Looking for Mr. Good Stork

The Australian Federal Government’s My Hospitals website is up and running and I decided to see what is said about hospitals on the NSW North Coast.

With a bit of nudging the lists from the mid to far North Coast came up here and here. Then the fun began when linking to hospitals in the Clarence Valley.

According to the new website there were no births at Maclean District Hospital in the financial year 2008-09, which was to be expected as its maternity section was closed down years ago despite community protests.

Grafton Base Hospital had 478 births + <10 births in the same financial year. Again something to be expected as it is the only relatively large hospital in the area and it usually records births it the vicinity of four hundred or so.

Wondering how these figures compared with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) regional profile for the Clarence Valley local government area I went looking.

I found that birth numbers didn’t quite add up when one compares My Hospitals and ABS data, even when the former is operating on financial year dates and the latter on calendar year dates.

The ABS has 278 births recorded in Grafton Statistical Area for year ended 31 December 2008 and no births recorded for the Clarence Valley Local Government Area in the year ending 31 December 2009.

An official 2009 zero birth rate was taking things a bit too far, so who isn’t keeping accurate records? The ABS, local court houses, someone else? Or did bad weather blow The Stork off course?

Well Clarence Valley residents may actually in part be the culprits when it comes to accurate record keeping. Because it appears that Australians don’t always promptly register the births of those little bundles of joy.

Elsewhere on the ABS website it states:

Of the 295,700 births registered in Australia during 2009, 88% occurred in 2009. A further 9% occurred in 2008, and the remainder (3%) occurred in 2007 or earlier. It is expected that some births, particularly those that occur in November and December, may not be registered until the following year.

Now in New South Wales parents are responsible for registering the birth of their newborn within 60 days.
However, somewhere in Australia in 2009 (presumably including NSW) over 8,000 people probably turned up at the court house or registry office with a one and a half to three year-old child in tow and told the clerk that the toddler holding their hands actually existed. Others obviously went in after the Christmas and New Year’s Eve parties were over to inform the world that their family had grown.

How long will The Reject Shop last in Yamba?

Maud Up The Street tells me that yet another bargain store is trying its luck in Yamba Fair shopping centre. This must be at least the fourth such store which has parked itself in the same spot in the last ten or so years.
Maud reckons it’s losing customers already because it assumes that everyone coming through its door is a potential shoplifter – ‘let me look in your bag’ seems to be the mantra - and not a month into this store’s life media reports are also saying the whole chain is just not drawing a big enough crowd:
“THE worst Christmas "for a very long time" has seen The Reject Shop slash its profit forecast - and its shares savaged. Investors wiped more than 20 per cent off the low-end retailer's share price, while the shock profit warning sent shudders through the nation's retailers and weighed on the shares of other retailers.
Reject Shop chief executive Chris Bryce blamed the Reserve Bank of Australia's increase in interest rates in early November for a sudden drop in customers through its 195 shops.”

Very interesting Abib titbits......

This has not been Australian Senator Mark Arbib's week for positive media coverage. Abib is the current duty senator for the NSW North Coast seat of Lyne, which must - ahem - reassure the sitting federal member and his electorate.

• In recent months there have been media reports that Senator Arbib has been undermining Ms Gillard but Labor insiders deny this.
  
  
• Secret US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and made available exclusively to The Age reveal that Senator Arbib, one of the architects of Kevin Rudd's removal as prime minister, has been in regular contact with US embassy officers.
  His candid comments have been incorporated into reports to Washington with repeated requests that his identity as a ''protected'' source be guarded.

• Mark Arbib: otherwise known as CIA Agent 007.
  Visitors to the senator's Wikipedia page this morning may have been surprised to learn his role as Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness, among other portfolios, had been usurped by some decidedly more colourful titles.
  CIA agent, US Mole, Traitor, and US Embassy Hero were listed below the right-wing Labor powerbroker's photograph on the popular online encyclopedia following revelations by WikiLeaks today that Mr Arbib was as a confidential contact of the United States embassy in Canberra.
  
  Which leads one to wonder - did then U.S. Ambassador to Australia Robert McCallum, who had such a negative opinion of the Australian prime minister in office, encourage Arbib to consider deposing Rudd?

TwitDef: Getting close to checkmate?

TwitDef continues in the Land of Oz and Mitchell appears to have lost his queen and be close to having his king in mate........

