Australian Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott's double dipping lie is an insult to working women

On Mother’s Day 2015 the Abbott Government announced that it would be removing all or part of federal paid parental scheme payments to an estimated 79,000 working women who take maternity leave from 1 July 2016 onwards.

Under federal legislation these women had an expectation of receiving up to $11,500 for maternity leave of 18 weeks duration.

In the interview with Laurie Oakes the Treasurer Joe Hockey used the word double-dipping to describe the lawful right of working women to access both the federal paid parental leave scheme and that of their employer if there was one in place:

At the moment people can claim parental leave payments from both the government and their employers so they are effectively double dipping. We’re going to stop that. You can’t double dip, you can’t get both parental leave pay from your employer and from taxpayers.

The Double Dipping Lie Was Repeated In The 2015-16 Budget Papers Two Days Later

This is an extract from the consolidated Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16:

Removing Double-Dipping from Parental Leave Pay

The Government will achieve savings of $967.7 million over four years by removing the ability for individuals to double dip when applying for the existing Parental Leave Pay (PLP) scheme, from 1 July 2016. Currently individuals are able to access Government assistance in the form of PLP, in addition to any employer-provided parental leave entitlements. The Government will remove the ability for individuals to double dip, by taking payments from both their employer and the Government.

The Truth About The Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme

This is an extract from the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Act 2010:

Division 1A—Object of this Act

3A  Object of this Act

             (1)  The object of this Act is to provide financial support to primary carers (mainly birth mothers) of newborn and newly adopted children, in order to:

                     (a)  allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child’s birth or adoption; and

                     (b)  enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; and

                     (c)  encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and

                     (d)  promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.

             (2)  Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

             (3)  The financial support provided by this Act is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child. [my red bolding]

It is noticeable that the main budget decision-makers in 2015, all six members of the federal Expenditure Review Committee, are privileged white males living off the public purse - with one receiving a salary higher than that of the U.S. president and another being a millionaire many times over.

It is also worth noting that this scaling back of the federal paid parental leave scheme was not put to voters at the last general election.

UPDATE

It would seem that despite their attempts to vilify working mothers, Coalition MPs not only voted with the then Labor Government to introduce paid parental leave - some of their wives/partners accessed both the government and their employer's leave schemes.

ABC News 14 May2015:

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.

"We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.

Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".

But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife received benefits from her employer and the Government PPL scheme.

"Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.

The Australian 17 June 2010:

AUSTRALIA has its first universal paid parental leave scheme, catching up with the rest of the developed world, after the Coalition voted with the Rudd government to back the historic legislation.

Can a photograph be any more contrived than this one?

Photo: Andrew Meares

Prime Minister Tony Abbott appearing to 'console' treasurer Joe Hockey during a prearranged and very posed photo shoot promoting 2015-16 budget papers preparation.

Unsolicited ratbaggery

Residents in the Lower Clarence area have been receiving hand-delivered plain white envelopes addressed "HELLO NEIGHBOURS". 

"There's nothing too wrong about that." I hear you say.

Well ... take a look at the contents (2 pages) of the envelope.

Page 1

Page 2

Small puzzles in the Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget Papers

Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 contains a number of small puzzles:

* Treasury estimates it will be raising $1.18 billion between 12 May 2015 and 30 June 2019 from decisions taken but not yet announced. Apparently we can all look forward to budgetary surprises scattered like rose petals across our path during the next four years.

* The nature of the Combatting [sic] multinational tax avoidance — stronger penalties measures is such that a reliable estimate cannot be provided so there are no figures given for any financial year. However, the Abbott Government expects an unquantifiable gain to revenue over the forward estimates period from companies with global revenues of more than $1 billion. It has this expectation even though there is no proposal to make unlawful the billion dollar tax avoidance schemes currently used by large multinationals such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

* Removing access to the government paid parental leave scheme for pregnant women if their employer has a parental leave scheme is listed as an “expense” to the Australian Government of $1.67 billion between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019 and will only achieve “savings” of an est. $967.7 million over the same period. Perhaps a reader can explain that one.

