.

To me it seems revenge on a number of fronts, particularly for the former Labor government's decision to renege on a deal for Sky News to broadcast into Asia and to return the rights to the ABC.

At the time that decision seemed like Labor payback to Rupert Murdoch for some of his newspapers' political coverage, and now that scenario looks like it is being played out in reverse. It would not come as any surprise to see the ABC lose its Asia deal at the end of this process.

Surely an experienced politician like Mr Abbott understands the government often dislikes what the ABC broadcasts, just as sometimes those broadcasts will make it pleased.

The ABC's role is to broadcast for the people of Australia - not for the government.

Did Japanese whalers act like irresponsible hoons in the Southern Ocean on 2 February 2014?

http://youtu.be/7QCKpq15qTI

DW: Deutsche Welle 3 February 2014:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, Japan's top government spokesman, said the anti-whaling group known as Sea Shepherd had orchestrated the collision, which took place in the Southern Ocean on Sunday.

"The sabotage activity was extremely dangerous," Suga told reporters.

The spokesman said Japan had urged the Netherlands to take "practical" measures to prevent a recurrence of Sunday's collision.

Sea Shepherd claim the Japanese vessel was responsible for the incident. The group alleged the Japanese ship hit their boat, the Bob Barker, in an effort to drive them away.

It said the harpoon vessel had spent hours prior to the collision dragging steel cables across the bows of the Sea Shepherd's ships in a bid to damage the rudders and propellers.

It was an "unprovoked attack" by the Japanese harpooners, carried out in a "ruthless" fashion, Bob Barker Captain Peter Hammarstedt said.

No one was injured in the incident, although both boats sustained minor damage....

Australia's Environment Minister Greg Hunt ordered an investigation into the collision on Monday, issuing a warning to both groups.

"This must be a message to both parties - whalers and protesters - these are dangerous waters, nobody can play any games with safety, nobody can play any games with international law," Hunt said.

"Everyone must abide by the law and, of course, if there is evidence that either party has breached international maritime law, we will raise it."

Japan is legally permitted to hunt whales in Antarctica for scientific purposes under an exception to a 1986 ban on whaling. The country is reportedly planning to kill roughly 1,000 whales this year....

Australia has appealed to the UN's highest court to outlaw the program. The International Court of Justice is expected to issue its decision later this year.

The only good news story to come out of Australian Customs since 7 September 2013

Operation #findteddy is a success

24-01-2014 –

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) is pleased to announce it will this morning reunite a teddy with her owner, after it was lost at Sydney International Airport on Tuesday, 21 January 2014.

On Wednesday 22 January ACBPS received a Tweet notifying the Service that a teddy bear had been lost at the airport, after a family of passengers arrived back home from an international flight.

ACBPS officers quickly swung into action, launching a search of Customs controlled areas in an attempt to reunite the lost teddy with her family.

After a thorough search officers located the teddy, safe, sound and fast asleep in a Customs controlled area of the Airport, yesterday morning , Thursday, 23 January.

Although she didn’t have a valid passport or any other travel documents, ACBPS officers were quick to establish her identity after a short interview and are confident she can be allowed into the country to be reunited with her family.

While her ordeal was no picnic, ACBPS is confident the teddy will bear up okay.

Media Enquiries:

Customs and Border Protection media: (02) 6275 6793

The Lies Abbott Tells - Part Ten

THE CLOAKED LIE

Mr Abbott also empathised with Hadley, who complained that he and fellow host Alan Jones "who lean a bit to the right" were "belted over the head" "on a regular basis" by the media regulator, the Australian Communications Media Authority, while the ABC was left to its "own devices" and "self-regulation".

"I can understand your frustration," Mr Abbott told the radio presenter.

"At times there does appear to be a double standard in large swathes of our national life." [ABC News 29 January 2014]

THE TRUTH

The rules governing broadcasting content can be found in legislation, standards, licence conditions and codes of practice. These rules cover the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) as well as commercial broadcasters.

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 applies to the ABC and SBS as it does to commercial broadcasters.

There are also additional acts which apply to public broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991.

The Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) has the authority to adjudicate complaints made to it about both public and commercial broadcasters. It exercises that authority.

ACMA has the right to report the ABC or SBS to the Minister if either of these broadcasters do not comply with recommendations resulting from an adjudication. Parliament is then informed of any non-compliance.

ACMA adjudication of complaints about the ABC in 2012-2013 did not find for the complainants in the majority of cases.
Both the ABC & SBS are obliged to appear before Senate estimates committees as part of the regular parliamentary scrutiny of public broadcasting.

ABC current Code of Practice (Revised 2013)

Screenshot from Metgasco Limited proposed unconventional gas drill site at Bentley, NSW

Screen shot from Prime 7 News on 23 January 2014:

You are now on video just to both let you know, and I would like it if you would reverse off my leg [Unknown female at a Metgasco proposed drill site at Bentley on the NSW North Coast]

One of the men this woman was addressing:

Local people at Bentley, around 19 kms from Lismore, started their blockading of gas industry infrastructure on 23 January 2014 in what local and national media have dubbed The Battle Of (For) Bentley.

