GetUp! loses all credibility

I’ve had a lot of time for GetUp! Action for Australia in the past but this organisation is beginning to stretch its credibility too thin these days.
Get an load of this from the website:

Save Wooli

Right now the Clarence Valley Council is considering adopting a policy of "planned retreat" for village of Wooli and its unique environment. This abandonment is their only response to the increased threat from coastal erosion caused by climate change.
Urge them to reject it and protect Wooli, by signing this Right now the Clarence Valley Council is considering adopting a policy of "planned retreat" for village of Wooli and its unique petition below.

I believe that if Council approves the recently released Wooli Coastal Plan, no action will be taken to defend the Wooli Community and environment from the threat of coastal erosion caused by climate change and Council will adopt a policy of planned abandonment of the village. I ask that Clarence Valley Council reject this plan.

No mention of the fact that Wooli is not the only place on the Clarence Coast or in the river delta suffering the early effects of climate change and relentless erosive wave patterns.
Not a word about the CSIRO predicting higher and stronger tides taking away coastal and estuary foreshore, making the aquifer saline and raising the water table. That this will often be occurring in urban areas built on reclaimed marshland and in natural flood storage areas.
Absolutely dumb on Commonwealth Government predictions of ‘worst case’ sea level rises and storm surges which will see quite a few houses in Yamba inundated on a regular basis or lost completely. That coastal erosion on Yamba Hill and at Broom’s Head is a fact of life, as well as sections of Palmers Island now so unstable that no-one can safely live there.
Silent as the grave when it comes to Clarence Coast landowners (including those at Wooli) knowing the risks for well over a decade and putting their heads in the sand while buying seafront or riverfront property anyway.
Last but not least, no mention of how a local government with so much vulnerable shoreline and a small rate base is going to manage to pay millions of dollars decade in and decade out in a vain effort to hold the ocean back from a small village built on a sand spit between a tidal river and the Pacific Ocean.
GetUp! needs to grow up.

Australian journalism continues to attract blinkered conservatives into its ranks

The Daily Examiner, 14 December 2010, Opinion,
snapshot of opening paragraph

One regional reporter from the Andrew Bolt School of Journalism obviously has problems with the concept of universal health care as practised in Australia through the 'free' public hospital-community health system, Medicare rebates and subsidized medicines.

Apparently the 17th Century British notion of there being deserving and undeserving poor still has supporters loitering in dark and dusty corners of the fourth estate.

This particular journalist's attitude to taxpayer funded health services taken to its 'logical' conclusion would see proof of innocence required to be shown when presenting at the local hospital's accident and emergency department.

Given that cardio-vascular disease (according to the Heart Foundation the most expensive disease) is impacted by a wide range of environmental and lifestyle choices, his attitude would see around three million Australians across all socio-economic groups locked out of subsidized health care - and that's only one of many disease groups.

What Son-of-Bolt also forgets is that even the poor pay taxes in this country, if not always through personal income tax then always through the national consumption tax and indirect taxation.

However, what elicits a big grin is that part of his taxes already go towards supporting people who are sick through no fault of their own, so he has little to complain about in reality.

McDonald's Yamba - only open days and the littering of surrounding streets begins

Maud up the Street wants to know if she has the first 'official' pic of branded litter from the newly opened McDonald's hamburger joint in Yamba.
Maud reckons on the third day of Maccas opening its door she followed a trail of tossed litter down one of the streets leading straight to this store.

Hot on the heels of Maud's pic came this one from a Yamba resident who picked it up in Admiralty Park - at least half a kilometre away from Macca's new outlet.

Clarencegirl sent me evidence of this bit of branded litter picked up from the vacant lot opposite McDonald's fast food outlet and she tells me that she has heard that clusters of Macca's litter are now turning up in front yards on the outskirts of Yamba.
Well done, Ronald McDonald - you're living up to your lousy and very messy reputation!
And please write a reminder note in block letters on your Neanderthal foreheads, all those Clarence Valley shire councillors who voted to impose this architectural and social eyesore on a very reluctant Yamba community.

UPDATE:
This cluster of branded litter ran in a trail from outside McDonald's in Treelands Drive, Yamba and on through to Telopea Steet at about 10.30 am on Sunday 19 December 2010 according to the Yamba resident who picked it up.

Question: Can you put a name to this face?

