Nailed it @slpng_giants_oz @markhumphries pic.twitter.com/HEnfOJkg2n
— GurpreetSgill (@gurpreetgill) May 1, 2021
So, Scott's "war footing" lasted exactly 3 weeks, during which the vaccination program was not fixed, the hotel quarantine system nearly collapsed and he made it a criminal offence for our own citizens to come home. Bravo.
— marquelawyers (@marquelawyers) May 7, 2021
Echo NetDaily, 27 April 2021:
…..What is an influencer? It seems that we say the word, but most people over 35 don’t really have a clue what it means in the context of social media and brand marketing. And those under 35, the target group, are generally so used to their existence and intent that the lines between branded content and real comment are totally blurred. If TV and print have been declared dead, then so is advertising in its current format. Social media platforms have become the host of mass engagement, and so capitalism has crept in as ‘influencing’. A clever and direct way for brands to market directly to consumers without the usual controls and regulations that govern traditional advertising. While they are still under the same rules, there has been no stoush to date between a high-profile influencer and the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA).
An influencer is defined as someone who has the power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of an authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. They follow a distinct niche where they actively engage to garner a following that will depend on the size of their topic of the niche. Individuals are not just marketing tools but rather social relationship assets that brands collaborate with to achieve marketing objectives. In short, they’re advertisers…...
Over 3.4 billion people use social media. This translates as 45 per cent of the world’s population. That’s a platform advertisers want. Social media are perceived as being individually curated by the user, and we access other individually curated profiles. From a marketing standpoint it’s pure gold. It’s person-to-person direct marketing. Except you choose to follow and consume the content of your chosen influencer/advertiser. In the old days we used to mute the ads on the telly; now we go to social media and subscribe and watch and like.
The problem with influencers is that the lines are blurred. Everyone knew advertising was fake. Actors playing the part of grumpy mums sick of wiping a bench, or some girl thrilled with the freedom her tampons gave her. We knew the script was written, the scenes were shot in a studio or on location, and we were expected to be tricked into believing the narrative as real. Influencers aren’t actors; they’re real people. They don’t broadcast from networks; they share from their personal accounts in their kitchen. It’s self-shot content to promote brands – that can become very confusing re authenticity. Clearly it’s authenticity they are harvesting to push the sell. They still have to be clear that it’s an ad, so it’s different from their usual posts, but very often the message is camouflaged and slips through as regular content.
So without the regulators breathing down your neck, how much duty of care do influencers take when deciding to take on a product to promote? While I am sure there are those who are highly ethical, there are just so many influencers and it is clear that there are those who don’t do the due diligence on what they push to their followers.
Blindboy is an Irish satirist and podcaster who duped reality stars and influencers into agreeing to promote a fake diet drink containing cyanide to their Instagram followers. In his 2019 BBC documentary Blindboy Undestroys The World he offers three influencers a fake diet drink brand deal. They were all told the product contained the ingredient hydrogen cyanide but they couldn’t try it as the product wasn’t ready yet. Blindboy was very transparent in presenting the product to see if they’d sell a product to their fans that would kill them. They all agreed to promote the product without trying it first. So I guess the answer is ‘Yes’. They were prepared to promote a drink that could kill. Not everyone does their due diligence. And as advertising now seeks to market to us using authenticity and our sense of what’s ‘real’ as cover, then we the consumers need full disclosure.
For a start we can rename influencers to advertisers. That at least would be authentic. Because it would be true.
But I guess no-one wants to watch a show about a bunch of advertisers in Byron Bay.
Netflix first promoted "Byron Baes" as a 'docusoap' about influencers & hot Instagrammers - now it is calling it a 'reality show'.
In my opinion, what this US-owned corporation is about to produce is an exploitative reworking of a tired old tv format, which will leave more than a few of the show's Byron Bay-based cast with their reputations in tatters.
 |
| Upper Clarence River catchment in flood, March 2021 It is in steep country such as this that Deputy Premier John Barilaro and the NSW Nationals want to establish mining ventures & associated unstable mining waste hillside tailing dams. IMAGE: The Daily Telegraph |
Clarence Catchment Alliance, media release, 5 May 2021:
The Clarence community and the Clarence Catchment Alliance's fight to stop mining in the water catchment gets a big leap forward on Friday the 7th May.
