tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39103147216737255002024-02-19T08:07:16.283-08:00News DeLimitedDelimiting news in order to try and ascertain what actually occurred compared to what our media claimed.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-79919106617086154692012-02-12T01:04:00.000-08:002012-02-12T01:04:23.044-08:00A Sugar Faeries Sugar HitJudith Sloane, the oo's new "<em>Contributing Economics Editor" </em>has decided to ignore her own new papers articles, and join in with the rest of the conga line of ruperts historians repainting the pallette of recent events, hoping against hope one would suggest that nobody cares to examine their claims to closely. In her <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sugar-hit-of-fiscal-stimulus-isnt-worth-the-weight/story-fnbkvnk7-1226268187359" target="_blank">recent outing</a>, she makes the following claim, pushed, interestingly enough, the claims favoured by three stooges of Australia's economic current debate <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/Abbott-Team/People/Tony-Abbott.aspx" target="_blank">Larry</a>, <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/Abbott-Team/People/Joe-Hockey.aspx" target="_blank">Curly</a> and <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/Abbott-Team/People/Andrew-Robb.aspx" target="_blank">Moe</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">But as a stimulus spending program, the problem was that the buildings were still being constructed well after the crisis had passed.<br />
</blockquote>In fact, as history actually shows, the timing and extent of the fiscal stimulus, and, more importantly, the impact on our economy, was weighted almost perfectly, and tapered of at precisley the time the economy begun recovering, as was shown in the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/mining-sector-investment-to-speed-up-recovery-from-slowdown/story-e6frg926-1225874550046" target="_blank">very paper</a> she is writing in.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The main prop for the economy in the first quarter was the government’s national school’s spending program, which added 0.9 percentage points to GDP. Consumer demand held up, despite the impact of aggressive interest rate hikes by the Reserve Bank of Australia.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></blockquote>This major mistake she makes really renders most of her remaining assumptions invalid. She goes on about waste (of course, it is an oo trait) even though the report by the Auditor General disagreed with them, and, as <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2010/05/19/who-says-ber-funding-rort" target="_blank">Ben Eltham in New mathilda</a> quite succinctly indicated, this perception (which they continue to push) was largely due to the oo itself, <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">You could be forgiven for thinking schools stimulus spending was a complete flop. It wasn't - and the misunderstanding is largely due to media distortion, writes Ben Eltham<br />
....<br />
News Limited has largely failed to find any widespread mismanagement or cost over-runs in the schools stimulus program. <br />
</blockquote>Sloane completes her cubist portrait with this hollow warning.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">It is therefore imperative to consider the case for fiscal stimulus within a medium-term framework in which the costs of debt servicing and repayment are also taken into account. The short-term benefits of ramping up government spending -- the sugar hit -- are quickly offset by the need to deal with the accumulated debt.\<br />
</blockquote>Interestingly, it is now the libs, not Labor, who are running away from any reference to bringing back in a Surplus to the budget. In fact, they are having their own problems with a <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/labor-does-a-huge-number-on-joe-hockey/story-e6frezz0-1226268354841" target="_blank">$70 BILLION BLACK HOLE</a>. And that is without any GFC to help it along, it is simly a result of too many NO's.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
</blockquote>Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-8872338335795420332012-01-19T15:17:00.000-08:002012-01-19T17:32:00.627-08:00The Daily SpeculatorWell, it appears that our media have abandoned all pretences of journalism, and entered instead into the divination game. For the past week, we have had speculation, assertion and equivocation over this <a href="http://m.theage.com.au/national/gillards-pokies-backdown-20120117-1q4th.html" target="_blank">fairly innocent comment</a> from the PM<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I've had some discussions with Andrew Wilkie, we will have some more discussions in the future and it's not my intention to engage in running commentary in any way while those discussions are happening.</blockquote>Somehow, the author of the article interpreted this to mean<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">JULIA Gillard has backed away from her promise to introduce a mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines.</blockquote>Sadly, he was not alone.<br />
<br />
A fairly complete list of the some of the ridiculous speculations masquerading as news can be <a href="http://www.cyenne.com/discussion/i-read-the-news-today-oh-boy/" target="_blank">found here</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Wilkie finally got to<a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/01/16/essential-research-54-46-to-coalition-6/all-comments/#comment-1129307" target="_blank"> front the cameras</a> to explain exactly where they were at. Apparently, the deal was still on, although not concluded, and negotiations were advancing. Of course, this meant that the headlines the next morning could reflect this?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/there-is-no-pokies-deal-wilkie-says-20120119-1q7qw.html" target="_blank">Or not</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">There is no pokies deal, Wilkie says </blockquote> Now, while the story itself is accurate enough it's claim that no deal has been formalised, considering that for an entire week the the press has been running the line that the Government has back-flipped on the deal with Wilkie, even though Wilkie denies this, to run a headline declaring 'no deal' is truly deceptive.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, for Gillard, there really is a no win for her in this that I can see.<br />
