1
   

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 06:15 am
Interesting!

Now wouldn't it be something if the old devil was defeated in his own seat?

Yay! GO MAXINE! Very Happy :


Whoever wins election will win Bennelong: analyst
Posted 45 minutes ago

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200702/r128310_421131.jpg
Maxine McKew says she faces a tough job in Bennelong.

An election analyst says whichever party wins government at this year's federal election is likely to also secure the Prime Minister's seat of Bennelong.

A Galaxy opinion poll of 800 Bennelong voters has Labor's high-profile candidate Maxine McKew ahead in the Sydney based seat, with 47 per cent of the primary vote.

John Howard trails with 44 per cent.


The ABC's election analyst, Antony Green, says the survey is telling.

"The swing for Labor to win office is about 4.5 per cent, which is about the swing in Bennelong," he said.

"I think it's fair to say that whoever wins government will win Bennelong. If the Government is returned, John Howard will win Bennelong. If Labor wins the election then I think John Howard will probably lose his own seat."


Mr Green says Ms McKew is a real threat.

"The current opinion poll in Bennelong matches every opinion poll we've seen this year and would indicate John Howard will have trouble holding on to his own seat," he said.

Ms McKew is heartened by the poll.

"It's encouraging that people are responding to the message that I'm taking out into the community," she said.

But she says she still has her work cut out for her.

"History is still spectacularly against me. I've got a very very hard job in Bennelong," she said.

Of those surveyed, nearly 70 per cent said their vote was already locked in.

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/08/12/2002886.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 06:26 am
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/11/svCARTOON_gallery__470x341,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 06:40 am
.... & speaking of religious influence on Oz politics ....:

Funding for charity linked to Andrews
Michelle Singer
August 12, 2007/Sydney Morning Herald


A MARRIAGE guidance body for which Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews is listed as an educator has received thousands of dollars in government funds for almost 10 years.

His wife, Margaret Andrews, is identified on the same list as the convenor of MEP and as an educator.

Mr Andrews answered only a handful of questions on the issue put to him by The Sun-Herald yesterday.

While he did not answer questions on whether the organisation had received government funding or if he had declared a conflict of interest between ministerial obligations and his role as an educator, he said he was a "volunteer in his spare time", had been for a number of years and did not get paid.

Mr Andrews's pecuniary interest register shows Mrs Andrews's main income is derived from her role as a "marriage educator" and other records show that she has represented MEP at international conventions.

MEP has received $228,701 in Federal Government funding from the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in the past nine years.

MEP, which is listed on the Australian Business Register as a charitable institution, charges couples $240 for one of two programs that it offers on sustaining a successful marriage.

The Catholic Society for Marriage Education (CSME), which recommends MEP as one of two Victorian services, has received $585,961 in government funding since 1999. CSME publishes Threshold, a quarterly magazine about marriage education, which is edited by Mrs Andrews.

The Democrats are investigating possible conflicts of interest arising from federal funding for marriage counselling organisations in which the Andrewses are involved.

Among a series of questions placed on the Senate notice paper last week, Democrats leader Lyn Allison asked Mr Andrews to explain the couple's involvement with the marriage counselling service.

Mr Andrews's role in MEP comes to light after last week's Sun-Herald story about his advisory role with US anti-abortion group Life Decisions International.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/funding-for-charity-linked-to-andrews/2007/08/11/1186530677972.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 06:52 am
OK .... back to logging & Tassie.

Some information on Gunns from the Wilderness Society.:


Gunns

Gunns is the biggest native-forest logging company in Australia and the biggest hardwood-chip company in the world.

Gunns receives the overwhelming majority of logs destined for sawmills and woodchip mills from Tasmania. It owns all four export-woodchip mills in Tasmania. It exports more woodchips from Tasmania than are exported from all mainland states combined. Gunns exports nearly four million tonnes of native-forest woodchips each year.

Gunns also has plans to build a massive native-forest fed, polluting pulp mill in northern Tasmania. This mill will be 80% based on native forests at start-up, and will destroy iconic forests in the Great Western Tiers, North East Highlands, Ben Lomond, Blue Tier and the Eastern Tiers.

The vast majority of the logging operations on public land in Tasmania consist of clearfelling and burning.

Gunns owns over two thirds of the eucalypt sawmilling industry in Tasmania, and two major eucalypt veneer mills.

Gunns has also cleared many thousands of hectares of native forest, including rainforest, on its private land. After these forests are chipped, the land is converted to plantations.