My money says the average Joe and Josephine Blow living in NSW cannot put a name to this character. In fact, when I undertook a quick check of the good folk in my neighbourhood not a single soul knew who this bloke is.
Okay, the poll that was undertaken didn't have the status of Roy Morgan Research, but nonetheless its result says a lot about how NSW been  governed for the last decade and a half.
This fellow has been haunting the corridors in Macquarie Street since, officially, September 1991.
Sad, but true!
This bloke has carried more clout than he deserves. He's figured in the behind the scenes appointments of premiers, cabinet ministers and sundries of other appointments.
Okay, so who is this power broker?
Answer: Click here

Finally! ICAC publicly states something everyone already knows - Kristina Keneally 'wrong'

In The Australian on 14 December 2010:

NSW Premier Kristina Keneally was wrong to water down independent planning controls introduced by her main rival, Frank Sartor.

The state's corruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, yesterday called for the powers of the independent Planning Assessment Commission to be widened, along the lines originally projected by Mr Sartor when he was planning minister between 2005 and 2008.

ICAC media release on 13 December 2010 concerning its report on the exercise of discretion under provisions of two NSW planning acts: EXERCISE O) CISE OF

Monday 13 December 2010

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) recommends that the NSW Minister for Planning refer private sector applications under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which exceed development standards by more than 25%, to an independent quasi-judicial body for determination.

The Commission recommends that this role be assumed by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). In view of the important functions the PAC would assume, the Commission makes recommendations to strengthen its independence and to ensure that it is composed of appropriate persons, on a full-time basis but with a limited tenure.

The Commission's report, The exercise of discretion under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005, released today, makes altogether 20 recommendations to more effectively manage and mitigate potential corruption risks in the Part 3A process.

Commencing in 2005, Part 3A consolidates the different assessment and approval regimes for "major" projects in NSW determined by the Minister for Planning. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (the MD SEPP) identifies several classes of Part 3A projects including significant private developments (for example, residential flats and commercial developments), and public sector infrastructure projects (for example, desalination plants and pipelines).

The ICAC recognises that it is appropriate that in many of these classes the Part 3A discretion should continue to be vested in the Minister. Nevertheless, in other situations there is a risk that perception may arise of corrupt influences playing a part in the Part 3A decision-making process. The key issue is the adequacy of safeguards when such Part 3A discretions are exercised. The need for adequacy of safeguards applies to elected or unelected officials at every level of government.

"The Part 3A system is characterised by a lack of published, objective criteria," the report says. "There are also various elements of Part 3A that are discretionary, particularly as regards residential and commercial development, which are prohibited or exceed existing development standards. The existence of a wide discretion to approve projects that are contrary to local plans and do not necessarily conform to state strategic plans has the potential to deliver sizable windfall gains to particular applicants. This creates a corruption risk and a community perception of a lack of appropriate boundaries."

While there are no established examples of the corrupt use or manipulation of discretion under Part 3A there is, nonetheless, considerable discretion built into Part 3A. Similar kinds of discretion have been the subject of several Commission investigations and investigations in other jurisdictions and beyond.

Under the current system, the Minister has the discretion to declare a project to be a Part 3A project by Ministerial Order. It is the loose criteria and the broad discretion that potentially give rise to perceptions of undue influence. The risk of this occurring is heightened by the Minister not being bound by the provisions of local environmental plans (and SEPPs generally, in the case of critical infrastructure projects).

To limit discretion and improve safeguards, the ICAC recommends that the NSW Government amend the EP&A Act to limit the application of Part 3A to projects that are permissible under existing planning instruments. The Commission also recommends that the PAC perform a gateway role, by way of independent scrutiny, in reviewing proposals to call in private sector projects via specific Ministerial Order.

The Commission and the NSW Department of Planning established a joint task force this year to examine whether there were corruption risks attached to Part 3A and to develop measures to address any of the identified risks. The Commission acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by the Department in participating in the task force.

However, the report has been prepared in its entirety by the Commission, and consequently its recommendations are those of the ICAC.

Full Report

Gillard finally honours her own words

Onya , gurl!

“THE federal government has bowed to union and community sector anger and signed back on to support equal pay for women.

A letter by Workplace Minister Chris Evans has changed a government submission to the equal pay test case being heard by Fair Work Australia.

