Saturday 3 May 2014
Friday 2 May 2014
Moggy Musings (Archived material from Boy the Wonder Cat)
An it has to be cheap but does it need
to be nasty? musing: Hearing that social
housing provider North
Coast Community Housing Co is
laying new and necessarily cheap carpets in some of its rental premises. The
colour schemes are the darkest of grey possible before black intervenes, a dark
brown that cannot possibly go any deeper on the dye spectrum and something that
can only be described as the hue of poo - apparently the company thinks the
poor have no taste and should live with such affronts to the eye and interior
house wall colours.
A Bazza musing: It was hard to cadge a treat from the
two-legs last Wednesday as everyone was talkin' bout that Barry O'Farrell
resigning as NSW Premier. I don't have any questions about that wine bottle -
what I want to know is why in 2011 after years and years in politics the man
didn't own even one square foot of house or land according to his member's
declaration.
A swear box musing: I'm in
trouble. I have to meow a hundred times, "I shall not call Operation
Sovereign Borders Operation Stupid B@stards and then yammer
hysterically". What? Cats can't have a sense of humour?
An SPC Sunday musing: I'm a cat so I
don't eat much fruit, but the Blues
Brothers budgies (who are
into all sorts of fruit 'n' veg) tell me that SPC Sunday is going off with a
bang and lotsa two legs are buying SPC Ardmona products and telling the world
about it today. Over at Twitter on #SPCardmona
they are jumping out of their skins and folks at SPC Sunday on Facebook are happily getting into the mood as
well.
A rumour has it musing: Whispers are
doing the rounds in the first few days of February 2014 that David Bancroft, a
former The Daily Examiner editor and later an editor of the Rural Weekly, is taking a
position as Clarence Valley Council's media/public relations spokesperson.
In-ter-esting....
A fractured history musing: On 1 February
2014 The Northern
Star confirmed what many have suspected. Clarence
Valley Council has been allowing local government paper records to rot in a
paddock for years -When the NSW Land and Environment Court called for the
documents to be made available, the Crown solicitor was told "they must be
with the Clarence Valley Council". He was later referred to the Coffs
Harbour Council but eventually it was discovered that the majority of documents
obtained from the former Ulmarra council were "housed in a shipping
container in a paddock" and the Clarence council believed it "would
be a big job to try and access the shipping container because it is full".
Justice Craig admitted he was left to "guess" what some of the
documents might have contained.
A karma musing: Maclean Court
House, 9.30 am 12 February 2014,NSW Police v Geoffrey William Leviny,
Case Number 201300148044,LC
Sentence.
A spam is getting
sillier by the minute musing: This email
caused a hoot of laughter from the two legs in my house - Happy New Year! 800,000 Pounds
sterling has been awarded to you from my wife & I. Kindly reply with your
Name, Address, Phone Number for details of prize if you are interested. Adrian.
A she saw red musing: If there is
one thing a house going paperless hates it's junk mail so She really was annoyed enough to say a
sweary word when telling me the tale.
What if people
don't want to receive advertising material and have a "no junk mail"
sign on their letterbox? Putting
mail into these people's letterboxes is not against the law but it is against
the distribution industry's Code of Practice. Distributors should respect
people's wishes not to receive this material.
Unfortunately
one new local business is choosing to ignore this advice and when the person
distributing its advertising was challenged by my owner he asserted that the
unwanted advert was not junk mail. Well, in all likelihood he is acting
informally and not covered by any industry code of practice. But I think the
letterbox stuffer was probably the CCW
owner – so he made a bad business
decision that day.
A grinning from
ear-to-ear musing: My
human came home today all cock-a-hoop. A group of young lads from north of the
Rio Tweed (who read this blog) brought the Administrator of North Coast Voices her very first mobile 'phone. I can't
wait to see her learn how to drive the thing. Bet she falls over furniture,
trips over apps and crashes into walls!
For the sake of $16.41 billion the Abbott Government is going to start a class war?
