Thứ Bảy, 16 tháng 5, 2015
Notice to all North Coast Voices readers
Due to events beyond our control North Coast Voices will not be posting until further notice.
For this we apologize to all our regular readers and to those that just drop by from time to time on a whim.
Desmond John Euen is still hunting the Snark*
Never let it be said that Desmond John Euen’s self-aggrandisement is not a hardy plant.
A reader of this blog alerted me to the fact that there was yet another slide show posted on the Internet by Queensland’s former truck driver and wannabee infrastructure entrepreneur who would like to see the small coastal towns of the Lower Clarence River turned into residential precincts for a large container and coal loading port of impossible dimensions.
His latest effort includes this intriguing statement for which I can find no supporting evidence:
Snapshot from Y.P.R Aust-Asia Global Economic Transport Corridor
Mr. Euen’s enduring presence on the Internet in chronological order:
2015 http://www.ypraust.com.au (website for Mr.Euen’s incorporated entity Y.P.R. (AUST) PTY LTD registered in March 2014, in which he is sole director and secretary with all its shares owned by him through his first $1-1 share company AUSTRALIAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD in which in turn he appears to be the only director, shareholder and company secretary)
14 January 2015 http://www.slideshare.net/DesEuen1/the-new-transport-era-yamba-port-rail (slide show)
22 December 2014 http://www.slideshare.net/DesEuen1/the-new-economy-yamba-port-rail (slide show)
14 December 2014 http://www.slideshare.net/DesEuen1/des-euen-d-bendall-2?related=1 (an undated and unsigned letter purporting to support Mr. Euen)
25 November 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/informaoz/michael-sutton-paper (anonymous document alleged to be a presentation at two-day Regional Ports Conference in 2013)
* The Snark is an absurd creature in a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll published on April Fool’s Day 1876.
Who is not telling the truth in these Question Time exchanges?
Excerpts from the Australian House of Representatives Hansard, 13 May 2015:
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister for Social Services that mums who get more than 18 weeks paid leave at home with their new babies are 'rorters'? Or does he agree with his Treasurer, who believes they are committing fraud?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:35): The premise of the question is simply false. I have seen too many members of the Labor Party verbal members of the coalition to accept that.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Woolworths workers have negotiated an extra eight weeks parental leave? Why does the Prime Minister want to take this extra bonding time away from mothers and their babies? Does he agree with his ministers—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right!
Ms PLIBERSEK: that these mothers are rorters and fraudsters?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:42): Members opposite should stop telling lies about ministers in this government. They really should stop telling lies about ministers in this government.
The SPEAKER: I would remind the Prime Minister that the term 'lies' is unparliamentary and I would ask him to withdraw.
Mr ABBOTT: I was not accusing any particular member opposite of telling lies. But, Madam Speaker, to assist you, of course, I will withdraw. The claims that have been made by members opposite about statements by ministers in this government are simply false. The assertion that was made by the minister who asked the question again is simply false
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Victorian nurses have negotiated, in return for forgone wages, an additional 10 weeks of parental leave on top of the minimum paid parental leave? In the light of that, why are the Prime Minister and his ministers describing nurses, and indeed Woolies workers and 80,000 other new mums, as rorters?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:51): I say again that members opposite should tell the truth. They should tell the truth. They should not tell lies, Madam Speaker. They should not do that. A moment ago, we just heard the phraseology of the Leader of the Opposition. We heard the phraseology from the member for Sydney. We heard the phraseology in particular of the member for Jagajaga. The member for Jagajaga said that the Treasurer was calling people taking paid parental leave from their employer and from the government fraudsters. That is what she said. This is dead wrong. I have the transcript. I defy the member for Sydney or any other member opposite to point to any time where the Treasurer used that word 'fraud'. You know who used the word 'fraud'? It was Laurie Oakes. That is who used the word 'fraud'. He said, This is basically fraud, isn't it?' And the Treasurer made it very clear that he supports people on paid parental leave.
Journalist Katherine Murphy writing in The Guardian on 14 May 2015:
From Scott Morrison’s official transcript – Sky News, 11 May:
Q: Sometimes employers don’t give generous programs. I know of a lawyer in Canberra she gets six weeks, how is that generous?
Scott Morrison:
Q: Sometimes employers don’t give generous programs. I know of a lawyer in Canberra she gets six weeks, how is that generous?
