The Case of the Sudden Online Poll Conversion

For months now I have been watching online polls mentioning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and most of these polls supported the ABC with regard to the poll question being put.

Then there was an intriguing self-select online poll which was published in The Sydney Morning Herald at approximately 3.30 pm on 29 January.

At approximately 3.51 pm this self-select online poll was displaying a “No” percentage, which was similar to the level of support for the ABC found in a 21 January 2013 Essential Research poll on trust in the media and an October 2013 Newspoll.

By 6 pm social media was aware of this poll and participation in the poll began to increase.

In the following hour after that the polling percentages (which had been running at “Yes” 24% and “No” 76%) began to turn and participant numbers had grown from 11,694 to 32,605 by 8pm.

Twelve minutes and 2,011 more respondents later and the poll looked like this.

Five minutes after that and 1,585 participants later, the poll again saw the number of people supporting Tony Abbott grow by another 1,373 people until it looked like this.    

Eight minutes after that again the poll looked like this and a pattern appeared to be emerging. Either a surprising number of genuine Abbott supporters had found their way to this poll or someone was organizing a large number of these people in order to affect the poll outcome.

At 8.34 pm the poll “Yes” and “No” responses were an equal 50%. By 8.38 pm “Yes” stood at 51% and the total number of participants had increased by 10,156 since 8 pm – 9,411 of which were supporting Abbott. 

At 9.27 pm "Yes” and “No” responses were 59% and 41% respectively and participation has increased by 12,214 people – with 10,627 of these supporting Abbott. 

By the time the online poll closed at around 10.06 pm it was displaying this result.

Looking back at 1939

From Nobelprize.org the official website of the Nobel Prize:

The Nomination Database for the Nobel Prize
in Peace, 1901-1956

Year:	1939
Number:	9-1
Nominee:
Name:	Adolf Hitler
Gender:	M
Year, birth:	1889
Year, death:	1945
Profession/Category:	Chancellor and F�hrer of Germany (1933-1945).
City:	Berlin
Country:	DE (GERMANY)
Motivation:	Hitler was the leader of the German Nationalist Socialist Party.
Nominator:
Name:	E.G.C. Brandt
Gender:	M
Profession/Category:	Member of the Swedish parliament
Country:	SE (SWEDEN)
Evaluation:	No
Comment:	The nomination was withdrawn in a letter of February 1, 1939.

Two days before the letter withdrawing the nomination was written, Adolf Hitler had made a speech in which he stated:

For hundreds of years Germany was good enough to receive these elements, although they possessed nothing except infectious political and physical diseases. What they possess today, they have by a very large extent gained at the cost of the less astute German nation by the most reprehensible manipulations.

Today we are merely paying this people what it deserves. When the German nation was, thanks to the inflation instigated and carried through by Jews, deprived of the entire savings which it had accumulated in years of honest work, when the rest of the world took away the German nation’s foreign investments, when we were divested of the whole of our colonial possessions, these philanthropic considerations evidently carried little noticeable weight with democratic statesmen....

One thing I should like to say on this day which may be memorable for others as well as for us Germans: In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance the Jewish race which only received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among many other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!....

Quote of the Week

The Abbott Government has asked a major review of workplace awards to assess whether minimum terms and conditions, including penalty rates, are still relevant.

[Latika Bourke in ABC News online, 4 February 2014]

Does no-one in the entire Abbott Cabinet have a grasp on reality?

Below are the opening paragraphs of a joint media release by The Hon. Greg Hunt MP, Federal Minister for the Environment and The Hon. Andrew Powell MP, Queensland Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on 1 February 2014 – just days after Australia learned that approval had been given to dump dredge spoil from the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion into the Great Barrier Reef marine park area. I can only believe that Mr. Hunt has parted company with reality.

The Australian and Queensland Governments have today released the 2014 State Party Report on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area which highlights the significant progress being made to improve the management, health and protection of this amazing iconic area.

This progress report has been delivered to the World Heritage Committee meeting currently underway and demonstrates unequivocally the Australian and Queensland Governments’ commitment to better managing and protecting this natural wonder.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt said getting the management and protection of the reef right is a top priority for the Abbott government.

“The Government is implementing important initiatives such as our Reef 2050 Plan, Reef Trust, and funding vital projects such as Crown of Thorns Starfish eradication and the Gladstone Healthy Harbours Partnership”, he said.

“The federal Government is working closely with Queensland to help protect this Australian icon for future generations.