<br />
If the PM were to break the deal with Wilkie, then she deserves all of the contempt she gets.<br />
<br />
If the PM strikes a compromise that Wilkie agrees to, it will obviously still be portrayed as a betrayal of trust, even should Wilkie agree to it in hte hopes of actually passing the legislation.<br />
<br />
If the PM were to come out with exactly the same deal as put forward after the election, it will obviously be thanks to media pressure, and, the PM basically buying the vote of Wilkie.<br />
<br />
In another interesting piece of news, it appears that the figures put forward by the clubs for the cost of introducing this reform <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-20/research-challenges-cost-of-setting-up-pokies-reform/3783720" target="_blank">may well have been overblown</a>, by a factor of about 10. Apparently, the clubs don't see a little quibble over some dollars as a real issue. (couldn't find the link to their statement, but will update once I do). In other words, it appears that, for them, lying (from them at least) is not really a problem that should hinder 'debate'<br />
<br />
UPDATED 20 Jan 2012<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"> "We can quibble over whether it's going to be $3 billion, a little bit more or little bit less," Clubs Australia President Anthony Ball told ABC Radio.</blockquote>Yes, why 'quibble' over <a href="http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/12664343/clubs-reject-claims-on-pokies-costs/" target="_blank">rubbery figures </a>It's not like it's real money anyway, unlike the savings of those getting fleeced by these clubs.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-79068324811153528562012-01-16T14:46:00.000-08:002012-01-16T14:46:03.313-08:00Dad's ArmyJust an image to accompany this post by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/" target="_blank">Tim Lambert</a> in his ongoing series, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/" target="_blank">The Australian's War on Science</a>.<br />
<br />
Now up to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/the_australians_war_on_science_79.php" target="_blank">number 76</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDbyo37dnDgPw8lbPDaB3AvCO0tri4-RyEoB1vL1PQtr9e6JiHa_FnH9jVKzFD6KzG8SVtpp7ik-NW7t6Uf1o-v8bzcdXxpUnejJ0ab-JolU-PBWAyldKI9T63dAf26ek1vBxOpT5NQ7fj/s1600/dad%2527s+army.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDbyo37dnDgPw8lbPDaB3AvCO0tri4-RyEoB1vL1PQtr9e6JiHa_FnH9jVKzFD6KzG8SVtpp7ik-NW7t6Uf1o-v8bzcdXxpUnejJ0ab-JolU-PBWAyldKI9T63dAf26ek1vBxOpT5NQ7fj/s400/dad%2527s+army.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6qjMF2ha3J8n_atFYu3V7v2ptxJGyZPjOMUkppepek8CJTBNlZF11KsfE6v7CNjUjpStvNOAsb-0Tn0ViIxN3ED1d0mrla2anP-J8KJVtc8d44Hq-5RIqNYsJZAFkNV06sfKWCuHCfJbB/s1600/dads+army.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDbyo37dnDgPw8lbPDaB3AvCO0tri4-RyEoB1vL1PQtr9e6JiHa_FnH9jVKzFD6KzG8SVtpp7ik-NW7t6Uf1o-v8bzcdXxpUnejJ0ab-JolU-PBWAyldKI9T63dAf26ek1vBxOpT5NQ7fj/s1600/dad%2527s+army.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div>Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-35311231294908457172012-01-16T13:40:00.000-08:002012-01-16T13:40:39.798-08:00To wireless, or not to wirelessThe oo continue to remain undecided if we should go wireless or not in regards to the NBN<br />
<br />
In their ever increasingly erratic position against anything NBN, it now appears that wireless is no good, providing that it sits within the NBN roll-out. Previously, they have been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wireless-challenge-to-future-proof-nbn/story-fn59niix-1226104623595" target="_blank">right behind</a> the wireless 'solution', yet now, it appears that wireless is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/challenge-looms-for-nbn-booster-tower/story-e6frgaif-1226244875962" target="_blank">plagued with problems</a> (duh).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">PLANS for a wireless signal tower to deliver the National Broadband Network near Ballarat may face a legal challenge, with residents seeking advice on how to stop the development. </blockquote><br />
<a name='more'></a>So, residents are against a phone tower going up. Fair enough. I also have many reservations about mobile phone towers, and, it appears that the fears are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health" target="_blank">not unfounded </a>However, the story is not about mobile phone towers, which is most probably what the challenge is about, it is apparently attempting to portray the residents as being against the NBN going on the tower. Further into the story, after the residents have expressed their share of outrage, we get this.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">An NBN Co spokeswoman said the company was interested in installing equipment on the Buninyong tower if it was approved but had not directed Crown Castle on the specific site.</blockquote> So, what this story has to do with the NBN is anybodies guess, except that, assuming this tower is built, the NBN will be interested in using it. The legal challenge is against a tower going up. Something we have become accustomed to as mobile phone towers have spread across the country.<br />
<br />
But the crowning moment comes as the Barrister (who has challenged the Government unsuccessfully before (see how I did that)), complains about there not being fibre, something the oo has srgued against since the NBN was formed<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Mr Pape said he didn't think the funding was a constitutional issue but found it "extraordinary" a town so close to Ballarat would receive wireless connection instead of fibre.</blockquote><br />