Scott Morrison:
Well she will get the balance through the paid parental leave scheme which is provided by the taxpayer. She will get the same thing as someone working for the bakery and that’s the important thing here we are getting rid of what is an inequity and frankly in many cases I think is a rort.
Treasurer Joe Hockey being interviewed by Laurie Oakes on 11 May 2015:
LAURIE OAKES:
But this is basically fraud, isn't it, taking an allowance twice effectively? Who is doing it?
TREASURER:
Well, it is, in many cases it’s mostly people who go on parental leave that earn more than $90,000 a year. But there are people at various levels who have been claiming parental leave payments from taxpayers, as well as from their employers. Given that our own paid parental leave scheme is not proceeding, we want to make sure that the system is fairer and that’s exactly what we are doing. [my red bolding]
Thứ Sáu, 15 tháng 5, 2015
Want to know how responsible the NSW North Coast Member for Page is for our economic, environmental & social predicament?
FEDERAL Member for Page Kevin Hogan has told Federal Parliament how a visit to the coal seam gas mining fields in Chinchilla convinced him to continue his opposition to CSG in the Clarence Valley.
On Thursday Mr Hogan addressed Federal Parliament about his concerns about the impact of CSG mining in his electorate.
He said he came to the conclusion that CSG was inappropriate for Page after he visited Chinchilla in Queensland in January 2013 to speak with community members about the impact of the industry there.
"I tried to envisage what the industry would look like in my region," he said.
"I could not see how the industry could work without being extremely invasive given the nature of our topography and small land owning. It would be exceptionally detrimental to neighbouring properties."....
* This is how the member for the federal seat of Page, Nationals MP actually voted on key issues since 2006, according to Open Australia:
*Voted very strongly against a carbon price. votes
*Voted moderately against increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management. votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace. votes
*Voted moderately against implementing refugee and protection conventions. votes
*Voted moderately for temporary protection visas. votes
*Voted very strongly for increasing or removing the debt limit. votes
*Voted very strongly against a minerals resource rent tax . votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing protection of Australia's fresh water. votes
*Voted strongly for regional processing of asylum seekers. votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing marine conservation. votes
*Voted very strongly for unconventional gas mining. votes
*Voted very strongly against restricting foreign ownership. votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing investment in renewable energy. votes
*Voted very strongly for privatising government assets. votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing funding for university education. votes
*Voted very strongly for increasing the price of subsidised medicine. votes
*Voted very strongly against increasing the age pension. votes
*Voted very strongly for decreasing availability of welfare payments. votes
*Voted very strongly for an emissions reduction fund. votes
*Voted very strongly for increasing funding for road infrastructure. votes
*Voted very strongly for decreasing ABC and SBS funding. votes [my red bolding{
Read about how the voting record is decided.
More on their full record
Never rebels against their party in this parliament.
The day after the 2015-16 Budget was delivered......
ReachTEL conducted an opinion poll the day after the Abbott Government delivered its second budget on 13 May 2014.
Due to a number of media releases and ministerial interviews in the weeks before Budget Night these respondents would have possibly been aware of some of what was in the 2015-16 Budget aside from the actual contents of the Treasurer's budget night speech.
There appears to have been no immediate positive bounce for the Coalition in voting intention numbers and Tony Abbott is not seen as the preferred prime minister.
The majority of respondents did not see the budget as making themselves and their families financially better off, while less than half of those respondents identifying themselves as small business owners were inclined to see this budget as one that benefits them directly.
Comparing the two genders, women seem slightly less impressed by this budget than men.
Question 1:
If a Federal election were to be held today, which of the following would receive your first preference vote? If you are undecided to which do you even have a slight leaning?
Two party preferred result based on 2013 election distribution
Vote intention by employment status:
Question 2:
Who of the following do you think would make the better Prime Minister?
Question 6:
Thinking about the federal budget announced last night; do you think you and your family will be financially better or worse off as a result?
NOTE: This survey was conducted using an automated telephone based survey system among 3,180 voters. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were selected at random. The results have been weighted by gender and age to reflect the population according to ABS figures. Please note that due to rounding, not all tables necessarily total 100% and subtotals may also vary.
It seems that men still want female partners who are attractive, sweet, deferential and nurturing homemakers
A graph which clearly indicates the truth behind Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr’s observation; plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)