In the 20 years since the last thorough review of the Commonwealth government, budget spending has more than tripled. [Chair of the National Commission of Audit Tony Shepherd writing in the Financial Review on 2 May 2014]
It seems Chairman of the Abbott Government’s National Commission of Audit, Tony Shepherd, likes to compare the last twenty years when explaining the recommendations of the 2014 national audit made public on 1 May.
So what is the actual comparison? Well it breaks down like this.
In 1994 the Australian population was an est. 17.93 million. By May 2014 the population grew by 23.62 per cent to an est. 23.47 million.
In May 1994 there were 8.71 million people in the Australian labour force. In 2014 this had risen to 12.26 million people.
In 1994-95 all industry multifactor productivity was 108.5. In June 2013 it was 104.9 - a 3.6 point difference.
In 1994 Australia’s nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was an est. $323.41 billion and is an est. $1,577 billion in 2014.
Australian Government net debt reached 24.2 per cent of GDP in December 1994. Net debt reached an est. 11.7 per cent of GDP in 2013-14.
In 1994-95 the Federal Government had receipts totalling $113.45 billion and in 2013-14 total receipts were an est. $392.59 billion.
In 1994-95 Australian Commonwealth government outlays totalled $128 billion and in 2013-14 government outlays totalled $409 billion, which represents a threefold increase over the two decades spanning the last half of the Keating Government, the Howard Government, the Rudd & Gillard Governments and the beginning of the Abbott Government.
In May 2014 the Australian Government total combined net debt and spending is an estimated 38 per cent of GDP.
Basically, Australia’s population has grown and so has federal government spending, while multifactor productivity is lower. However, the gross domestic product has also grown along with the amount of taxes paid and the number of people of workforce age, while net government debt has fallen.
I honestly cannot see that the $16.41 billion shortfall between money coming in and money going out in 2013-14 is a valid reason for dismantling universal health care and forcing aged pensioners into a below the poverty line standard of living after 2016-17.
Especially if one looks at the numbers Mr. Hockey considers valid. In 2013-14 Federal Government total payments (spending) are 25.93% of Australia’s Nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2023-24 total payments are projected to be 26.50% of GDP. That expenditure growth is less than 0.57% over a decade, while the GDP is projected to grow 5.1% annually over that period.
When one factors in the possibility that reducing corporate ‘welfare’ grants, rebates and concessions would over time reduce the $16.41 billion, it makes the government’s position incomprehensible to say the least.
However, the Abbott Government attack on the welfare system apparently has less to do with economic reality and more to do with ideology and, no amount of media management by the government will be able to disguise this reality.
Note:
Dollar amounts and percentages are based on data found in Australian Bureau of Statistics tables, Australian Parliament briefing papers and Abbott Government documents and reports.
The Daily Examiner plays a dangerous game with readership loyalty
Once more The Daily Examiner allows an unknown person from an unidentified place to request that their name and the town they either live or work in be withheld when his/her letter is published
It is my understanding that the editor has been politely but firmly told by one Clarence Valley resident that his policy of printing anonymous letters is not agreed with – and that anonymous letters of this type are gutless.
I tend to agree with that sentiment and, for all I know the name supplied might be that of someone closely associated with coal seam/tight gas mining company, Metgasco Limited or with the pro-mining NSW Baird Government.
That suspicion has to remain when authorship is deliberately hidden by the editor.
What the approach to the editor last Monday signals is that a newspaper’s credibility is important to those living in its distribution area – without that credibility a newspaper withers.
Is it any wonder that this newspaper’s current Monday to Friday daily print circulation numbers for the twelve months ending December 2013 were still in the doldrums and its parent company APN News & Media Limited (which also puts advertisers rather than readers first) noted in the 2013 annual report that total circulation revenue across its media outlets is still in decline.
This despite the fact that print media is apparently read for news content by more people (14.7 million) across Australia than those who watch television for news content.