It would be truly amazing if the oo could pick a position, and argue their case against the NBN from that position, However, for them, it appears the only position they have is against the NBN, after that, the specific argument is irrelevant, as long as it can get something negative to associate the NBN with. And, as I <a href="http://newsdelimited.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-telework-please-were-media.html" target="_blank">mentioned previously</a>, if it is at all positive, just don't print it.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-77198317691497668992012-01-15T15:53:00.000-08:002012-01-15T15:53:29.382-08:00No Telework please, we're mediaConsidering the great lengths that the oo has gone to reveal about the NBN, such as how many <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nbn-sell-nets-4000-customers/story-e6frg71x-1226243000111" target="_blank">customers to employees</a>, how many have <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/company-amex-for-one-in-10-nbn-staff/story-e6frgaif-1226242132345" target="_blank">credit cards</a>, and the all important, how <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/townsfolk-reject-wireless-nbn/story-e6frgaif-1226216696170" target="_blank">bad for our health</a> could it be, one would have thought that <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2012/001" target="_blank">Conroy releasing a press releas</a>e about an upcoming Telework Week would have been big news, particularly as it relates directly to this obviously hot topic issue.<br />
<br />
Alas, a search of Bing and Google returned only <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/telework-to-have-many-benefits-conroy-20120114-1q0br.html" target="_blank">one story</a> dedicated to this release, and that was from a Fairfax paper. Even <a href="http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/52155-dbcde-plans-telework-week-to-drive-nbn-demand" target="_blank">IT articles</a> have written about it, so ignorance really cannot be the excuse.<br />
<br />
I can only conclude that, considering the positive tone of the release, and the obvious benefits that the NBN will give to actions like Teleworking, that it really didn't fit in with the angle that the murdoch press is trying to sell us, in place of the actual news.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-41704232905061291462011-12-06T13:59:00.000-08:002011-12-06T16:40:10.434-08:00An Open SecretBack in November 28, 2011, the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-broadband-network-could-cost-50bn-with-returns-at-risk/story-fn59niix-1226207543617" target="_blank">oo</a> ran with the 'breaking' story<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">CAPITAL spending on the National Broadband Network will top $50 billion and slower-than-expected development of digital video content could put at risk the financial returns for the ultra-fast network,<u><b> a confidential report to Labor states</b></u>. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">.....</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"> The full report by Greenhill Caliburn, <u><b>obtained under Freedom of Information</b></u>, also reveals that $50.6bn in capex would have been spent on the network by 2028.</blockquote>Trouble is, although the oo may well have found this in a report they did indeed obtain from under FOI, these same figures have been available on the NBN's own website in their <a href="http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/nbn-co-3-year-gbe-corporate-plan-final-17-dec-10.pdf" target="_blank">Corporate Plan 2011 - 2013</a> for over a year for anybody who was prepared to look, like, you know, a journalist perhaps. So, no, this is not some figure trying to be hidden away by the Government, it is a figure which was released over a year ago, and has been in the public domain all that time.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
The other interesting thing to note is the 2028 date, which they then compare to the 2020 date which is when the NBN is projected to be 'completed'.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">That is dramatically higher than the $35.9bn in capital costs to build the project by December 2020 that is usually cited by Labor. </blockquote>Well, duh, did they truly expect the outlay for a national network to cease completely in 2020? The 2020 date is for the NBN to cover all <i>existing </i>areas. By 2028, there are sure to be many more areas requiring coverage, as the NBN grows with the nation. The other <i>minor </i>point they have glossed over is that this additional capex will be mostly funded from profits, meaning not an actual outlay from the taxpayer. In fact, by then, it is highly likely that the taxpayer will already be seeing money start to flow back in. Of course, this is dependant upon many factors, including the development of digital video content. But, for anybody who has followed Information Technology advancements, they have historically advanced much faster than projected, rarely any slower.<br />
<br />
What is more interesting now is how this $50 Billion figure has now entered the lexicon of the murdoch press to drag out whenever they need to spread their fear. Take this piece of junk from the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gunnedah-high-speed-wi-fi-internet-works-as-leaked-reports-reveal-nbn-cost-could-blow-out-to-50b/story-e6freuy9-1226213578597" target="_blank">the Telegraph</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Gunnedah high speed Wi-Fi internet works as leaked reports reveal NBN cost could blow out to $50b </blockquote>Well, for starters, as we have just seen, the $50b is NOT a <i>blow out</i>, it is the initial projection. Secondly, in this little beauty, they go on to compare the cost of a National Network with the cost of a localised upgrade, which is covering only the main street (admirable as that is)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">IT walks like the NBN, talks like the NBN - but is about $40 billion cheaper.</blockquote>Are they implying that it is going to cost around $10b to cover a main street in WiFi?<br />