Standing beside the Clarence River, at the Lawrence Hall, at 3 PM this Friday, NSW Legislative Council Member the Hon Catherine Cusack will receive the Alliance's petition of well over 10,000 signatures against mining. She will subsequently present the petition to the NSW Legislative Council for debate in Parliament.
The petition calls for a to stop exploration and new mineral mining in the Clarence water catchment. Australian and international evidence proves that mineral mining besides waterways has a horrific track record. The chemicals used in the process as well as acidic tailings in high rainfall areas pollute waterways.
The Clarence Catchment provides drinking water for the Valley and neighbouring shires, as well as water for the agricultural, pastoral, fishing industries, and tourism. Our rivers and waterways are home to endangered species, unique ecology and are of high spiritual and cultural significance to local Traditional Owners.
Getting the 10,000 plus signatures has been a two year undertaking by volunteers of the Clarence Catchment Alliance, which is a non-political community organization, and their supporters.
In recent months, the Clarence Valley Council has passed two motions against mining, which gives parliament a precedent for action.
Last year, Ms Cusack crossed the floor in parliament in favour of the protection of koalas and their habitat.
The Clarence Catchment Alliance will present Ms Cusack with the petition on Friday with the Mayor and respected community leaders in attendance.
For more information please follow this link: https://linktr.ee/Nominesclarencevalley
Shae Fleming and Elizabeth Parker
Campaign Coordinators
Clarence Catchment Alliance
CLARENCE CATCHMENT ALLIANCE
PO Box 4089, Lawrence, NSW 2460
For more information on our campaign please visit
Web: https://linktr.ee/Nominesclarencevalley
Instagram: @nominesclarencevalley
Facebook: Clarence Catchment Alliance
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6sKa2GGFGjrXLigbUNJW1A
Soundcloud: CCA Clarence Valley
I acknowledge and respect the traditional custodians of the lands on which we live the Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr, and Yaegl nations.
~~~~~~~~~~ENDS~~~~~~~~~~
From the office of NSW Labor MLA for Lismore, Janelle Saffin, 3 May 2021:
Apply
for Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 4
STATE Member for Lismore Janelle Saffin is urging eligible organisations to apply for their share of the NSW Government’s $100-million Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 4.
Ms Saffin welcomed Round 4’s strong emphasis on increasing participation in women’s sport with $50 million dedicated to projects that enhance female sporting facilities and increase female participation in sport in regions like the Northern Rivers and the Northern Tablelands.
“The remaining $50 million in funding is available for other local community and sporting infrastructure, street beautification, and community programs and local events,” Ms Saffin said.
“Eligible applicants include local councils and joint organisations, non-government organisations, community organisations registered as incorporated associations and Local Aboriginal Land Councils.
“Local councils like Lismore City, Kyogle, Tenterfield and Tweed shires are encouraged to work with community groups to identify priority projects and should consider partnerships where council is the landowner.”
Ms Saffin said applications opened at the weekend (Saturday 1 May 2021) and close at 12pm on Friday, 25 June 2021, with projects assessed and approved by 20 August 2021. Successful project would be announced from September 2021.
Ms Saffin is keen to be briefed on projects and can provide letters of support if required.
More information on Stronger Country Communities Fund Round 4 is available from nsw.gov.au/SCCF or by contacting the Department of Regional NSW (DRNSW) – sccf.enquiries@regional.nsw.gov.au or 1300 679 673.
Under three previous funding rounds, the Fund has provided $400 million for 1500 projects across every regional Local Government Area across the State.
ABC News, 30 April 2021:
The Bandjalang people in far north New South Wales gathered today to celebrate a native title determination that was 25 years in the making.
The land includes a culturally significant bora ring near Coraki, north west of Evans Head, along with land already under the control of six local Aboriginal land councils.
The determination finalises a claim which was initially launched by the Bandjalang in 1996, the majority of which was determined in 2013.
Federal Court Justice Steven Rares said the Bandjalang had proven their continual connection to the land through the long-running court proceedings.
 |
| A map showing some of the larger parcels of land covered by the determination.(Supplied: NTSCorp) |
Traditional owner Simone Barker said she was sad her father Lawrence Wilson was no longer alive to see the claim he launched more than two decades ago come to fruition.
