Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[monman12]

 ABC Feb 2014

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority approves plan to dump Abbot Point spoil

"Australian state backs A$16.5bn project despite fears about damage to Great Barrier Reef from associated port development"

"Fears", after a very comprehensive impact study?.

The study has resulted in Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt  granting approval for the expansion of  the Abbot Point coal port, also The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.  As for "damage to Great Barrier Reef" that is utter nonsense. The terminal development work involved will  require dredging  the sea bottom  inside the existing port area,   and then dumping the dredged  sand/silt  out to sea, in deeper water on to the sea bottom,  and at least  30 kim from the nearest  "Reef".  Which is why The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not opposed the development.

[*mrgrizz*]

---

@monman12 wrote:

 ABC Feb 2014

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority approves plan to dump Abbot Point spoil

"Australian state backs A$16.5bn project despite fears about damage to Great Barrier Reef from associated port development"

"Fears", after a very comprehensive impact study?.

The study has resulted in Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt  granting approval for the expansion of  the Abbot Point coal port, also The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.  As for "damage to Great Barrier Reef" that is utter nonsense. The terminal development work involved will  require dredging  the sea bottom  inside the existing port area,   and then dumping the dredged  sand/silt  out to sea, in deeper water on to the sea bottom,  and at least  30 kim from the nearest  "Reef".  Which is why The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not opposed the development.

---

where is this study?

[boris1gary]

---

@monman12 wrote:

 ABC Feb 2014

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority approves plan to dump Abbot Point spoil

"Australian state backs A$16.5bn project despite fears about damage to Great Barrier Reef from associated port development"

"Fears", after a very comprehensive impact study?.

The study has resulted in Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt  granting approval for the expansion of  the Abbot Point coal port, also The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.  As for "damage to Great Barrier Reef" that is utter nonsense. The terminal development work involved will  require dredging  the sea bottom  inside the existing port area,   and then dumping the dredged  sand/silt  out to sea, in deeper water on to the sea bottom,  and at least  30 kim from the nearest  "Reef".  Which is why The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not opposed the development.

---

well if you say Greg Hunt says it's OK, weeeeeeeeeeell then, as he is the Minister Against the Environment and they have been sooooo great with everything to do with the environment, do you have a graph to prove this.

[monman12]

Mr G: "where is this study?"

Try some research. Hints:-

Environmental Approvals Status

The Project was declared a controlled action requiring a Public Environment Report (PER) in January 2012.
Final Guidelines for the PER were made public in June 2012.
PER public notification commenced on 4 January 2013 and ended on 15 February 2013.
PER Supplementary Report submitted on 14 May and made publicly available.

B1G: "well if you say Greg Hunt says it's OK, weeeeeeeeeeell then, as he is the Minister Against the Environment and they have been sooooo great with everything to do with the environment, do you have a graph to prove this."

Research does tend to trump  unresearched C&P e.g.

Burke approves new Abbot Point coal terminal

By Melissa Maddison and Megan Woodward ABCUpdated Wed 10 Oct 2012, 8:49pm AEDT

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has approved a proposed new coal terminal at the Abbot Point port near Bowen in north Queensland.

Tony Burke?, 2012?,  was not the Poor Me and Rudd Circus in town then?

 Hunt might not be my favourite either, however I would have thought the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority approval would be just a teeny weeny bit authoritative, after of course, the ALP's Burke stamp of approval.

As for a graph, I searched your favourite C&P sites B1G, but no luck. Considering your last reference site: "The Australian Independent Media Network " authors comprise ":   Australian bloggers and citizen journalists",  I would suspect a simple linear   line graph might be somewhat complex for them,  and their readers.

nɥºɾ

[fourandsixpants]

to monman.

Where's the graph please?

I found some great graphs in Adobe Reader 20140131_GBRRSA_2.pdf

[PDF]

Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment Public ...

www.edonq.org.au/documents/Submissions/.../20140131_GBRRSA_2.p...

Jan 31, 2014 - Authority will improve alignment of its regulatory tools, reduce ... Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) (as evidenced in this submission), we urge the ... statistics are available in GBRMPA Annual Reports for the period stretching ... Graph A. 5. In the same period an almost mirror-image reverse trend can be identified ...

a signed Submission from Fergus Power Principal Solicitor, EDO NQ

Graph A on p.3, Total potential OFFENCES REPORTED.....HUGE INCREASES seen

Graph B on p.3,   PROSECUTIONS TOTAL........HUGE DECREASES 

Graph D on p.6,   PERMITS ISSUED note: 2012-2013 issue rate goes from 600 to 1600..... HUGE INCREASE

What I also read that was interesting:

A State enquiry will be held..........issues on compliance, monitoring and enforcing....

REMOVAL of COMMONWEALTH FUNDING to all Environmental Defenders Offices THROUGHOUT AUSTRALIA.

[monman12]

It is good to have a Saturday chuckle P007, even better to find some research (and graphs) even if their relevance is somewhat tenuous to the topic.
Offences within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are of interest, but how do they relate to ALP approval in 2012 of an expansion of Abbot Point port facilities?