Meanwhile, the actual council have revealed that the are not concerned about the NBN roll-out. In fact, in <a href="http://www.itwire.com/cloud-computing/51339-tups-takes-cloud-services-to-rural-communities" target="_blank">iTWire</a> they highlight that, once it arrives at their town, they will in fact most probably become customer for the NBN.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Meanwhile NBN Co is promising to have completed by 2015 its TD-LTE network delivering broadband access at 12Mbps to four of the seven percent of premises beyond its FTTH rollout. This however does not faze Peach. He told ExchangeDaily: "It is possible this could undermine our business case, but that is a commercial risk we thought was worth taking…At the end of the day we are a retailer and NBN Co is a wholesaler. We could become an NBN retailer… [But] If the NBN was going to be her tomorrow or next year our view might have been different."</blockquote>I also think that the residents of Gunnedah might well be looking forward to the NBN arriving, so that they are able to have a similar system to that being offered to the businesses there.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
</blockquote>Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-60502067975185775582011-11-20T13:18:00.000-08:002011-11-20T13:26:09.806-08:00You keep using that word."<a href="http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk" target="_blank">You keep using that word.</a> I do not think it means what you think it means."<br />
<br />
The oo <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-change-effects-unknown-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226199542768" target="_blank">fails basic literary skills</a> yet again.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report</blockquote><br />
Unknown? Considering the IPCC is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-19/extreme-weather-to-worsen-with-climate-change/3681686" target="_blank">very clear </a>about the projected effects of AGW on the climate, many of which appear to be coming to fruition already, the word 'unkown' is deliberately obfuscating what is within the report. Uncertain perhaps, but not unknown.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">An increase in heat waves is almost certain, while heavier rainfall, more floods, stronger cyclones, landslides and more intense droughts are likely across the globe this century as the Earth's climate warms, UN scientists say.</blockquote><br />
This is interesting not only in the fact that journalists, who ought to know better the usage of words, and their implications, appear to be giving the reader a conclusion which is directly at odds with the actual contents of the report, as they have done before with the BER, NBN and AGW previously. Considering the departing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-18/holmes-winners-all-round-as-news-ltd-face-media-inquiry/3678792" target="_blank">hartigans comments</a> at the media inquiry being led by Ray Finkelstein QC <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Apparently, our readers are so weak-minded that they don't have ability to make up their own minds unless they have riding instructions from our newspapers." </blockquote><br />
Well, to me, a headline such as "Climate change effects unknown: IPCC report" reeks of 'riding instructions', and, unless you were to seek <a href="http://newsdelimited.blogspot.com/p/links.html" target="_blank">alternative avenues</a> for your information, might well be drawn to the inaccurate conclusion this story attempts to portray.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-12361665906518225062011-11-15T18:43:00.000-08:002011-11-20T13:25:53.824-08:00Everybody's Going It AloneThere is much talk by certain parties about Australia 'going it alone' in regards to the Carbon Price. It is a constant refrain brought out by the opposition and their oracles, but how accurate is it. <br />
<br />
Considering that the European model has been up and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm" target="_blank">going since 2005</a>, not very I guess. <br />
<br />
But, since the European Union Emission Trading System began, many other countries have also implemented or a planning to implement ETS mechanisms, including NZ, Switzerland, China, Korea, Japan and states in the US, as highlighted on the <a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/international/global-action-facts-and-fiction/ets-by-country.aspx" target="_blank">Governments own site</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
And now that the POTUS is visiting the country, it appears the opposition want to <a href="http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/20111116-bishop.mp3" target="_blank">make this a political visit</a>, and press him on when America is planning to implement a similar scheme<br />
<br />
Well, I have news for them, schemes are propping up all over the US (in direct contrast to what ulman tried to dissemble to our PM in his <a href="http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/archived/media-watch-ii/#comment-19918" target="_blank">wet lettuce attempt at denialism</a>). And, if the existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is anything to go by, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbryk/new_poll_strong_support_for_rg.html" target="_blank">the future looks bright</a>, in face of stiff opposition from vested interests<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Region-wide, since RGGI launched climate change air pollution is down 30 percent, and energy costs are 15 to 30 percent due in part to RGGI-funded energy efficiency programs. These energy efficiency programs will create nearly 18,000 job years (a year’s worth of work). Overall, because of RGGI, the region’s economy has grown by more than $2.6 billion.<br />
<br />
And already, New Jersey’s participation in RGGI has put the state on the road to voters’ clean-energy goals. RGGI has delivered more than $52 million for clean energy projects that support new and existing jobs in the state, and can save consumers and businesses money. If Governor Christie sticks with the program, that number will grow exponentially.</blockquote><br />