“The report shows that the Great Barrier Reef’s outstanding universal value and integrity remain largely intact and Australia has made substantial progress and commitment in responding to the requests of the World Heritage Committee.

“In close cooperation with the Queensland Government, we are boosting the conservation of the Reef through a range of approaches both on land and in the marine environment.

“This includes carrying out the comprehensive strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef, an ongoing commitment to the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and continuing strict protection under national environment laws.....

* Photograph of The Great Barrier Reef found at Australian Geographic

Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council wins Red Rock land claim

Red Rock Beach 1991
flickriver.com

Successful Land Claim Appeal for Coffs Harbour LALC

Wednesday, January 8th, 2014

After a two decade wait for a decision on the Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2013] NSWLEC 216, Justice Craig has handed down his decision in favour of Coffs Harbour LALC.

The claim, originally lodged in 1993 covers a 3.7 km stretch of beach and foredune known as Red Rock Beach (located between Red Rock and Corindi).

The case is particularly significant as it represents one of a few successful land claims to include land right up to the mean high water mark.

Of note the land is being transferred to Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council (CH LALC) on condition that an easement for access is created over part of the land to provide public access to and use of the beach for public recreation.

This is a fantastic outcome for the CH LALC especially as the judgment may prove useful in future claims where land is said to be needed for public recreation.

On behalf of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to CH LALC for this terrific win.

Craig Cromelin

NSWALC Chairperson

ABBOTT GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT - PART 2: SOME ASPECTS OTHER THAN CLIMATE

Since its election in September last year the Abbott Coalition Government has implemented a series of changes which have far-reaching ramifications for the natural environment and ultimately for the human community which relies on the important services provided by a healthy natural environment.

Some aspects of the Coalition's actions in relation to the major environmental issue of climate change policy were discussed in an earlier post on this blog.  (http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-abbott-government-and-environment.html)

This post outlines four of the Government's other decisions which relate to the natural environment.

NO FEDERAL SCIENCE  PORTFOLIO

A background matter which has significance for the natural environment and its conservation was the surprising decision by the new Government not to appoint a Minister for Science.  This is the first time since 1931 (except for a brief period during World War 2) that there has been no Minister for Science.  Science in Abbott's Government is largely the responsibility for the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, with some aspects being part of the portfolio of the Minister for Education.  So, as has been noted with disbelief by some commentators, Australia has a Minister for Sport but no Minister for Science.  Whatever the Prime Minister says to explain the lack of a science portfolio in a period when science is an ever-increasing contributor to our lives, it is inevitable that this strange decision has been seen as an indication that science is not considered a priority by the government.

"ONE STOP SHOP" FOR ASSESSING ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

The Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, has commenced work on creating a "one stop shop" for assessing the ecological impacts of major projects.  Under the current system major projects have to be approved by the federal government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (introduced by the Howard Government in 1999) as well as by the states under their legislation.

The Abbot Government intends to devolve all environmental assessment on such projects to the states.  It claims that such a system would "slash red tape and increase jobs and investment".  When this rationale is used it is quite obvious that the priority is development at the expense of the natural environment - despite claims to the contrary.

Naturally, this move has been welcomed by business because it considers the change will save time and expense.   And, according to Maria Tarrant, deputy chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, it will provide "certainty" for projects.

Those concerned with conservation have good reason to be worried about Hunt's new system because it is unlikely to provide even the equivalent protection available under the present far-from-perfect system.  Furthermore, the recent record of at least some states on environmental protection indicates they are ill-qualified to take over sole responsibility for environmental protection.

For example, some of the NSW Government's decisions have shown a cavalier disregard for the environment.  These include the decision to allow recreational hunting in some national parks, the three year trial of grazing in 60 national parks, changes to native vegetation regulations easing restrictions on land-clearing, cutting back on protected areas for the critically endangered Grey Nurse Sharks in Marine Parks and changes to the State Environment Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industry) to make the "significance" of the resource to the economy the central consideration in the approvals  process.

Hunt is hoping that agreements with all states will be finalised by September this year.

PORT DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE GREAT BARRIER REEF COAST

On December 10 Environment Minister Hunt formally approved the Abbot Point (north of Bowen) and Curtis Island (near Gladstone) projects under the EPBC Act.  Abbot Point is set to become one of the largest coal ports in the world while an LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant and port is being developed on Curtis Island.