* The Australian Consensus — establishment is listed as an expense but no figure is attached for any financial year. Despite the fact that $4 million over four years commencing in 2014-15 (announced as a grant to the University of Western Australia in April 2015 which it quickly returned to federal government coffers) is mentioned in the text, as is the government commitment to go forward with establishing this centre. Because this budget item was not included in the previous 2014-15 budget and is merely a title in this year’s budget it is a rather a strange little orphan whose inheritance is probably stuffed under the education minister’s mattress.

* Government expenses relating to Managing Biosecurity Risks — expanded surveillance and offshore audit are nfp (not for publication). Apparently cost estimates associated with this scheme are too sensitive for voters’ eyes while government is allegedly still in ongoing consultation with industry.

* Cost of the Home Insulation Program Industry Payment Scheme — establishment is nfp. It would appear that the transparent, equitable and evidence-based process for the assessment of business losses and the making of payments to over 200 businesses promised by the Abbott Government doesn’t extend to providing a budget estimate of the total cost of this scheme which was announced in December 2014 and was to be completed by mid-2015.

* One-off Government Response to the Home Insulation Program Royal Commission — act of grace payments made in 2014-15 are nfp. Again, the total cost is not for voters’ eyes and this item brings the total number of not for publication items to around nine.

Who is to blame for Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget?

“The budget belongs to no individual minister, it belongs to all of us but it particularly belongs to all the members of the Expenditure Review Committee.”

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, 7 May 2015]

Federal Expenditure Review Committee

CHAIR: Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Liberal Party Leader)

DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer Joe Hockey (Liberal Party MP)

MEMBERS:

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss (National Party Leader)

Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison (Liberal Party MP)

Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann (Liberal Party MP)

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg (Liberal Party MP)

Make no mistake, the contents of the Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget Papers are heavily influence by the worldview of Tony Abbott.

He would not have been able to resist the urge to dominate and override his ministers, as his frequent 'captain's picks' demonstrate. 

The Australian general public overwhelming rejected a national medical records database but the Abbott Government is still insisting on gathering every piece of medical data on citizens that is available

On 10 May 2015 the Australian Minister for Health Sussan Ley freely admitted that two years and ten months after the federal government’s national database of personally controlled health records (PCEHR) opened for business as eHealth less-than one-in-ten Australians have decided to opt-in to this scheme.

Less than one-in-ten appears to indicate that an estimated 18 million adults have decided to not hand over their own medical records and those of their children to a federal government agency.

The Abbott Government’s response, to what can only be seen as an overwhelming rejection by both the general public and GPs, is to insist that all citizens now be mandatorily included in this national database which will allegedly have a new opt-out provision.

The reason given for this move to add every citizen to a re-worked national database is a recommendation contained in an ‘independent’ six-week review of eHealth by a three person panel ordered by then Minister for Health Peter Dutton in November 2013.

This recommendation by Messrs. Royle (Australian Private Hospitals Association), Hambleton (Australian Medical Association) & Walduck (Australia Post) was for an opt-out model to be implemented by 1 January 2015 as there was little meaningful use of the existing opt-in eHealth database.

A brief background of the evolution of this national database on North Coast Voices:

Friday, 17 April 2009  So you want to look through my medical records?

Wednesday, 10 June 2009  Federal Labor and Health Minister Roxon crossing a bridge too far

Thursday, 13 August 2009 Hoyden Laurelhed quite rightly expresses disquiet over Federal Government progression of a national e-health data base

Sunday, 24 January 2010 Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon is not telling the truth about the Medicare e-card 

Thursday, 28 January 2010  e-Health: something's rotten in the State of Kevin

Sunday, 7 March 2010  And these are the people Rudd & Co intend to trust with access to a national database containing all your sensitive personal information?

Monday, 15 March 2010  Who's guarding the guards guarding your personal information?

Wednesday, 9 March 2011 Felling unwell? Take two aspirin and stay away from NSW hospitals

Thursday, 14 April 2011  PCEHR opt-in provision expected to allay privacy concerns. Pull the other one!

Tuesday, 13 December 2011 So you thought the Gillard Government had promised you would control your own e-Health database information?

