Daily Departures: Who will tell us when our friends are having their funeral?

Today's print edition's of The Coffs Coast Advocate and The Tweed Daily News are collector items. After today, both papers will become mere shells of themselves despite bells, whistles and hoopla coming from various APN sources about new, improved online news for readers interested in local news in the Coffs and Tweed local areas. This reader hopes APN keeps its promises and The Daily Examiner and The Northern Star  improve their coverage of the Coffs and Tweed areas.

A correspondent to the Tweed Daily News (you've just gotta luv such dear souls) points out the impact the demise of his Tweed daily will have on "oldies".

Tweed 'infrastructure' lost

Thank you for allowing me to express my views at the local level for the past 12 years.

Along with many others who have spoken to me about your restricted publication we will all miss your Daily News.

Your much read local news and local history is now lost to the Tweed as we grow.

Very few of us "oldies" will follow you on the computer that many do not have or want.

On a very personal note, a number of my friends have asked: "Who will tell us when our friends are having their funeral?"

Part of Tweed's infrastructure has died and we will be lost.

Maybe your Saturday edition needs a section called: "Seen in hospital last week".

Thank you again.

Laurie Ganter

Coal seam gas mining catastrophe

The Coffs Coast Advocate made its final appearance today as a 'daily' ... sad news indeed. Read The Advocate's Belinda Scott tribute to the paper's last edition here.

The letters section of final edition carries a timely reminder of the catastrophic impact of coal seam gas mining - see below.

Coal seam catastrophe

Wake up, Australia. Gas coal seam mining will ruin the land, foul the underground water, foul surface water, degrade the soil and the atmosphere and generally bring about ruin to the families that own property that is subject to a mining lease.

I have recently viewed a documentary on this type of mining and the after effects on the countryside in the heartland of USA, mass destruction of the environment both above ground and below ground, plus the health and well being of land owners, all for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Thousands upon thousands of wells across America from Texas through to New York state.

Toxic chemicals into watercourses, private water wells, soils from one end of the country to the other and all this in a space of 10 years, unrepairable, with the mining companies never admitting liability and as a result little or no compensation for the injured parties.

Government agencies entrusted to monitor the industry in the early days, had no idea what was being used in the fracking process, so that when problems started to surface, government did not have a clue what they were dealing with.

Listening to our NSW and Queensland premiers, doesn't this sound all too familiar? They are so strapped for cash that they are prepared to sell the future of clean, clear water, viable food production, health and well-being of landowners for a miserable short-term dollar return.

Repeal the legislation and nip this in the bud before it becomes a major environmental disaster.

My simple logic tells me that it is going to be impossible to repair a fracture in the rock strata that allows toxic water and chemicals to reach an underground water reservoir, possibly 2000-4000 feet underground, through a six-inch pipe.

Are the miners going to send in trained mice armed with super glue to repair the fracture?

Once the damage is done it will be too late.

What is more important? Water, food, health, land or dollars?

I hope that the people of NSW and Queensland swamp their local politicians with questions regarding this stupidity that they appear to endorse.

M I Randall

Climate Change: lifting the lid on Australia's media

On 1 December 2011 the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism* released Part One of a two-part study called A SCEPTICAL CLIMATE: Media coverage of climate change in Australia 2011 which confirms what many may have suspected about the state of Australian journalism today.

You can download the 70 page PDF, but here are some of the highlights:

There are few media stories in which there is such an obvious public interest as that of climate change. There is no doubt that the subject has been well covered by the media.

In 2009 no topic occupied more media attention in Australia (Media Monitors, 2009) and in 2011 climate policy has again been very high on the Australian domestic news agenda. The quantity of the coverage, however, tells us little about the quality of that coverage.

COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

• Overall, negative coverage of the Gillard government’s carbon policy across ten newspapers outweighed positive coverage across ten Australian newspapers by 73% to 27%. (Note: After neutral items were discounted). (See page 32)

• All papers contained some positive and a substantial amount of neutral material. The highest level of neutral articles was found in The Age and The Hobart Mercury, the lowest level was found in The Northern Territory News and The Daily Telegraph. (See page 32)

• After neutral items were discounted, negative coverage (82%) across News Ltd newspapers far outweighed positive (18%) articles. This indicates a very strong stance against the carbon policy adopted by the company that controls most Australian metropolitan newspapers, and the only general national daily. (See page 33)

• By comparison, Fairfax was far more balanced in its coverage of the policy than News Ltd publications with 57% positive articles outweighing 43% negative articles. (See page 33)

• The Age was more positive (67%) rather than negative towards the policy than any other newspaper. The Daily Telegraph was the most negative (89%) rather than positive of

newspapers. (See page 33)

• Headlines were less balanced than the actual content of articles. (See Figures 7 and 9 on pages 29 and 30).