But she said she was proud of the legacy he had helped to create.
"He taught us well as children, that our culture matters first before anything else, and who we are, and to be very proud of that," she said….
On 1 May 2021 The Saturday Paper reported that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ordered an urgent review of the board of the National Australia Day Council, established as the Australia Day Committee in 1979.
National Australia Day Council Limited (NADC) is a not-for-profit Commonwealth owned corporation, within the Prime Minister's portfolio responsibilities, as well as being a tax exempt charity which is the “coordinating body for Australia Day celebrations across the nation and for the Australian of the Year Awards. The NADC heads a network of eight state and territory Australia Day affiliate organisations and 780 local Australia Day committees….reports to the Commonwealth Parliament under the provisions of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The operations of the company are overseen by a board of Directors appointed by the Prime Minister”.
The NADC board of directors in 2019-20 were:
Ms Danielle Roche OAM Chair
Ms Robbie Sefton Deputy Chair
Ms Stephanie Foster PSM
Dr Robert Isaacs AM
Dr Stepan Kerkyasharian AO
Ms Jane McNamara
Major General (Ret’d) Maurie McNarn AO
Mr Richard Rolfe AM
Mr Norman Schueler OAM
Ms Naseema Sparks AM appointment ended 25 June 2020.
As of 1 May 2021 the position of Chair, Deputy Chair, and two Director/Non Executive Director positions are vacant. Danielle Roche and Maurie McNarn are no longer on the board. Robbie Sefton is no longer Deputy Chair but remains a Director/Non Executive Director and Alison Page became a board member in September 2020.
NADC employs around 12 people full-time and is located in Canberra, ACT.
In its last published annual report NADC stated that:
During the period ended 30 June 2020, the NADC and Network continued to deliver both national and state programs. The Australian Government, through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, provided a total of $14,665,913 funding for the company. Sponsors provided a total of $2,109,860 for national programs, and part of this funding was allocated to state and territory Australia Day affiliates for local projects.
NADC does not appear to have any significant debt. There appears to have been no ministerial directions received, no government policy orders received and no judicial decisions or decisions of administrative tribunals were made concerning NADC during the 2019-20 reporting period.
So what has made the Prime Minister hot under the collar? After all, he makes those NADC board appointments.
Could it be that Morrison is uncomfortable with the fact that from January 2020 NADC through its “The Story of Australia” advertising placed a much greater emphasis on the histories and stories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? That he didn't like the NADC commitment for 2020-21 to "work to expand the reach of our Respect, Reflect, Celebrate: We’re all part of the story message into Australia Day events in every State and Territory, every town and city"?
Or was he incensed to the core of his narrow, historically inaccurate world view by this event?
"At dawn on Australia Day 2020, Port Phillip City Council in Melbourne and the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council, with the support of the NADC, held a We-Akon Dilinja (Mourning-Reflection) ceremony."
Chronologically it seems that Morrison's unusually short extension of Danielle Roche's contact as a NADOC director, which saw her ending her association with the National Australia Day Council on 31 March 2021, possibly may have followed on from his personal dissatisfaction with the 2020 Respect, Reflect, Celebrate Australia Day message which acknowledged Aboriginal dispossession commencing in 1788. Within four weeks of becoming prime minister Scott Morrison in 2018 was on record as viewing any such acknowledgement as "indulgent self loathing".
Or is it that in 2021 NADC made Grace Tame @TamePunk Australian of the Year and she refused be cowed by his ‘eminent’ position or pull her punches when it came to publicly speaking of institutional sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment?
Or is Morrison upset that on 25 January 2021 the NADC Board made a referral to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) of the leak of some Australia Day award recipients' names, given strong suspicions that there was an attempt by a person or persons to manipulate the betting market? For operational reasons about 180 individuals were informed of the winners names in December 2020 and that possibly would have included one or more staff in the Office of Prime Minster and Cabinet. No award finalists are ever informed before the official announcement on 26 January.
Failure of the icare Board to govern, lack of expertise, conflicts of interest, unethical behaviour, financial mismanagement, failure to meet standards, inappropriate behaviour, lack of accountability and grossly excessive executive remuneration – just a few of the problematic issues revealed in the 2020 annual review of this state compulsory workers compensation scheme, managed by icare since 2015 under ‘reforms’ established by the NSW Baird Coalition Government.