Mr Hunt said that he had imposed "some of the strictest conditions in Australian history to ensure impacts are avoided, mitigated or offset".  Despite Hunt's claim, there has been considerable concern about the impact of these developments on the Great Barrier Reef.  A major concern has been the effect that the dumping of 3 million cubic metres of dredged material from the Abbot Point development will have on the marine park. Opponents of the dumping of this dredged material had hoped that the Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would ban any dumping in the Marine Park. However, on January 31 the Authority announced it had approved the dumping.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a World Heritage Area. UNESCO's World Heritage Committee has been concerned for some time about port development in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.  It has told the Australian Government that it is considering putting the Great Barrier Reef on the "in danger" list unless Australia addresses key threats to the Reef from industrialisation - primarily from coal and gas port projects along the Great Barrier Reef coast. The Committee will consider whether any progress has been made in addressing its concerns when it meets in June this year.

Given the decisions made by Hunt and the Marine Park Authority, it is highly likely that the Heritage Committee will put the Great Barrier Reef on the "in danger" list.  If this happens the negative publicity for Australia is likely to be significant.

ATTACK ON THE TASMANIAN FOREST AGREEMENT

Another World Heritage Area is receiving attention from the Abbott Government.  In 2013 the World Heritage Committee approved a 170,000 hectare extension to the Tasmanian World Heritage Area (WHA).  This extension followed an agreement made between all sides involved in decades of disputation over Tasmanian forests.  Lengthy consultation between business, union and green groups led to a deal which secured government payments of $363 million to the timber industry and included a sign-off by all parties to the World Heritage Area extension.  The deal was also endorsed by the Tasmanian Parliament.

During the 2013 election campaign Tony Abbott indicated that the Coalition did not support the WHA extension. Environment Minister Hunt is applying to the World Heritage Committee for the removal of 74,000 hectares from the extension when the Committee meets in June. The Coalition appears completely unconcerned about the consensus reached between the industry and green groups and the fact that the settlement is in the interests of a prosperous timber industry which will be able to export its products – something it was having difficulty doing before the agreement because of sustainability issues.  If the Government gets its way the forest wars will erupt again.

Given what has happened with the Reef and what Hunt and the Tasmanian Liberals are trying to do, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee will be wondering about the Australian Government's environmental credentials and its indifference to world opinion.

Conclusion

Before September's federal election it was obvious that the environment would suffer if the Coalition won office. That is not to say that the Labor government it succeeded always acted in the best long-term interests of the natural environment.  It didn't.  Politicians in general appear to have difficulty in grasping that we as humans rely on the services of the natural environment for our own well-being.  This lack of understanding is epitomised by politicians' obsession with the economy at the expense of the environment - an obsession which completely ignores the fact that the economy and human society are both subsets of the natural environment.  The economy – and human society - will suffer in the medium to long term if the natural environment is degraded.  There are of course other factors which make it easy for politicians to ignore environmental degradation, one of the most significant being the shortness of the electoral cycle.  It is very difficult to see how this problem of political ignorance/indifference can be overcome.

           

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com  to submit comment for consideration.

So Work Choices is not "dead, buried and cremated" after all, Mr. Abbott

We want to protect workers' pay and conditions

We want to see the take home wages of Australian workers increase

Under our policy, no Australian worker will be worse off

[Tony Abbott 9 May 2013]

WHAT THE FAIR WORK ACT STATES

Excerpt from the Fair Work Act 2009:

134  The modern awards objective

What is the modern awards objective?

             (1)  The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:

                     (a)  relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and

                     (b)  the need to encourage collective bargaining; and

                     (c)  the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and

                     (d)  the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and

                     (da)  the need to provide additional remuneration for:

                              (i)  employees working overtime; or

                             (ii)  employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or

                            (iii)  employees working on weekends or public holidays; or

                            (iv)  employees working shifts; and

                     (e)  the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and

                     (f)  the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and

                     (g)  the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and

                     (h)  the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.

This is the modern awards objective.

When does the modern awards objective apply?

             (2)  The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the FWC's modern award powers, which are:

                     (a)  the FWC's functions or powers under this Part; and

                     (b)  the FWC's functions or powers under Part 2‑6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages.

Note:          The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).

WHAT THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT WANTS

Australian Government Submission To Fair Work Commission 4 Yearly Review Of Modern Awards, 3 February 2014

Fair Work Commission 4 Yearly Review Of Modern Awards documents, statements and submissions can be found here.