• Neutral articles were more likely to be headlined negative (41%) than positive (19%). (See page 34)

• Readers relying on metropolitan newspapers living in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane received more coverage of carbon policy issues than readers in Perth, Adelaide and Darwin. (See page 25)

• The Australian gave far more space to the coverage of climate change than any other newspaper. Its articles were coded 47% negative, 44% neutral and 9% positive. When neutrals were discounted, there were 84% negative articles compared to 17% positive. (See page 32)

It is hard to influence public policy if you do not have a voice in the media (Thompson, 1990; Ericson 1989). At the heart of journalism is the relationship between journalists and their sources (Ericson, 1990; Cottle, 2003; Roberts & Nash, 2009). The inclusion or exclusion of sources is one significant way in which media exercises power. An analysis of quoted sources is therefore an important way of assessing the nature of coverage.

More than 11% of stories had no source at all and another 30% of the rest of the articles had only one source. This indicates the one-dimensional nature of many stories.

While some will justify a negative approach by appealing to the important role of journalists to scrutinise government, 31% of news and feature articles with no more than one source indicates that many sources are in fact not held to account. This may in part be due to the lack of resources in newsrooms under stress from a loss of advertising. However, as other media research has shown, this opens up possibilities for well-resourced interests to gain high visibility for their views through press releases including commissioned research and consultants reports tailored to the news cycle. Private power as well as government power needs to consistently scrutinised by journalists.

Political values and support for political policies are embedded in journalists’ reporting either implicitly or explicitly. It is clear that The Age is a more progressive than The Australian but there is no evidence in this study that The Age engages in censorship. Indeed it appears to be considerably more balanced than any News Ltd paper. All papers in this study strongly represented business sources and if any sources were shut out of the debate, it was civil society sources and scientists who supported the policy.

To be positive or negative towards a policy does not imply that a journalist loses impartiality, fairness or a critical approach. Columnists such as the News Ltd.’s Mike Steketee, Fairfax’s Ian Verrender and Peter Hartcher wrote a range of incisive pieces making critical points about both sides of the carbon policy debate. The SMH’s Lenore Taylor held Abbott’s policy and the claims of industry up to scrutiny more consistently than nearly all other journalists.

Just twenty years ago, a Parliamentary Select Inquiry investigated the Australian print media and found that while the media was highly concentrated and this had an impact on diversity, the Inquiry could find no evidence that the media, in particular News Ltd was biased.

Yes, this report has established that the reporting of climate change in sections of the Australian media has been far from impartial, fair or balanced. Is it in the public interest for a media organisation that dominates the market to ‘campaign’ as The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun have done, on an issue which a huge majority of the world's scientists have found threatens the lives of millions? In what circumstances does a lack of diversity and balance, represent a threat to democracy?

Evidence in this report suggests that many Australians did not receive fair, accurate and impartial reporting in the public interest in relation to the carbon policy in 2011. This suggests that rather an open and competitive market that can be trusted to deliver quality media, we may have a case of market failure.

* The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism’s research work on climate change is part of the Global Environmental Initiative (GEJI), a partnership of nine tertiary institutions in Australia and Europe working on research and teaching about the environment and media.

Government attempts to downplay planning and structural deficiencies associated with antimony mining on the NSW North Coast

NSW North Coast Nationals MPs need to explain to their electorates why they continue to tolerate this ongoing threat to water security and, why they are considering a proposal to establish another antimony mine in the Nymboida River system:

ABC Mid North Coast News Macleay River spill sparks contamination fears  

November 29, 2011 14:41:35

There has been another heavy metal spill into the Macleay River from a gold and antimony mine in the upper catchment.

Heavy rain over the weekend caused an overflow from a stormwater dam at the Hillgrove mine near Armidale.