Tuesday, 7 February 2012 eHealth – when “We told you so” gives no satisfaction

Wednesday, 7 November 2012 e-Health: join at your own risk

Tuesday, 6 May 2014 e-Health PCEHR platform: what is the Abbott Government trying to hide?

Tony Abbott's latest budget pork pie

Tens of thousands of wealthier retirees will lose access to the age pension under changes targeting what Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described as "liquid assets millionaires".

Excuse me?

Every single one of these people receiving a part aged pension will continue to do so – it will just not be in the form of cash into their bank accounts.

Under Abbott’s sleight-of-hand the announced changes will lose them the small fortnightly cash transfers some currently receive, but they will all retain the highly financially lucrative seniors health card – a benefit worth thousands of dollars a year to the average retiree.

If you want proof of this just look at the paltry savings the Abbott Government is supposedly garnering from the this measure – a total of est. $177.7 million each year over the next four years.

An estimated 91,000 of those independent retirees (some of them millionaires) who structured their post-retirement assets, tax-free superannuation lump sums and income streams to allow themselves a regular federal government welfare payment and/or benefit, will lose their Centrelink cash transfer, but retain the right to bulk-billed medical services, heavily subsidised pharmaceuticals, subsidised public transport travel, telephone account concessions and, energy supplements etc via retention of the seniors health card.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Joe Hockey, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and the rest of their far-fight rabble must think Australian voters are fools if they expect them to swallow this politically convenient stop-gap measure aimed at neatly sidestepping the need for superannuation tax status reform.

Treasurer Joe Hockey spinning so hard he loses all memory of his own past media releases

It has become increasingly difficult to take this Australian Treasurer seriously.

He treats the economy as his political plaything.

Joe Hockey on Tuesday 4 December 2012

http://www.joehockey.com/media/transcripts/details.aspx?s=409

Joe Hockey on Tuesday 5 May 2015

http://www.joehockey.com/media/media-releases/details.aspx?r=481

Campbell Newman's unwise decisions when Queensland premier continue to haunt that state

Correspondence between former Queensland police officer and former chief magistrate Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the President of the Court Of Appeal Justice Margaret McMurdo, Justice Hugh Fraser and others clearly demonstrates that an unwise political decision on the part of then Liberal National Party Premier Campbell Newman in 2014 will not be easily rectified.

Scroll to the end for the first email in the chain, dated 17 April 2015.

Correspondence between Queensland Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the President of the Court Of Appeal and other...

BACKGROUND

ABC News 9 May 2015:

Timeline of controversies surrounding Chief Justice Tim Carmody:
Nov 2013	Angered the legal profession by issuing a directive that all disputed bail applications made by alleged bikies be dealt with in one court room. That meant he would, most likely, be presiding over the controversial cases.
June 2013	Selected as chief justice despite never having sat on the Supreme Court, and after only nine months in the chief magistrate's job. Chosen over long-serving judges.
Jan 2014	Told newly appointed magistrates not to "meddle" with the controversial bikie laws.
June 2014	Bar Association President Peter Davis quits over appointment.
June 2014	Former Supreme Court judge Richard Chesterman QC and corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald criticise appointment. Mr Sofronoff claimed Justice Carmody was too close to former Liberal National Party government. "His impartiality as between citizen and government has been called into question".

July 2014	Sworn in as Chief Justice behind closed doors, as controversy raged about his suitability for the job.
April 15, 2015	Met child protection advocate Hetty Johnston while still deliberating on whether Daniel Morcombe's accused killer should have his conviction overturned.
April 17	Court of Appeal President Margaret McMurdo raises issues of bias because of the meeting.
April 22	Justice Carmody responds that any suggestion of bias is "unsupported by precedent and utterly preposterous". Says it is "alarming" Justice McMurdo's associate investigates Ms Johnstone's comments over Cowan.
April 23	Justice McMurdo says "I cannot sit with him again on any Court".
April 29	It is revealed Justice Carmody did not read Justice McMurdo or Justice Fraser's draft judgements on Cowan appeal, despite being circulated in February.
May 7	Justice Carmody withdraws from Cowan appeal

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman has also weighed in, calling on the Chief Justice to resolve the dispute.