And then <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/15/368500/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-jobs-northeast-study/" target="_blank">there is this one </a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Adds 16,000 Jobs and $1.6 Billion in Value to Northeast Economies, Study Finds</blockquote>So, it appears that the rest of the world IS moving to pricing carbon, in direct conflict to what the opposition AND their msm is trying to tell us. I wonder how the 'rollback' will look as even more go online, assuming that ever comes to fruition.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-59083542996469601732011-11-02T18:37:00.000-07:002011-11-02T18:37:25.658-07:00I'd be Lying if I said the Price on Carbon wasn't Taxing me too.The climate of debate within our country at the moment has degenerated into a slanging match of who can fling the most vitriol towards our first female PM.<br />
We have shock jocks wanting to " <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3272172.htm">Put her in the same chaff bag as Julia Gillard and throw them both out to sea</a>." Spectators in the Gallery calling her "<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3338355.htm">a lying scrag</a>", and who can forget the opposition leader appearing in a protest in front of the "<a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/public/php/resize.php?id/238526/w/300/h/225/site_1_rand_503762984_abbott_ditch_the_witch_230311_b_aap.jpg">Ditch the Witch</a>" and "<a href="http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/03/23/1226026/932862-abbott-new.jpg">Bob Browns Bitch</a>" placards. Yes, this is the kind of 'debate' we are having in regards to one of the most important legislations to face out country.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
And all of this vitriol is apparently based on an alleged lie perpetrated by Gillard on the eve of the election. A lie which, if it were ever to be examined truthfully by our meeja, would be exposed not as a lie, but actually as a PM pursuing, at its core, precisely what was promised on the eve of the election. Our media is simply (and imo deliberately) refusing to acknowledge the reality of this statement, and preferring to perpetuate the ongoing hatred and vehemence this 'alleged' lie has exposed.<br />
<br />
To begin with, why don't we examine the statement made by the PM, instead of the cherry picked snippet we are fed daily by the meeja and the opposition. From the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983">oo itself </a>(so they really have no excuse for their subterfuge)<br />
<blockquote>"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."</blockquote>Now, that is pretty clear. She is saying, clearly, that her Government will pursue a Carbon Pricing mechanism, but not a Carbon Tax. There is a reason that the two options are raised in contrast to each other here, I would speculate, in that perhaps she was worried that someone, perhaps through ignorance, or perhaps through ideological grounds, may decide to conflate the two, and try and claim that she had broken an election promise on that basis. Because, simply put, they are very similar proposals in a broad, overarching view of public policy, although largely different in their core implementation. Hence the two can be easily confused, particularly, as it appears in retrospect, if you do not want to look at them too closely; which the media are steadfastly refusing to do. There is a very good, simple and concise explanation over at the The Conversation "<a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-the-difference-between-a-carbon-tax-and-an-ets-1679">Explainer: The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS</a>" that explains this difference in a manner that our broadsheet media appears unable to do.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">An ETS works by setting a cap on emissions and requiring emitters to hold a permit for each tonne of CO2 that they emit. The level of the cap determines the number of permits available.<br />
<br />
.....<br />
There is no cap on emissions in a tax-based system. People are free to emit as much or as little as they like, but if they do emit, they must pay the tax.</blockquote><br />
Well, Gillard was very specific, but, in our brave new, unhinged world, conflating issues is the least of the PMs worries. Here, the media as a whole have simply cherry pick the portion of the promise they want to, and (deliberately??) ignored the caveats implicitly stated within that promise. From there, they can run with the whole "No Carbon Tax" meme. So, a few days after the announcement by the Government on its proposed Carbon Reduction Scheme, we had the media noticing that the 'fixed' price on the Carbon Credits 'acts essentially like a tax'. Gillard, for reasons unbeknown, agreed with them, and, no matter how correct the statement is, it was politically damaging. The truth is, if it is fixed or not, an ETS is similar to a tax, as even <a href="http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/andrewprobyn/post/194/comment/">Malcolm Turnbull </a>accedes to.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">You can argue it's a tax, whether it's cap-and-trade or a fixed-price. </blockquote>The trouble is, the media are happy to run with the perception, and actively re-inforce it at every turn. In the same article, the author runs with this line<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Ms Gillard never properly attempted the distinction.</blockquote>Well, that is entirely untrue. The PM laboured, extensively, and vainly, on attempting to draw the distinction, but was shut down every time by a press who had their story, and were prepared to ignore all evidence to the contrary to pursue it. <a href="http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-qt-attacks-tax-and-semantics.html">GrogsGamut </a>had a post up at the time which details the arguments Gillard (futilely) used to prosecute her case<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">PM: …. I have agreed that we would start with a fixed price and then move to the full emissions trading scheme.<br />