From Posetti’s legal rep to Mitchell’s legal rep on 9^th December 2010:

“We are instructed to act for Ms Julie Posetti in relation to the matters raised by your client, Mr Chris Mitchell, in your letter dated 29 November 2010 sent to our client on 1 December 2010.

Our client denies Mr Mitchell's assertion that she has defamed him.

The Twitter posts by our client about which your client complains were a fair and accurate summary of matters stated by Ms Wahlquist at the Journalism Education Association Conference on 25 November 2010. Whether or not the matters stated by Ms Wahlquist were right or wrong, they were matters that nevertheless related to a matter of public interest, namely, the conduct of journalism and the editorial policy of a major national newspaper in relation to climate change, being in itself a significant question of public interest, especially in the lead up to a Federal election. Our client in her Twitter posts gave a fair summary of the matters stated by Ms Wahlquist and clearly held out those posts as being reports of statements attributed to Ms Wahlquist and not our client's own views.

Your letter does not attempt to suggest that the Twitter posts were not a fair summary of what Ms Wahlquist said and, indeed, your client acknowledges that his initial conclusion that the posts did not reflect Ms Wahlquist's statements was a conclusion that he was misled into adopting. We note also that, while we appreciate that what is published in The Australian (of which your client serves as editor in chief) may not necessarily always reflect your client's own personal views and is not determinative of the position, it is nevertheless somewhat telling that the "Media diary" article titled “The Posetti tapes” appearing in the online version of The Australian on 30 November 2010 suggested that the "Tweets are a fair summary of what Wahlquist said".

As a fair report of proceedings of public concern (in particular, proceedings of a public meeting held in Australia related to a matter of public interest - see section 29(4)(l) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and its equivalents in other states), our client is entitled to the defence available under section 29(1) of the Defamation Act.

For similar reasons, our client is likely also entitled to a defence of common law qualified privilege.”

Copy of entire Posetti 9 December letter here in PDF

Copy of Mitchell 29 November letter here in PDF

Jonathan Holmes on the subject of TwitDef

Good news for the frail aged and carers in the NSW Northern Rivers region

Federal Member for Page Janelle Saffin’s media release on 9 December 2010 brings some good news for older residents in the Northern Rivers region and their families :

Older people in Page will benefit from a total of 80 new aged care places allocated across the electorate by the Australian Government.

Page MP Janelle Saffin said the new places allocated under the Aged Care Approvals Round for 2009-10 include 39 residential care places and 41 community packages for care in the home.

“The new allocations reflect the need for varied types of aged care in our local community.

“While there is a growing demand for residential places, there are also many people who prefer to remain in their own homes.

“The allocations are for 32 high care residential places, 7 low care residential places, and 41 community aged care packages,” Ms Saffin said.

Local providers receiving the new allocations:

Baptist Community Services Northern Rivers: 5 Community Aged Care Packages

Ex-Services Home Ballina; 32 Residential Places High Care

Southern Cross, St Catherine’s Villa, Grafton: 2 Residential Places Low Care

St Michael’s Apartments, Casino 5 Residential Places Low Care

Frank Whiddon Homes Grafton 13 Community Aged Care Packages

Frank Whiddon Homes Kyogle 13 Community Aged Care Packages

Uniting Care Yamba 10 Community Aged Care Packages

The Aged Care Approvals Round for 2009-10 for Page is worth an estimated $2.34 million.

In addition, the Australian Government will provide the aged care sector nationally with $147 million in zero interest loans to build 819 places, along with more than $41.6 million in capital grants.

One perspective on the Great Information War of 2010

From The Human Network in The Blueprint post on 5 December 2010:

A few months ago I wrote about how confused I was by Julian Assange’s actions. Why would anyone taking on the state so directly become such a public figure? It made no sense to me. Now I see the plan. And it’s awesome.

You see, this is the first time anything like Wikileaks has been attempted. Yes, there have been leaks prior to this, but never before have hyperdistribution and cryptoanarchism come to the service of the whistleblower. This is a new thing, and as well thought out as Wikileaks might be, it isn’t perfect. How could it be? It’s untried, and untested. Or was. Now that contact with the enemy has been made – the state with all its powers – it has become clear where Wikileaks has been found wanting. Wikileaks needs a distributed network of servers that are too broad and too diffuse to be attacked. Wikileaks needs an alternative to the Domain Name Service. And Wikileaks needs a funding mechanism which can not be choked off by the actions of any other actor.