From the pdf:

These activities (offences) may be sub-categorised into:
(i) Breach of permit – bait netting, collecting, unattached dory, crabbing
(ii) Fishing – line fishing, unattached dory, spearfishing, crabbing, netting, trawling,
grounding
(iii) Historical shipwrecks – grounding
(iv) Maritime incident – grounding, pollution/discharge, sinking and pilotage
(v) Unpermitted activity – restricted access areas, fire, hunting,
(vi) Moorings offence – unpermitted, commercial activity (tourist)
(vii) Wildlife – bycatch, non traditional take, unknown take type, interaction with
cetacean
(viii) Plan of management – camping, littering
(ix) Failure to pay Environmental Management Charge (EMC)
(x) Other

"The most common commonwealth offences tend to be recreational fishing and
commercial trawling offences. Recreational line fishing offences made up 48.1%
of commonwealth offences in the 2012/13 financial year."  (naughty ALP)

There is no mention of Abbot Point in your pdf P007, so what is the point of it ?

I have a possible answer:    no recreational fishing  allowed from the new  piers  that will be built at Abbot Point

nɥºɾ

[izabsmiling]

Alexander Downer case illustrates anomalies of Liberal lobbying rules

New Liberal regulation would not have covered the potential for conflict of interest at the centre of Arthur Sinodinos’s troubles

Lenore Taylor,The Guardian,19 March 2014

The former Liberal minister Alexander Downer has removed himself from the federal government lobbying register because his role represented a “huge conflict of interest” with a job as state president of the Liberal party, which he took up five months ago.

Soon after last year’s federal election Tony Abbott announced new rules for party office holders who also did explicit lobbying work.

“I am determined to ensure that as far as the new Coalition government in Canberra is concerned that not only is it clean and fair, but it’s seen to be clean and fair,” the prime minister said at the time.

“That’s why I’m determined to ensure you can either be a powerbroker or a lobbyist but you can’t be both.” Two NSW lobbyists resigned from party positions within hours of the announcement.

But the new rules did not take effect until 20 March.

That meant Downer - co-owner of the lobbying firm Bespoke Approach - was free to take up the presidency of the South Australian Liberal party last October, although he stood aside as vice president of the federal party.

Speaking to Guardian Australia from New York, Downer said he had, in the past couple of days, removed himself from the federal lobbyists register. He remains an owner of Bespoke Approach and he remains on the South Australian lobbyists register, but says he will undertake “no state or federal lobbying”.

“I won’t be doing any more lobbying work. I can deal with international clients, but I can’t lobby the federal government and I won’t be doing state work either,” he said.

The reason, he said, was that it “represents a huge conflict of interest. I have been conscious of that working with clients and sitting down with the state leader and talking about his policies.”

The former senator and high-profile Queensland-based lobbyist Santo Santoro has also stood down also a federal vice-president of the party.

But the new Liberal rules that take effect on Thursday would not have covered the potential for conflict of interest at the centre of Arthur Sinodinos’s troubles with the Independent Commission Against Corruption

*Tony Abbott had planned to have the Carbon and Mining tax repealed by March didn't he?

[boris1gary]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/great-barrier-reefs-unprecedented-threat-from-dredging-...

Great Barrier Reef's 'unprecedented' threat from dredging, dumping

Conservation society says impact of previous sediment dumps far greater than claimed

The impact of dredging and dumping sediment on the Great Barrier Reef has been far greater than the mining industry has claimed, with nearly 150m tonnes of new dredging set to take place in the reef’s waters, a study shows.

The report collated by the Australian Marine Conservation Society states that the reef is under “unprecedented” threat from the proposed expansion of coastal ports and industrial development.

Planned expansion of ports, or the creation of new ones, at sites including Gladstone, the Fitzroy Delta, Abbot Point and Townsville, would involve dredging 149m tonnes of seabed to allow large ships to access ports.

The society’s report warns that the dredging process is dangerous to marine life. Worse, should this sediment be dumped within the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area, corals and seagrasses would be damaged, impacting animals such as dugongs and sea turtles.

The amount of damage caused to the reef by coastal development and dredging has proved highly contentious after the government’s decision to approve five million tonnes of sediment being dumped within the reef’s marine park, as part of the expansion of Abbot Point, near Bowen.

[fourandsixpants]

worth repeating/reposting:

...The amount of damage caused to the reef by coastal development and dredging has proved highly contentious after the government’s decision to approve five million tonnes of sediment being dumped within the reef’s marine park, as part of the expansion of Abbot Point, near Bowen.

report collated by the Australian Marine Conservation Society

[monman12]

"worth repeating/reposting:...The amount of damage caused to the reef by coastal development and dredging has proved highly contentious"

What damage?, where is the study, is it by a group other than a conservation bunch?

I guess reading a C&P is  not de rigeur B1G,  because this comment is rubbish:

"The impact of dredging and dumping sediment on the Great Barrier Reef has been far greater than the mining industry has claimed, with nearly 150m tonnes of new dredging set to take place in the reef’s waters, a study shows."

Fact

The Port Abbot dredging will  take place within the existing port area  (30 years old) and the spoil (seabed sand/silt) will be dumped on the seabed 30km from the nearest part of the "Reef" in deep water.

Do you ever wonder why the ALP's environment minister  Burke approved  the port expansion, also the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Or why conservation groups post nonsense and C&P repeaters do not check it?

nɥºɾ