<br />
HOST: And you have agreed that the fixed price is the same as the carbon tax?<br />
<br />
PM: Laurie, I didn't want to get caught up in what I knew would be one of those semantic word games about whether or not I would say the word ‘tax’. You know how these games are played, Laurie. A politician decides they are not going to say a word, and then media, people like yourself, Laurie, spend weeks trying to make them say it. I wasn’t going to do any of that</blockquote>Along with<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
ALEXANDRA KIRK: So your problem is that you've had two opposing positions on carbon tax. The fundamental problem is that you broke an election promise. You said before the election there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, and now you've shifted your position. So you don't have a mandate for a carbon tax.<br />
<br />
JULIA GILLARD: Alex, we went to the 2007 election saying we had to price carbon and the best way of doing that was an emissions trading scheme where the market sets the price for carbon.<br />
<br />
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But you went to the last election…<br />
<br />
JULIA GILLARD: We went to the 2010 election saying we need to price carbon and the best way of doing that is an emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon. What will we deliver? An emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.<br />
Yes, there will be a period where the price is fixed, effectively like a carbon tax. But we will end up exactly where we promised Australians we would go.</blockquote>That doesn't look like somebody who 'never properly attempted the distinction'. It looks more like somebody banging their head against the brick wall of somebody else who didn't want to listen. Unfortunately for Labor. It may be too late to change the perception (in fact, I think they gave up on that months ago). Which is a pity, as this isue will dog them forever now. <br />
<br />
Another argument that is run a lot in the resultant 'debate' is the "it is a tax by definition". There are cases both for and against this, and, barring a high court decision, we will probably never come to a clear conclusion. I personally lean to the case that it isn't a tax by definition, based largely on the finding in the Journal of Australian Taxation 391 <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JATax/1999/28.html#Heading13">TAX OR PENALTY? - THE LATEST SEQUEL By Vince Morabito</a> which finds<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The passage above clearly indicates that the concepts of taxes and penalties are mutually exclusive. A given exaction may be either a tax or a penalty, but it cannot be both.<sup><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JATax/1999/28.html#fn9" name="fnB9">[9]</a></sup> Consequently, if the Commonwealth Act under challenge deals with only one exaction which is characterised by the court as a penalty, rather than a tax, then the law is not authorised by the taxation power and will be declared invalid by the court, unless the Commonwealth can place reliance on other heads of legislative power.</blockquote>Of course, others may bring out other disputing case, but this misses the elephant in the room. The PM did not say that the Government would not be implementing a tax, she said they would not be pursuing a 'Carbon Tax', but a 'Carbon Price'. As seen from Malcolm Turnbulls comments earlier, an ETS can easily be seen as a tax, and may well be defined as a tax in certain respects. It is highly likely that sections of the bills will refer directly to sections of the tax code. Whatever a classification of a 'tax' or not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme holds, it is still the scheme that Gillard took to the election, as opposed to a Carbon Tax scheme. Note the difference here between the generic term of 'tax', and a specific 'Carbon Tax'. A CPRS is still a different concept to a Carbon tax, and, even if the high court deemed it a tax, is still an CPRS, and, therefore, still what was promised prior to the election.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">To delve deeper in the moronic nature of the debate, and, assuming that everything I have written here is dismissed for whatever reasons, there still remains one final hurdle to cross, which truly brings in the contradictory nature of the oppositions claims. This fixed price period of the trading scheme is, well, fixed, for three years (initially). Now, while many refer to absolutely anything the Government extracts from a private entity a tax, broadly, regardless of the details, not everyone is as free with the terminology. Here is an example of one such person, who, when presented with a question by <a href="http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/levy-or-tax/">joni over at Cafe Whispers</a>, enlightened us on his own interpretation of the intricacies between certain terminologies</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">JON HARRIS: Over here. The Opposition will impose a levy on business to fund a paid parental leave. When does a levy become a tax?<br />
<br />