We’ve been here before. This is 1999, the company is Napster, and the angry party is the recording industry. It took them a while to strangle the beast, but they did finally manage to choke all the life out of it – for all the good it did them. Within days after the death of Napster, Gnutella came around, and righted all the wrongs of Napster: decentralized where Napster was centralized; pervasive and increasingly invisible. Gnutella created the ‘darknet’ for filesharing which has permanently crippled the recording and film industries. The failure of Napster was the blueprint for Gnutella.

In exactly the same way – note for note – the failures of Wikileaks provide the blueprint for the systems which will follow it, and which will permanently leave the state and its actors neutered. Assange must know this – a teenage hacker would understand the lesson of Napster. Assange knows that someone had to get out in front and fail, before others could come along and succeed. We’re learning now, and to learn means to try and fail and try again.

A letter to The Guardian editor on the British legal response to Assange allegations

 

From guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 21.02 GMT:

Many women in both Sweden and Britain will wonder at the unusual zeal with which Julian Assange is being pursued for rape allegations (Report, 8 December). Women in Sweden don't fare better than we do in Britain when it comes to rape. Though Sweden has the highest per capita number of reported rapes in Europe and these have quadrupled in the last 20 years, conviction rates have decreased. On 23 April 2010 Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs-Posten that "up to 90% of all reported rapes never get to court. In 2006 six people were convicted of rape though almost 4,000 people were reported". They endorsed Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry to examine the rape cases that had been closed and the quality of the original investigations.

Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine. For two years we have been supporting a woman who suffered rape and domestic violence from a man previously convicted after attempting to murder an ex-partner and her children – he was granted bail while police investigated.

There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women's safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don't take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.

Katrin Axelsson

Women Against Rape

WikiLeaks: a tale of two U.S. Government positions on one issue

It would appear the United States Government has one rule for dealing with powerful media organisations (whose editorial stances could affect its political standing both internationally and domestically) and another for dealing with Wikileaks.

According to The New York Times on 28 November 2010:

About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

Letters sent and received according to Foreign Policy and Public intelligence on 26 November and 28 November 2010 respectively:

From Assange to U.S. Government representative; Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. WikiLeaks will respect the confidentiality of advice provided by the United States Government and is prepared to consider any such submissions made without delay.

From U.S. Government to Assange legal representative; We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials.

Background:

CNN in Public Intelligence on 25 October 2010; An initial comparison of a few documents redacted by WikiLeaks to the same documents released by the Department of Defense shows that WikiLeaks removed more information from the documents than the Pentagon.
CNN accessed the Department of Defense versions from the official U.S. Central Command website, where it posts items that have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Something for New Sou' Welshies to think about as the year ends.....

I’m told that once-upon-a-time in regional New South Wales you could find yourself locked up in a secure mental health facility just on the say so of a family member backed up by the word of a GP who hadn’t actually seen or talked to you.
The only hope you had of getting out from under this form of domestic violence (if the trick cyclist on duty didn’t believe you) was to speak with the visiting magistrate.
Now it seems the bad old days are returning:
“You, or anyone in NSW, could be picked up by the police and held in detention for up to one month without any form of judicial review. This could happen at any time, even though you have committed no crime. These are not the latest draconian anti-terror laws nor are they laws targeting asylum seekers. This is a legal framework that is directed at you and me, or it will be if we are unlucky enough to occasionally suffer a severe mental illness…. The act places restrictions on psychiatrists' power. It says that "as soon as practicable" after someone is admitted involuntarily to hospital, their case must be heard by an independent umpire. Until June, the umpire was a magistrate who came to the hospital every week. The magistrate saw every patient who had been detained and psychiatrists had to justify that deprivation of liberty to the magistrate. In June though, the umpire became a lawyer from the Mental Health Review Tribunal and, instead of visiting the hospital, he or she started appearing by audiovisual link. Whereas patients detained in hospital would previously have an automatic review within a week or so, now that would not happen until they had been locked up three or four weeks. The words "as soon as practicable" were suddenly interpreted to mean "within about a month" and many patients would now be involuntarily admitted and eventually released without ever having their detention independently checked.”
Shame, Premier Keneally, Shame!

Gillard receives a blunt open letter for Christmas

From ABC online The Drum – Unleashed on 7 December 2010:

The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.
If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section.

Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O’Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor
Sunili Govinnage, lawyer
Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer

UPDATE:

The Independant on 8 December 2010 - Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.
Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.
His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.