This despite the fact that print media is apparently read for news content by more people (14.7 million) across Australia than those who watch television for news content.
Because competition from global or national mainstream digital platforms was never the sole reason that APN newspaper mastheads like The Daily Examiner are struggling.
Who is going to pay good money to read thinly disguised advertorials or anonymous comment like this below?
The Daily Examiner on 28 April 2014:
Just a rabble mob
RE: Saturdays Examiner "Protesters ordered out at Bentley".
Reading this article, and seeing the photo attached, made me remember the same sort of disgusting rabble that protested over logging in the Washpool and Chaelundi forests back in the 1980s.
Same look, same disregard for the common law of the land, same hippy music (presumably) and no jobs.
These people do nothing to help the cause of CSG opponents.
The truth is, these people are anti everything.
To think that good, decent, clean-cut, young men went from our country to die in wars all over the globe, so that this rabble can have the right to make a public nuisance of themselves.
It really does make my blood boil.
Name and address withheld
UPDATE
One local reader sent me an email this morning which began: I saw THAT letter on Monday and was really p*ssed off.
UPDATE
One local reader sent me an email this morning which began: I saw THAT letter on Monday and was really p*ssed off.
Thursday 1 May 2014
The Abbott Government's road map leading to the demise of a fair Australian society is revealed today
Etching from Google Images
If ever one wanted proof that a federal government, led by a
well-heeled, far-right god botherer and
peopled at cabinet level by his fellow travellers, intends to send Australia
back to late 19th Century inequitable economic and social conditions, this report is it – and make no mistake - if the
Abbott Government achieves a second term all of this will come to pass:
Australian Government National Commission of Audit 1 May 2014:
Towards Responsible Government
The Report of the National Commission of Audit
Australian Human Rights Commission submission on the proposal to repeal sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
It is comforting to realise how little the far-right quisling, ‘Freedom Commissioner' Tim Wilson, actually counts when it comes to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s considered response to proposed bad law.
His perspective did not prevail in the Commission's submission and he was reduced to writing his own brief submission to the Australian Attorney-General who appointed him to his current position.
His perspective did not prevail in the Commission's submission and he was reduced to writing his own brief submission to the Australian Attorney-General who appointed him to his current position.
Australian Human Rights Commission 28 April 2014:
1. The Australian Human Rights Commission makes this submission to the Attorney-General’s Department in relation to the exposure draft Bill on proposed changes to the racial hatred provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA).
2. The Commission welcomes the opportunity for community consultation on this important and complex issue. The Commission encourages the Attorney-General’s Department to make information about the key issues identified through the consultation process publicly available to inform future public debate.
3. The Commission’s general observations on the proposal to amend the RDA and its specific observations on the text of the draft Bill are as follows.
General observations on any proposal to change Part IIA
(1) The Commission considers that the exposure Bill as drafted should not proceed. This submission sets out concerns that any future draft Bill would need to appropriately address. The Commission looks forward to engaging with any future proposal.
(2) Any proposal to amend the law should involve extensive public consultation as it has the capacity to affect the human rights of all Australians, and particularly consultation with those communities whose members are most vulnerable to experiencing racial discrimination.
(3) Proposals to change the law are recent and it should be recognised that, in its current form, the Racial Discrimination Act as applied by the courts and administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission has successfully resolved hundreds of complaints about racial hatred over the past two decades. Any proposed change requires further justification.
(4) The Commission considers that the legislation could be clarified so that it more plainly reflects the way in which it has been interpreted in practice by the courts. That is, to confirm that Part IIA deals with ‘profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights’.
(5) It is also important to recognise that racial vilification cannot be addressed only by legal prohibitions. Complementary education and awareness raising measures are also required to promote a culture of respect for human rights and responsibilities. The Commission will continue to play a key role in this regard.
Particular observations on the draft Bill
The Commission has a number of particular concerns about the exposure Bill as drafted. If, following the consultation described above, the Government were to proceed with the draft Bill, the Commission considers that each of the following amendments would be necessary.