Sadly, the 2019 Independent reviewer report on the Nominal Insurer of the NSW workers compensation scheme: For the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (NSW) foreshadowed what was to come in 2020, by failing in its report to discourage the icare board and management from continuing the organisation’s wayward course.
NSW Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 2020 review of the Workers Compensation Scheme, April 2021, excerpt:
Findings
Finding 1
That the multi-billion losses incurred recently by the Nominal Insurer and Treasury Managed Fund have been caused, in large part, by a collapse in return to work rates arising from icare’s decision to introduce a new claims management model.
Finding 2
That return to work rates have fallen further in schemes managed by icare than in schemes managed by specialist and self-insurers.
Finding 3
That icare has failed to address the fall in return to work rates in the Nominal Insurer and the Treasury Managed Fund with either the urgency or thoroughness they deserved given the negative impacts falling return to work rates have on injured workers and the financial sustainability of the scheme.
Finding 4
That the Nominal Insurer and the Treasury Managed Fund will continue to sustain major underwriting losses until icare improves return to work rates.
Finding 5
That implementation of the Work Injury Screening and Early Intervention (WISE) protocols, that deliver early and active intervention for injured workers with musculoskeletal injury that have a risk of delayed return to work, have had a significant positive impact on return to work rates, and despite this evidence being available to icare they have not been adopted in the Nominal Insurer or the Treasury Managed Fund.
Finding 6
That icare has too often failed to reach the standards of behaviour expected of a New South Wales public sector agency.
Finding 7
That icare’s decision to select Guidewire and Capgemini to build the Nominal Insurer Single Platform appears to have been predetermined, and led to project costs rising from $110 million to more than $360 million.
Finding 8
That Mr Vivek Bhatia and Mr Michael Carapiet failed to take appropriate steps to declare, record and manage the conflict of interests arising from Mr Bhatia’s personal relationship with the leaders of Capgemini.
Finding 9
That Mr John Nagle's decision to appear in a video endorsing Guidewire’s software, and to accept their sponsorship of a trip to Las Vegas to appear at their 2018 conference, was inappropriate.
Finding 10
That icare failed to clearly notify bidders that it was considering the appointment of a sole scheme agent to manage Nominal Insurer claims in the 2018 tender and as a consequence, the tender process was not fairly conducted.
Finding 11
That icare’s implementation of a claims management system that has a single scheme agent to manage all nominal insurer claims by using a sole scheme agent has failed.
Finding 12
That icare appears to have applied undue pressure on EML to engage The Bridge International using a Project Service Order mechanism.
Finding 13
That icare’s decision to select the Perceptive Group to develop a Net Promoter Score transgressed all reasonable conflict of interest principles.
Finding 14
That icare’s decision to award Mr Rob Craig unlimited authority to enter into contracts to build the Nominal Insurer Single Platform was inappropriate and contrary to an express policy determined by the Board.
Finding 15
That icare’s systemic failure to comply with key requirements of the Government Information (Public Access Act (2009) is longstanding, systematic and remains unacceptable.
Finding 16
That icare’s policy of permitting senior executives to engage in secondary employment is inappropriate, especially given the extraordinary levels of the salaries paid to icare executives to perform their work for icare.
Finding 17
That the icare Board failed to appropriately sanction the former Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director after his inadequate disclosure of a serious conflict of interest involving a close family member.
Finding 18
That icare failed to provide Mr Chris McCann with a safe workplace and inappropriately required him to enter into a non-disclosure agreement after he raised serious concerns with icare's governance.
Finding 19
That the icare Board comprehensively failed to properly govern icare.
Finding 20
That icare's Board lacked members with expertise in personal injury management or workers compensation.
Finding 21
That mechanisms between the icare Board and Treasurer have failed to work in making icare accountable for its conduct.
Finding 22
That the level of executive remuneration at icare is grossly excessive, and is likely to have contributed to poor cultural practices at icare, and is out of keeping with community expectations.
Meet the icare Board at https://www.icare.nsw.gov.au/about-us/our-people/our-board.