Clarence Valley Council rating by the numbers

It may be only the second month of 2014, however the vexed question of council rates is a perennial one and North Coast Voices first reader queries of the year were on this very subject.

Quite frankly it has always been a mystery to me as to how Clarence Valley Council actually decides its rates for specific areas, because whatever decision is announced one is always left with a sneaking suspicion that it has less to do with any rating structure framework and more to do with the political influence exerted by certain individuals and specific interest groups.

This appears to be how the Council’s latest attempt to set its rates is playing out.........

In Clarence Valley Council’s minutes of its ordinary monthly meeting of 10 December 2013 it included this table and advice in Item: 14.179/13 RATING STRATEGY at Page 152:

What this data indicates is that the majority of the areas within the Clarence Valley LGA are below the state average in terms of socio-economic wellness. Junction Hill is on par with the State Average, and 166 basis points (20%) ahead of South Grafton, which is on the lower end of the scale. This information should be considered in terms of addressing the affordability aspect when developing the 2014/15 rating structure.

The table appears to have been prepared using an identical table found at .id the population experts.

Rather interestingly, it appears that Clarence Valley shire councillors are being invited by council staff to approach their decision-making from a disease model, if the term "wellness" is any indicator. Apparently they are meant to ignore the fact that the index score table is based on socio-economic characteristics only.

On 10 December these councillors unanimously voted to; adopt the Rating Structure Framework outlined in this report which is to be used to guide the preparation of Council’s 2014/15 Rate Structure.

However, it is always wise to look closely at SEIFA figures used by local government, as not only do these figures vary between Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tables based on the same census, there is often a tendency to attempt to group two or more identified suburbs together which can distort the original ABS published relative index scores.

Thus using Clarence Valley Council’s version of data found in ABS Table 3. State Suburb (SSC) Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage 2011, Clarenza’s score of 1044 is submerged into a district score of 956, Junction Hill’s score of 1008 is similarly hidden in a district score of 996, Grafton’s 921 score becomes 917, while South Grafton drops two points from 832 to 830.

Gleanreagh is given a lower index score in Council’s table when merged with Lanitza, which in this paper merger ends up with a higher score than that assigned to it by the ABS. Similarly Ulmarra ends up with a higher score it its district merger. Waterview Heights loses 24 points off its index score in the district merger with Seelands, which fortuitously has its own high score of 1009 effectively concealed.

In the Lower Clarence the main tourism towns of Maclean, Yamba and Iluka have unaltered scores, but semi-rural Lawrence and Woombah have ABS official scores 33 points higher and 45 points lower respectively than the combined district score given in Council’s version of the published table.

Angourie with its high index score of 1012 doesn’t rate an individual mention in Council’s table, neither does Gulmarrad’s 1007 score nor does Brooms Head’s relatively low score of 866.

As in theory higher index scores may be one possible indicator of less relative socio-economic disadvantage in an identified area, one has to wonder why Council appears intent on minimising certain Upper and Lower Clarence index scores which shire councillors might refer to when discussing any future rate rises.

The question I am hearing most often from Yamba ratepayers is; Why it is that the main coastal tourism town will probably feel the full weight of any rate rises, when Yamba has a higher proportion of people in older age groups of 60 years+, less households with higher incomes and a higher percentage of households with weekly incomes of less than $600, when compared with Grafton or the Clarence Valley as a whole?

When similarly in comparison with Grafton it has fewer people sustaining a high income-earning capacity over time, a higher level of unemployment, less social housing and, higher monthly rental and mortgage repayment costs. 

As well as the valley average for people needing assistance with core activities and less immediate/direct access to the full range of health/community/government infrastructure and services situated in Grafton City and environs.

The next local government election in the Clarence Valley may be in three years’ time but ratepayers have long memories.

Those sixteen current rating categories/subcategories need to be addressed based on more than a north vs south viewpoint and a hope that ratepayers ire will subside quickly once the deed is done.

Councillors need to truthfully explain to their electorate why a large number of properties in urban ‘clusters’ with no obvious relative socio-economic disadvantage, beyond that generally experienced by the valley as a whole when it is compared with the rest of NSW, are likely to be classified as more disadvantaged by the time Council gets around to voting on the base rate and any rate rises.

Especially as SEIFA index scores are not necessarily a good tool to use in setting rates in the first place. SEIFA indexes measure people's access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society. Index scores used by Council are the cruder measures in the comparison range within these indexes.

It needs to be noted that the Australian Bureau of Statistics states very clearly that these index numbers are an ordinal measure and; For example, an area with a score of 1000 is not twice as advantaged as an area with a score of 500 and Also, the index scores are on an arbitrary scale. The scores do not represent some quantity of advantage or disadvantage and The indexes are primarily designed to compare the relative socio-economic characteristics of areas at a given point in time, not to compare individual areas across time.

All 2033.0.55.001 - Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011 data can be found here.

All National Regional Profile 2007-2011 are found here.