A dispute erupted in the final sitting week of Parliament as unions and the Australian Council of Social Services accused the government of abandoning a deal to support the case covering 153,000, mostly women, community-sector workers.

The commonwealth provides half the sector's funding, and its original submission had said any pay rise awarded by the tribunal would lead to cuts to other government services, because it needed to bring the budget back to surplus.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard took personal offence at the ensuing backlash and ordered the problem be fixed.

{The Age on 14^th December 2010}

Wikileaks starts to fill Gillard's inbox

First Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard received this letter taking her to task over the matter of Australian citizen Julian Assange and then the Walkley Foundation weighed in with this:

13 December 2010

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister,

STATEMENT FROM AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER EDITORS, TELEVISION AND RADIO DIRECTORS AND ONLINE MEDIA EDITORS

The leaking of 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables is the most astonishing leak of official information in recent history, and its full implications are yet to emerge. But some things are clear. In essence, WikiLeaks, an organisation that aims to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.

In this case, WikiLeaks, founded by Australian Julian Assange, worked with five major newspapers around the world, which published and analysed the embassy cables. Diplomatic correspondence relating to Australia has begun to be published here.

The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new. We, as editors and news directors of major media organisations, believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling. We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal. Any such action would impact not only on WikiLeaks, but every media organisation in the world that aims to inform the public about decisions made on their behalf. WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support.

Already, the chairman of the US Senate homeland security committee, Joe Lieberman, is suggesting The New York Times should face investigation for publishing some of the documents. The newspaper told its readers that it had ‘‘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.’’ Such an approach is responsible — we do not support the publication of material that threatens national security or anything which would put individual lives in danger. Those judgements are never easy, but there has been no evidence to date that the WikiLeaks material has done either.

There is no evidence, either, that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have broken any Australian law. The Australian government is investigating whether Mr Assange has committed an offence, and the Prime Minister has condemned WikiLeaks’ actions as ‘‘illegal’’. So far, it has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached.

To prosecute a media organisation for publishing a leak would be unprecedented in the US, breaching the First Amendment protecting a free press. In Australia, it would seriously curtail Australian media organisations reporting on subjects the government decides are against its interests.

WikiLeaks has no doubt made errors. But many of its revelations have been significant. It has given citizens an insight into US thinking about some of the most complex foreign policy issues of our age, including North Korea, Iran and China.

It is the media’s duty to responsibly report such material if it comes into their possession. To aggressively attempt to shut WikiLeaks down, to threaten to prosecute those who publish official leaks, and to pressure companies to cease doing commercial business with WikiLeaks, is a serious threat to democracy, which relies on a free and fearless press.

Yours faithfully

Clinton Maynard, news director, 2UE
David Penberthy, editor-in-chief, news.com.au
Eric Beecher, chairman, Crikey, Smart Company, Business Spectator, The Eureka Report
Gay Alcorn, editor, The Sunday Age
Garry Bailey, editor, The Mercury (Hobart)
Garry Linnell, editor, The Daily Telegraph Ian Ferguson, director of news and programs, Sky News Australia/New Zealand
Jim Carroll, network director of news and public affairs, Ten Network
Julian Ricci, editor, Northern Territory News
Kate Torney, director of news, ABC
Mark Calvert, director of news and current affairs, Nine Network
Melvin Mansell, editor, The Advertiser (Adelaide)
Megan Lloyd, editor, Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
Michael Crutcher, editor, The Courier Mail,
Mike van Niekerk, editor in chief, Fairfax online
Paul Cutler, news director, SBS
Paul Ramadge, editor-in-chief, The Age
Peter Fray, editor-in-chief, The Sydney Morning Herald
Peter Meakin, director of news and public affairs, Seven Network
Rick Feneley, editor, The Sun-Herald
Rob Curtain, news director, 3AW
Rod Quinn, editor, The Canberra Times
Sam Weir, editor, The Sunday Times
Scott Thompson, The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
Simon Pristel, editor, Herald SunTory Maguire, editor, The Punch
Walkley Advisory Board
Gay Alcorn
Mike Carlton
Helen Dalley
John Donegan
Peter Meakin
Laurie Oakes
Jeni O'Dowd
Alan Kennedy
Malcolm Schmidtke
Fenella Souter

The full letter sent to Prime Minister Julia Gillard can be viewed here.

You can also read statements made earlier this month by the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) concerning WikiLeaks here.