(6) The Commission is concerned about the narrow definition given to ‘vilify’. It considers that if there is a change to Part IIA that includes a prohibition on ‘vilification’ then this term should be given its ordinary meaning, including conduct that is degrading.
(7) The Commission is concerned about the narrow definition given to ‘intimidate’. It considers that if there is a change to Part IIA that includes a prohibition on ‘intimidation’ then this term should be given its ordinary meaning, which recognises that intimidation is not limited to causing fear of physical harm but includes conduct causing emotional or psychological harm.
(8) The Commission considers that an assessment of whether an act is reasonably likely to contravene the law must be made ‘in all the circumstances’. The Commission considers that the words ‘in all the circumstances’ should be inserted into subsection 1(a) of the draft Bill following the words ‘is reasonably likely’. On the basis that the legislation and any extrinsic material make clear that all the circumstances of the act including the likely impact on the target person or group must be considered, the Commission does not express any other concerns about the proposed community standards test.
(9) The Commission considers that the exemption for artistic works should be retained. This could be effected by inserting the words ‘the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work, or’ after ‘in the course of’ in subsection (4) of the draft Bill.
(10) The Commission is concerned about the breadth of the exemption in subsection (4) of the draft Bill. The subsection removes the requirement that acts be done reasonably and in good faith. At the very least, including a requirement of ‘good faith’ as a minimum would prevent racist abuse offered up in the course of public discussion being permitted.
(11) The Commission considers that employers are well placed to address the risk of racial vilification by putting in place programs including training and codes of conduct for employees. The Commission considers that existing section 18E, which provides for vicarious liability for racial vilification, should be retained.
(12) The Commission considers that a person who engages in racial vilification should not be able to avoid liability by arguing that the act was also done for another reason. Section 18B provides that if an act is done for two or more reasons and one of those reasons is the race of a person, then the act is taken to be done because of race. Each of the federal discrimination Acts contains a provision equivalent to section 18B and its removal would make Part IIA inconsistent with all other federal anti-discrimination law. The Commission considers that this provision should be retained.
4. The right to freedom of expression is of fundamental importance, and extends to expression that may be regarded as deeply offensive. It is not, however, an absolute or unfettered right and carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
5. Racial vilification can also harm the freedom of those who are its targets. It can have a silencing effect and harm the ability of victims to exercise their freedom of speech, among other freedoms.
6. It is important to retain strong and effective legal protections against racial vilification. Such laws send an important message about civility and tolerance in a multicultural society, and ensure those who experience the harms of racial vilification have access to a legal remedy.
7. Throughout this submission, the Commission has been particularly concerned to ensure that it strikes the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and freedom from racial vilification.
8. In this submission, the Commission reflects on three areas of particular expertise relating to the draft Bill:
o how the draft Bill relates to Australia’s international human rights obligations;
o how the draft Bill would alter the existing level of protection of both freedom of expression and freedom from racial hatred; and
o the social harm that can result from racial vilification.
9. The Commission is uniquely placed to comment on these issues given our legislative mandate under the RDA and Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth),[1] and our role in investigating and conciliating complaints alleging breaches of section 18C of the RDA.
10. In the submission, we use case studies of matters dealt with under the legislation to provide concrete examples of how the proposed changes would alter the level of protection that currently exists.
11. This submission addresses the following issues in turn:
a. Australia’s international obligations to provide for freedom of expression while also protecting people from racial hatred;
b. the background to the enactment of Part IIA of the RDA, and how it currently operates;
c. in particular, a description of the seriousness of the conduct caught by Part IIA in the context of the recent public debate;
d. the Commission’s concerns about aspects of the draft Bill;
e. other measures to combat racial hatred in Australia.
12. In addition to this submission, the Human Rights Commissioner has also prepared an additional letter. It contains comments that are intended to complements this submission, and provide further elaboration on the key points of concern to the Human Rights Commissioner.
Read the rest of the submission here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