JOE HOCKEY: When it becomes permanent.</blockquote>Of course, these rules only apply to certain political parties, which is all well and good, if you agree that rules for one and rules for another exist. But for the rest of us?? <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">But will this rancid argument over a falsely alleged lie go away, and will we ever be able to actually discuss the actual merits or otherwise of the actual legislation? Going on the opposition’s behavior in parliament who, when presented with this opportunity, then proceeded to walk out en masse, only to appear outside and complain that the bills were being rammed through without any time for debate, I would guess not. And, more importantly, until our media can get back to reporting the facts, clearly and concisely, without picking through morsels to suit their agenda, while ignoring the core of what is said, I largely doubt that.</div>Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-32666856732336613242011-11-02T15:11:00.000-07:002011-11-02T18:36:05.020-07:00Nothing to see hereIn the wake of the extraordinary action taken by Qantas in grounding their fleet at a moment's notice, the (what soon turned out to be short-term) attention of the media turned to who knew what about the grounding. The telegraph came out with a story claiming that the PM had been warned, and that she could have prevented the whole saga if she had just returned a phone call. Luckily, <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/10/31/the-tele-and-the-qantas-phone-call-that-wasnt" target="_blank">Crikey have snippet</a> from the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-made-phone-call-to-pm-julia-gillard-but-was-ignored/story-e6freuy9-1226180960683" target="_blank">original online story</a> which is no longer on the tele's site.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">"QANTAS CEO Alan Joyce would have abandoned his decision to ground the airline had Prime Minister Julia Gillard returned his call and promised to intervene directly in the union standoff." </blockquote>Even though <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/travel/live-coverage-qantas-ordered-back-in-the-air-20111031-1mqtm.html" target="_blank">the story had been denied</a>, ltdnews continued to try and <a href="http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/julia-gillards-qantas-move-didnt-follow-the-script/story-e6frfq80-1226182021708#ixzz1cOGHcVkL" target="_blank">run with the line</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">JULIA Gillard’s office and three senior ministers were told by Qantas management they had “options available” to avoid the fleet grounding and that CEO Alan Joyce was ready to talk to the PM.</blockquote>However, when we get to their much quoted ‘script’, we hear this.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">All were told: “We recognise the government has a range of options available to you, however we need to make it clear that we will not, and <b>cannot put planes back in the air</b> until these issues are resolved and we have certainty.”</blockquote>This is their ‘evidence’ that the government was ‘warned’? That, in the ‘warning’ that they might ground flights, they admit that they already HAVE ground flights. Thats not a warning, that’s a revelation after the fact. By then, it is already too late. yet the paper would have us believe that the Government were ‘warned’.<br />
<br />
<br />
After both the PM and joyce came out to deny this story, tony abbott was asked if he knew anything about it. True to form, yabot had a bubble-head moment, and Labor picked up on that and pursued him all day in Parliament over just what he did know and when. He finally came out and declared that he knew nothing until the Saturday afternoon. Considering we haven't got that in writing (or pledged in blood), there is probably a huge question mark over that.<br />
<br />
The Government pursued tabot all day over this, until he finally got up to declare, as shown in the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr011111.pdf" target="_blank">Hansard</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">the first I heard about it was at about quarter to five on Saturday afternoon. If the Prime Minister and the minister for transport have any doubt, I refer them to a transcript of Steve Price on 2GB where he said he was beside me when I first learned about it. If I had prior notice of what Qantas was intending, I would hardly have booked myself and my family on Qantas the following day"</blockquote>The question mark got bigger when hockey went on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-02/albanese-renews-attack-over-qantas/3614710" target="_blank">7.30 with Leigh Sale</a>s to declare that "he was told by Qantas well before Saturday that it was planning to ground its aircraft." Perhaps he should have passed this information on to yabot before he had booked his flights.<br />
<br />
But the most interesting development in this whole charade. Once it had become abundantly obvious that the Government had not been fore-warned, but huge questions hung over what and when elements within the opposition knew about the grounding, this story became a non-item. The very next day, the only mention was a brief article in the SMH, and the replay of the interview with hockey on theirabc.<br />
<br />
Not a mention anywhere else. Even though, the fact that opposition members were aware of an imminent grounding (even though there was no mare industrial action, except for pilots wearing red ties), and allowed tens of thousands of people to become stranded. Not one iota of light hasz been shone on this murky subject.<br />
<br />
And they wonder why the msm is held in such poor regard?Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-87909748890256925972011-10-22T14:32:00.000-07:002011-10-22T14:32:50.574-07:00Where's My Beach?The oo continue to misrepresent and deceive in their continued attack on the science og Global Warming. This time, they have an Engineer, who went to a council meeting where he got the impression that his land would be covered by 6 metres of water by 2015. The fact that this hadn't happened apparently 'discredited' the report.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the report (and quite likely the meeting where he drew these conclusions) did not say 6m of vertical sea rise, but horizontal, as pointed out by <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/the_australians_war_on_science_74.php">Tim Lambert</a> in his ongoing series <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/">The Australian's War on Science</a><br />
<br />