"To have a Chief Justice make so many mistakes goes back to the fundamental issue of the botched appointment," he said. 

"The Chief Justice has the problem, the Chief Justice has to solve the problem. 

"The fact is the Chief Justice said a couple of months ago that if his occupying the position of Chief Justice made the position of the Supreme Court untenable ... he would resign, the position is becoming increasing untenable. 

"There are so many problems with the ongoing occupancy by Justice Carmody of the position of Chief Justice that this stalemate has to come to an end, this crisis has to be addressed. He is the only one who can address it."

Justice Carmody enjoyed a meteoric rise under the former Liberal National Party government and was promoted from Chief Magistrate, after a nine-month stint, despite never serving on the Supreme Court.

Leaders in the judiciary, including Justice Wilson, have publicly turned on him and questioned if he was ready for the top job or had enough peer support.

Environmental vandals: the Abbott Government never learns from its mistakes

Geelong Star (Credit: ABC) 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) media releases tell a sad tale of lessons not learnt by the Abbott Government.

MISTAKE NO. 1 – allowing the super trawler to operate in Australian waters

Geelong Star meets AFMA requirements on arrival into Australia

Last updated 1 April 2015

Today (1 April 2015) officers from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) met and inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery, upon its arrival into the port of Albany, Western Australia.

Officers from AFMA’s Bycatch and Compliance units conducted a detailed inspection of the vessel. AFMA Compliance officers confirmed that the Geelong Star has met AFMA’s strict conditions for fishing vessels entering Australia and that the GPS-based vessel tracking system is fully operational.

AFMA General Manger of Fisheries Operations, Mr Peter Venslovas said that the vessel passed all AFMA’s requirements for a new fishing vessel entering Australia waters.

“AFMA Compliance officers routinely conduct inspections of all fishing vessels in Commonwealth fisheries to ensure that they comply with AFMA’s strict management arrangements. Today’s inspection of the Geelong Star is just the first in what will become a regular event for this vessel when operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery” said Mr Venslovas.

Assessment by AFMA Bycatch officers confirmed the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s requirements to minimise and monitor impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment. Their inspection included a detailed assessment of the vessel’s Marine Mammal Excluder Device and the seabird bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA.

An AFMA-approved Vessel Management Plan is required for all mid-water trawl vessels operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery and today’s inspection was a key step in AFMA’s process to finalise the necessary plan for the Geelong Star.

Vessel Management Plan conditions are in addition to, or re-inforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting obligations for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery. These detailed plans set out the individual vessel requirements to ensure fishing impacts on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial) are minimised.

The Vessel Management Plan for the Geelong Star will be published on the AFMA website once it has been finalised. The Vessel Management Plan is subject to change by AFMA at any time in response to new information about the fishing operations or the marine environment.

MISTAKE NO. 2 – imagining that bycatch would not become a vexing issue

AFMA inspect the Geelong Star

Last updated 2 April 2015

On 1 April 2015, AFMA Compliance and Bycatch Officers inspected the Geelong Star, the mid-water trawl vessel recently nominated by Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

AFMA Compliance Officers confirmed the vessel met AFMA’s conditions for entry of fishing vessels to Australia and that AFMA’s tamper-proof, GPS-based vessel tracking system was correctly installed and fully operational.  The officers also collected detailed vessel information to assist them during future inspections to ensure compliance with AFMA’s catch limits and other management arrangements.

AFMA Bycatch Officers inspected the bycatch mitigation devices required by AFMA including the marine mammal excluder and seabird scaring devices installed on the Geelong Star’s mid-water trawl gear.  The officers also undertook an assessment of the vessel’s ability to comply with AFMA’s full suite of requirements to monitor and minimise impacts on non-target species and the broader marine environment and gave an educational presentation to the vessel’s skippers and crew advising them of the requirements.