The Kempsey council's infrastructure manager, Robert Scott, says the contamination sounds worse than it actually is.

He says the rain caused the spill but it also helped dilute it.

"At the moment the dams in the Hillgrove mine, because they've received around about 290mm of rainfall for the month of November alone, are full, they are discharging," he said.

"We are seeing a massive dilution factor as a result of the overall flow that's coming off the New England Tablelands at the moment, which has resulted in relatively low levels of discharge directly from the mine."

However, conservationists are worried about the latest spill into the Upper Macleay.

Coffs Harbour Greens' councillor Mark Graham says the spill in the region's drinking water catchment should be grounds for concern.

"I think that all the evidence is that the river is contaminated by mining practices and it's not just the historic mining practices," he said.

"The owners of the Hillgrove mine, Straits Mining, were recently fined $50,000 in the Land and Environment Court for ongoing contamination to the headwaters of the Macleay.

"These mines are creating ongoing contamination for the catchment.

What NSW Nationals 'Steve' Gulaptis MP for Clarence isn't saying

This is what the new Clarence MP 'Steve' Gulaptis was telling The Daily Examiner as he posed for photographs:

Mr Gulaptis said he still felt humbled to be elected, but couldn't wait to get behind the desk and get to work on solving the problems faced by his constituents and the electorate.

Mr Gulaptis said the new Grafton bridge, the Pacific Highway upgrade, law enforcement in Casino and the Lower Clarence, health and employment, especially in Grafton after recent job losses, were key issues he would focus on.

He said as the communities in the electorate are so diverse and face different issues, he would be spending a lot of time travelling and talking to locals about what issues are important to them.

He said his focus in Parliament will be to push strongly for funding on issues facing the Clarence electorate.

Now the election is over and his est. $180,000 plus taxpayer-funded salary package is assured, there is no mention of protecting the Clarence River from inappropriate open cut gold mining and toxic antimony mining –  which have the potential to place underground aquifers and the river system at risk to the detriment of the economic well-being of downstream communities.

Nor is there mention of proposed and exisitng coal seam gas mines, or ground water extraction levels and waste water associated with this industry which are likely to compromise water and food security across the NSW North Coast unless a legitimate halt to uncontrolled industry expansion is legislated. 

Nothing about the O'Farrell Government's intention to complete the power generation infrastructure sell-off which is bound to impact on hip pockets in a region known for its low household incomes.

Complete silence about any intention to fight a proposal which is still being considered by government - replacing Grafton prison with a privately financed, constructed and operated centre.

Not even a mention of Steve's favourite subject - bats! A subject that is in the process of being placed in his too hard basket now he is in office.

One suspects that his vision really extends no further than his old role of managing roads, rats, rubbish and greasing the wheels for the white-shoe brigade.

'The Critical Decade': enough to give arch-denialists Bolt, Hadley & Jones apoplexy

Click on NSW/ACT gragh to enlarge

1. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.

• The atmosphere is warming, the ocean is warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps and sea levels are rising. The biological world is changing in response to a warming world.
• Global surface temperature is rising fast; the last decade was the hottest on record.

2. We are already seeing the social, economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate.

• With less than 1 degree of warming globally the impacts are already being felt in Australia.
• In the last 50 years the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled. This has increased the risk of heatwaves and associated deaths, as well as extreme bush fire weather in South Eastern and South Western Australia.
• Sea level has risen by 20 cm globally since the late 1800s, impacting many coastal communities. Another 20 cm increase by 2050, which is feasible at current projections, would more than double the risk of coastal flooding.
• The Great Barrier Reef has suffered from nine bleaching events in the past 31 years. This iconic natural ecosystem, and the economy that depends upon it, face serious risks from climate change.

3. It is beyond reasonable doubt that human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

• A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – with carbon dioxide being the most important – as the primary cause of the observed warming.
• Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation.
• Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.