Regardless of what the report actually said (or the council meeting in question), the writer also concludes that the report was 'discredited' on the hear say of a retired Engineer, and draws their conclusion accordingly. It is a shame that a paper the size of the oo didn't have the resources or desire to actually site the report, let alone get a statement from the council over what was stated at the now infamous meeting.Tom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-56718185061822383422011-10-22T02:55:00.000-07:002011-10-22T02:57:00.369-07:00The Gillard Curt(er)syJulia Gillard met the Queen the other day. While you would have thought that this would have simply been a time for the meeja to simply run in Women's Weekly mode, they had other things in mind. No, they thought they would create some sort of controversy over the PM's perfectly satisfactory and correct greeting of her Royal Highness. The papers, ALL OF THEM, went into an apoplexy of outrage over the fact that she bowed and shook her hand instead of curtseying. I kid you not.<br />
<br />
They began the day declaring that this had been an affront to the queen, but that was soon replaced by a 'she should have done it anyway' once they were informed that she had done nothing wrong. It even descended to the level of the HUN showing a full page picture of a young girl curtseying, and declaring how much better she was than our PM.<br />
<br />
The saddest thing about this whole escapade, is that the following day, tony yabot met the Queen, and failed to even bow. This was entirely ignored by the meeja. The fact that he piled directly into local politics with her, instead of the chit chat that is generally accepted as polite conversation in front of the cameras, was also portrayed as a brave and forthright move, rather than the rude and ignorant showboating it was.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/10/21/piers-talks-manners/">Pure Poison</a> have an excellent post up, with front pages showing the indignant outrage from dimwits who should know better. This really is news delimitedTom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3910314721673725500.post-43401042379340772782011-10-21T15:28:00.000-07:002011-11-02T18:36:58.466-07:00NBN Co does not leave local tech firms out in the coldRecently reported in the oo came the headline<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-co-leaves-local-tech-firms-out-in-the-cold/story-e6frgaif-1226168016092"><u><b>NBN Co leaves local tech firms out in the cold </b></u></a><br />
<br />
In it, the story claimed<br />
<blockquote>An analysis by <i>The Australian</i> reveals that of almost $7.4 billion worth of contracts with construction and manufacturing firms, $1.75bn - or 23 per cent - has been given to Australian-controlled companies.<br />
The NBN Co disputes this figure, arguing it is closer to 50 per cent. The analysis has outraged local technology companies, which fear a greater use of skilled migrants as the NBN rollout gears up.</blockquote>Blogger <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/10/17/nielsen-57-43-to-coalition-galaxy-58-42/all-comments/#comment-1059916"><span class="fn n">kezza2 </span></a>at Crikey highlights the oo's <span class="query_h1" id="query_h1">artifice</span><br />
<span class="query_h1" id="query_h1"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="query_h1" id="query_h1"> </span> <br />
<blockquote>Jeez, according to The Australian, NBN Co cannot do anything right:<br />
<blockquote>THE government company rolling out Labor's National Broadband Network is paying Australian companies as little as 23c of every $1 it spends on tenders for the project, prompting warnings that the government is failing to support local industry.</blockquote>BUT, in the overseas companies who’ve been awarded contracts, there’s:<br />
1. Corning Cable Systems (US) – listed by the OO as up to $1.2 billion – has its factory in Clayton, Victoria. i.e. jobs for local workers:<br />
<blockquote>As a result of the contract, Corning will invest about $25 million in its Clayton facility, as well as in related equipment and personnel training. The facility employs 115 workers, but in the peak years of the NBN deployment, Corning expects to add as many as 300 to 400 jobs there.</blockquote>2. Prysmian (Italy) – listed by the OO as up to $300 million – has its factory in Dee Why, NSW. i.e. jobs for local workers:<br />
<blockquote>The five-year contract gives around 125 existing staff job certainty and will create up to 50 new jobs over five years.</blockquote>3. Ericsson (Sweden) – listed by the OO as up to $1.1 billion. Well, it’s actually Ericsson Australia (offices in Melbourne and Sydney employing local workers) who won the contract, signed by Sam Saba of Ericsson Australia.<br />
And that’s just three of the companies.<br />
The whinger quoted, Openetworks managing director Michael Sparksman, moaning about lost Australian jobs, has lots of overseas companies with whom his company does business. It’s okay for him, yeah!<br />
F*ck I’m sick to death of Murdoch running down anything good for Australia.</blockquote>He highlights here what the oo has done. They have carefully only chosen companies that are "Australian-controlled companies." It disregards companies that might be foreign owned or foreign controlled, and in so doing, misses out on many local jobs, as <span class="fn n">kezza2 </span>points out. Which, as he highlights, includes quite a lot of 'local tech firms'<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/50542-nbn-roll-out-to-maximise-local-suppliers">ITwire </a>have a story up, and actually get the opinion and comment from the source, <span class="intro">NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley.</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"We have a policy for maximising local content," Mr Quigley said. By the way, just for the record, I absolutely disagree with the analysis (by the Australian): in fact, it was quite bizarre."<br />
<br />
"When it comes to things such as buying fibre equipment, we are using local content to the maximum extent we can. But I think everybody would realise you cannot buy (some specialised equipment) from an Australian supplier as they are not made in Australia," Mr Quigley said.<span class="intro"> </span></blockquote><br />
Nice to see the oo continuing with it's 'bizarre' and completely misleading attack against the NBNTom Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05090399129503676966noreply@blogger.com1