Following AFMA’s initial inspection of the vessel, it will now work with the company, vessel crew and bycatch experts to finalise the Vessel Management Plan (VMP).  This plan will set out the detailed operational requirements that minimise the impact of fishing operations on non-target marine wildlife and other fisheries (recreational and commercial).  The conditions set out in the VMP are in addition to, or otherwise reinforce, AFMA’s standard operating and reporting conditions for all mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery must have an AFMA-approved VMP before commencing fishing operations.  Once finalised, AFMA will publish the VMP on our website.  Please note that the VMP is subject to change by AFMA at any time (even within a fishing trip) in response to new information about the fishing operations and/or the marine environment.

For more information read the FAQs for the Small Pelagic Fishery on the Small Pelagic Fishery page.

MISTAKE NO. 3 – Expecting a management plan to be effective re large marine animal bycatch for a factory ship expecting to catch up to 230 tonne a day in its small-fish nets with a 16,500 tonne quota limit

Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan

Last updated 22 April 2015

All mid-water trawl vessels in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery must have a vessel management plan approved by AFMA before they start fishing.  This is a legal requirement.

A vessel management plan is a comprehensive boat-specific plan to minimise the risk of interactions with protected species (e.g. seabirds, seals and dolphins). Vessel management plans contain both recommendations and mandatory measures that must be employed by the boat to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to minimise its impact on protected species.

Vessel management plans can be updated to ensure they take into account on-the-water experience and the latest developments in techniques to reduce interactions with protected species.

The Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan was updated on 22 April 2015. View the updated Geelong Star Vessel Management Plan.

MISTAKE NO. 5 – not posting an Australian Fisheries Management Authority media release on its website alerting the Australian public to the fact that during its first fishing voyage the Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. killed four protected dolphins and two protected seals in Geelong Star’s nets

ABC NEWS 28 April 2015: Tasmanian Government refuses to publicly denounce operation of factory trawler Geelong Star

                                                                                                                                         

MISTAKE NO. 6 – not admitting that allowing this super trawler to continue to operate is a political and environmental error

Geelong Star – operational update

Last updated 2 May 2015

Statement 2 May 2015

AFMA has been advised of four further dolphin mortalities from fishing by the Geelong Star, the vessel nominated by Seafish Tasmania Ltd to fish in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The mortalities occurred in one shot during the vessel’s second trip. AFMA has also been advised of two fur seal mortalities during the vessel’s second trip.

Consistent with the requirements of all vessels fishing in Commonwealth waters, the Geelong Star must report any interaction with protected species, including marine mammals like dolphins, fur seals or Australian sea lions.

AFMA takes any marine mammal mortalities seriously. We are disappointed that these additional dolphin and seal mortalities have occurred.

AFMA understands the Geelong Star is voluntarily returning to port because of the dolphin mortalities for a full review of its marine mammal exclusion equipment. AFMA will participate in the review to determine how to minimise further marine mammal interactions. The vessel will also be inspected by AFMA officers when it arrives in port to ensure all catch documentation is in order.

MISTAKE NO. 7 – a weak response from the Federal Minister for the Environment and Liberal Member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, who did not post a ministerial media release on the subject and only made a statement on 3 May 2015 to journalists saying that he would write a letter or two

ABC News 3 May 2014 Greg Hunt condemns factory trawler Geelong Star's dolphin deaths as 'unacceptable and outrageous'

Community Housing Limited just won't take no for an answer so it's off to court again for Clarence Valley Council

Community Housing Limited is an international public benevolent institution which in 2014 had a surplus of over $11.1 million, total rental income of over $36.6 million and paid no income tax.

In Australia its combined grant and incentive income in that same year was over $17.7 million.

It has 5,600 properties under management in this country according to Managing Director Steve Bevington [Macleay Argus, 12 April 2015, Leonard's light bulb woes]

In the Coffs Harbour area the company appears to have taken possession of 180 Coffs Harbour public housing properties (a mix of one & two bedroom units) in 2011, with the state government contributing a one-off payment of around $1.5 million and the company making a contribution of around $1 million to required property upgrades.

In the Clarence Valley it has fourteen housing properties (a mix of units, townhouses and houses) in Grafton funded by federal, state and local government in the form of land contribution, discounted land sale, capital grants and National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) as well as a loan taken out by the housing company.