4. This is the critical decade. Decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandchildren experience.

• Without strong and rapid action there is a significant risk that climate change will undermine our society’s prosperity, health, stability and way of life.
• To minimise this risk, we must decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050. That means carbon emissions must peak within the next few years and then strongly decline.
• The longer we wait to start reducing carbon emissions, the more difficult and costly those reductions become.
• This decade is critical. Unless effective action is taken, the global climate may be so irreversibly altered we will struggle to maintain our present way of life. The choices we make this decade will shape the long-
  
  
  The Critical Decade: full report

Senate Coal Seam Gas Report Calls For Approvals Moratorium Until Scientific Studies Completed and Reviewed

Media Release

SENATOR THE HON. BILL HEFFERNAN

Liberal Senator for New South Wales

For further information please contact Office of Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan (02) 62773610

Senate Report into Coal Seam Gas

Senator Bill Heffernan, the Chairman of the Senate Standing References Committee on Rural Affairs & Transport today released the Committee's report on the Impact of Coal Seam Gas Extraction on the Murray-Darling Basin. The report considers the potential impact of the industry on Basin groundwater resources, agricultural land and regional communities.

The Committee, as part of that general inquiry has been examining the economic, social and environmental impacts of mining coal seam gas on:

·         the sustainability of water aquifers and future water licensing arrangements;

·         the property rights and values of landholders;

·         the sustainability of prime agricultural land and Australia’s food task;

·         the social and economic benefits or otherwise for regional towns and the effective management of relationships between mining and other interests; and other related matters including health impacts.

This report concentrates on CSG developments within the Murray-Darling Basin which are the focus of the industry and of public concern, in particular, the security of the gas wells. The main regions of concern to this Committee, where the industry is expanding very rapidly, are in south-west Queensland and north-west New South Wales.

Some of the recommendations include Commonwealth and State governments conducting a thorough review of the appropriateness of 'adaptive management in the context of regulating the industry. A consistent, national regulatory framework for all aspects of the coal seam gas industry should be promoted.

Groundwater is a vital resource for agricultural, domestic and urban use across much of the Murray-Darling Basin and nor can it be considered in isolation from surface water. The major risks associated with the coal seam gas industry are whether it has the potential to significantly deplete the groundwater on which agriculture and regional communities depend, to contaminate higher quality water, to alter the hydrology of the affected regions, or to do irreparable damage to the aquifers containing that water.

The Committee recommends that further approvals of CSG production should not be considered until studies of the Basin water resources being conducted by the CSIRO & Geoscience Australia, the Queensland Government and the Namoi Catchment Study are completed and their findings reviewed. The Committee also recommends that the Water Act be amended to include the Great Artesian Basin in the definition of the Murray-Darling Basin water resources. Similarly it recommends that the sustainable use of the Great Artesian Basin be recognised as a matter of national environmental significance under the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

The Committee recommends that it be a requirement of all exploration or production approvals that the fluids extracted from wells after fraccing are kept isolated in secure separate storages and prior to disposal are treated to the highest standards.

The Committee is deeply concerned with brine and salt residues – more than 700,000 tonnes of salt will be produced every year . It recommends that salt and brine be removed from agricultural regions and water catchments. If salt and brine residues cannot be disposed within the short term, then it should be removed from agricultural areas and water catchments and no controlled landfills for the disposal of salt should be permitted in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Commonwealth and the States should establish an independently managed trust funded by the gas companies to make financial provision for long-term rectification of problems such as leaks in sealed wells or subsidence and erosion caused by collapsing pipelines.

The gas industry has the potential to have a severe impact on agricultural productivity in the Basin. The Committee recommends that gas production be excluded from highly productive agricultural land and, where the industry and agriculture do coexist, that the maintenance of agricultural productivity take priority over the needs of the gas industry in any dispute between landholders and the industry.

"The challenge for the global food task is to produce more food with less water, less fertiliser and less agricultural land against the background of the science which says by 2050, the world's population will be 9 billion, 50% of the world's population will be poor for water, one billion people will be unable to feed themselves, 30% of the productive land of Asia will have gone out of production due to urbanisation and climate change, two-thirds of the world's population will live in Asia, the food task would have doubled and more importantly 1.6 billion people could be displaced on this planet." said Senator Heffernan.

The Committee recommends that draft access agreements between landholders and gas companies include a requirement that company employees must have a landholder's approval whenever they wish to enter a property and that companies must maintain logs of staff entering private property.

The Committee, recognising that many of the issues relating to this industry are the constitutional responsibility of the States recommends that the Commonwealth, in forums such as the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)and the Standing Council for Energy and Resources take the initiative in working towards a coordinated national approach to the regulation of this industry.