In December 2014 this comfortably cashed-up company lost a NSW Land & Environment Court bid for rates exemption on its 1,368 properties in this state.

Now it is back for a second round. This time in the NSW Supreme Court, where on 20 May 2015 it will have a directions hearing (notice of appeal) in Community Housing Limited v Clarence Valley Council 2015/00014853.

A tale of old trees which matter to a small community

Some of the people who opposed the removal of landmark camphor laurel trees from McLachlan Park.

Photo from the Independent

The Daily Examiner 1 May 2015:

Majority view

Mayor Williamson and the councillors who failed to support the motion to save the trees should never be voted into office again.

They have blatantly ignored the wishes of a significant number - possibly a majority - of residents simply so the mayor can push through his plan for McLachlan Park, a plan which, according to him, will be "magnificent".

The mayor wouldn't know magnificence if he tripped over it as clearly neither he does not consider giant 100-year-old trees to fall under the definition of "magnificent".

According to figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the last national census "... the population of Maclean in 2011 was 2612, living in 1202 dwellings with an average household size of 2.25."

Let's allow for growth over the past four years, be generous and round that up to a population of 3000 for 2015.

To quote from your article (by Tim Howard) in Tuesday's edition of the Daily Examiner: "Councillor Williamson is not convinced the group of protestors [1500 signatures on a petition to save the trees] reflects the view of the whole of Maclean....."

So, Mr. Mayor, let's do the mathematics:

Population = 3000

Of that total it would be safe to assume, based on the figure of 2.25 per household, that at least a third would be of voting age, i.e. 1000 ratepayers.

Number of signatures on the petition to not destroy the camphor laurels = 1500.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the response to the petition certainly DOES reflect the view of the whole of Maclean.

In addition to the above, if our esteemed mayor wishes to spend ratepayers' money on the removal of noxious weeds why not follow up on information I supplied to the Invasive Species Officer in Grafton last June regarding a prickly pear infestation in Orion Drive, Yamba?

This information was passed on to the council (who handle the actual eradication) and, over a month later, they sent someone who poisoned one, ONE, of the more than dozen plants I reported. All the others are still there and thriving.

The sooner a new council is elected the better.

Bruce Kennewell

Yamba

University of Western Australia comes to its senses and boots Bjorn out the door

Bjorn Lomborg

Google Images

ABC News 8 May 2015:

The University of Western Australia has cancelled the contract for a policy centre that was to be headed up by controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg …..

In a statement, UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson said the creation of the centre had attracted "mixed reactions" from staff, students and the general public.

"The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the university did not predict," he said…..

Mr Johnson said he had on Friday spoken to the Federal Government and Dr Lomborg, advising them of the university's decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the Government.

He last month said the Federal Government had approached the university to set up the centre.

The Federal Government funding had attracted strong criticism from the Opposition, who described it as politically motivated, something Mr Pyne strenuously denied.

UWA Academic Staff Association vice president Professor Stuart Bunt said the move was not censorship.

"This isn't about censorship at all ... Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it," Mr Bunt said.

"The difficulty is he is neither a scientist or an economist, he's a political scientist.

"Once you become attached to a university, you're given a kind of credence by that university; people would expect an adjunct professor at UWA to be working in a professional manner and that their statements would be evidence-based.

"Lomborg would be using the name of the university, to put what are largely political opinions, rather than evidence-based statements, using the university's name."

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said UWA made the right decision.

"It was very clearly the Government's design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn't as significant an issue as it is," Senator Siewert said.

"It was bad science, and I'm pleased that UWA has realised that.

"[The Federal Government] clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it."…..

How much can a koala bear before he needs a doctor?

This koala appears to have entered accident & emergency department of a public hospital in the Western District Health Service in Victoria:

https://youtu.be/itq1kAuYFgs

Most intriguing opening line in a blog post this week

As I explained in the Inforrm article that prompted Sir Alan Moses to invite me for a brief visit to his office before his terse invitation to depart it, the touchstone both of whether IPSO has any independence from the press industry and whether it will therefore be an effective regulator is on the issue of prominence. [Inforrm’s Blog, 1 May 2015]