The Committee will continue to monitor developments in the CSG industry in 2012. For more information about the report, please visit the following website:

www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/rat_ctte/mdb/index.htm

30 November 2011

Seems the electorate of Clarence has a phantom Local Member

Despite being declared the winner of the 19 November by-election a week ago and being sworn in as the Member for Clarence last Friday a happy snap of Chris Gulaptis is yet to appear on the NSW Parliament's website.

A couple of mates at the local watering hole reckon the no-show by Gulaptis on the parliament's website is easily explained.
One mate reckons the photographer couldn't manage to get the new MP's head in the photo shoot - a panorama shot was required.
Another mate reckons that because the new local MP wears the label "Steve Gulaptis" the delay in getting an image on the site is due to a problem in getting a composite shot of Steve and Chris.
The first mate also reckons teams of carpenters have had to be urgently employed at parliament house and the local MP's electorate office. The reason >>>>>>>> tops of doorways have had to be widened to enable Gulaptis to get his swollen head through them.

Hadley and Flannery with pistols drawn

2GB Radio The Ray Hadley Show Thursday, 28 July 2011

Listener confirms Tim Flannery does own a waterfront home

David calls in to Ray Hadley to confirm Professor Tim Flannery does own a waterfront home at Coba Point.

Professor Flannery in Crikey, 22 November 2011:

Flannery did his own investigation. He found an address for “David” and made a house call. Flannery writes:

“His stammering voice was so unlike the smart-alec tone I’d heard on the radio that at first I thought I had the wrong person. But he soon admitted that he knew Ray Hadley. In fact, he worked for him.

“David then stated emphatically that he had not called Ray Hadley at all. Instead Hadley had asked him to appear on the show, and had called him. David said that Hadley had sought him out after learning that I lived nearby. The story, and all of the supposed ‘facts’ that David was to raise during the interview, had, according to David, been assembled beforehand by Hadley and his team … David stated: ‘You’re on the other side of the fence [regarding climate change] … they hate you … they’re out to get you.’”

2GB Radio The Ray Hadley Show Wednesday,  23 Nov 2011

Ray responds to Tim Flannery's claims
Calls Flannery you low bastard as he concludes a denial of ever knowing "David"

As Hadley made a number of errors in his reply, uttered contradictory statements about legal action and "David" remains an unverifiable source, I suspect that Flannery wins this round without much effort.

Especially as Crikey published this memo on 25 November 2011:

21.viii.11 Sunday afternoon
Tim pulls up at pontoon — v crowded with debris — revs motor to reverse.
Man appears on verandah, shirtless, comes down pulling on sweater.
T calls out: Are you David? I’d like a word.
Man walks down, diffidently but expecting us (?) Tells barking dog to be quiet.
Man & T meet mid-jetty.
T: Are you David?
Man: Yes.
T: You’re the caller David who called Ray Hadley?
D: That’s me.
T explains visit. D is barely coherent [does he have a speech impediment?] T asks re call to 2GB?
D, matter of factly: They called me … They had it all arranged. I just called in.
D: … You’re on the other side of the fence [re climate change], they [2GB] hate you, they’re out to get you. I didn’t call them, they called me.
Alex (surprised): Why would they call you?
D (flatly): I work for them.
A (politely): What is your work?
D (softly): Card [incoherent]
A (gently): Sorry?
D (clearly): Car detailing. I do car detailing for them at 2GB. I know them all.
T (firmly, fairly): Well, we’d like the podcast permanently removed rom the public domain. Could you ask Ray Hadley to do that.
D (hesitating, uncertain): Well, I won’t see him for another fortnight, another two weeks.
A (quietly): You’re a newcomer here. We don’t do this sort of thing to each other. We’re a small community & just respect each other’s privacy.
T (gently): It’s OK, leave this to me. (firmly, fairly): OK David, the decent thing to do is to get the podcast removed. It’s untrue & it’s dangerous. That’s all.
We leave.

Ray Hadley has since fired back in this TheTelegraph online article.

Which again returns readers to the question of the mysterious
"David" aka "Dave" allegedly of Coba Point, Berowra Creek NSW. Seen here in one of the many photograph's posted by his wife on her Facebook page between 2008-2011......

And this is probably Dave's 'new' waterfront home....

After two on-air interviews with Ray Hadley, one wonders if "Dave" is still enjoying his notoriety?