...<cont>

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/corporate/gunns/whatisgunn/
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:26 am
I'm not a big fan of Gunns Msolga. Or 1080. The object is to reduce animal damage to acceptable levels for a year or so then allow them to move back in. We have used shooters in the past where damage has been significant.

Quote:
The vast majority of the logging operations on public land in Tasmania consist of clearfelling and burning.

This is the best way to rejuvenate an area that has been harvested.

I'd like to see them move to more of a mosaic harvesting system. ie clearfell 20 ha move 5 -10 km down the road and clearfell another 20. In 5 years time come back and fell the 20 ha next door. but I haven't studied the system they use.

I also think there is a fair degree of tall poppy syndrome (jealousy?) that they have done well) but even thats tempered by, in my view, the tendency of large companies to think they are above the law and community responsibilities.



In Scandanavia all forest not designated national park is available for harvest. Many private individuals own portions of what here would be viewed as native forest. average privately owned plots are around 2 - 5 ha and are harvested on a regular basis If 80 year cycles can be described as regular.


In Austria the largest coup allowed by law to be felled is 5 continuous ha (since the 1700s I think.)

It may also be of interest to you that Sweden banned cattle grazing on their high country around 10 years ago and recently reintroduced it because of weeds and fire risks.

Heres a photo of the redgum forest at Koondrook which is dyeing because of a lack of water. The proposed pipeline taking water from the Goulborne River system to supply Melbourne will directly impact on this forests ability to survive.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/dadpad/P4080093.jpg
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:30 am
Heres a photo of a section of forest near me that was harvested around 20 years ago i think. It certainly doesn't look destroyed to me.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/dadpad/Untitled-Scanned-29.jpg
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:33 am
This little creek runs through the above section. The code of practice now stipulates a 20 m buffer zone around waterways that cannot be harvested or damaged.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/dadpad/Untitled-Scanned-26.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:34 am
How old were the trees that were harvested, dadpad?
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:37 am
I think they were 39 regen. (Trees that grew as a result of the 39 fires) but I could be wrong on that score.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 06:50 pm
Hi Dadpad,

I'm glad you're still posting. For me, what I said was nothing personal against you. I'm happy for people to hold opposing views on most subjective subjects.

As for forestry, and the pics you posted, for me, you are probably missing the big issues.

The major issue of Forestry, for me, is about loss of natural living beauty...this in large majority means the loss of OLD trees (and/or Old Growth Forests).

A second significant issue, related mostly to clearfelling, is the loss of ecosystems, the loss of habitat, the loss of biodiversity, and the complete devestation of large tracts of land (which, lets face it, are ugliness where once 'beauty' stood).

While I appreciate the photo of you in a forest...I was already aware that such is possible...but it doesn't eliminate the above concerns.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 10:45 pm
Vikkor, Man has always modified the landscape to suit his current needs. Even the nomadic aboriginals did this (and continue to do so in NT) with fire stick farming. The trick is to do it in a manner that achieves balance.

I think it you who miss the big picture. You focus on the so called devastation of clear fell which is generally only evident for a very very short period in the life cycle of a forest.

Historically, almost all clearing in Australia has been for agricultural production. It was initially driven by a condition in many early leases to clear a specified number of hectares each year. Later came financial support from government agencies and new land clearing technologies developed by CSIRO. While community and government attitudes have changed, most clearing is still for agricultural production not (repeat) NOT forestry. Significant areas of public land have also been cleared for plantations of radiate pine. A non native monoculture that does not support even a small percentage of the eco system that it replaces.

About 87 per cent of Australia's original native vegetation cover remains however there is a noted decline in some EVCs (Environmental vegetative constructs) such as the box iron bark forests of North east and central Victoria. In every single case these threatened EVCs are in non forestry
areas and are the result of land clearing for agriculture. I am one of the people working to rejuvenate these areas.

Australia has one of the largest and greatest national park systems in the world, covering over 24 million hectares, with such diversity as lush rain forest to waterless desert. In addition there are hundreds of undeclared protection zones more are being added all the time. Limits apply (at least in Victoria) with the RFA system to where, when and what can be utilised.

I am no longer willing to debate this issue with people who are unwilling to look at the facts and evidence people who sit in their lounge rooms and pass judgment without having seen the real deal. Old growth forests are a figment of some uninformed idiot not a reality because of the natural cycle of growth fire and regrowth.

As long as forestry, native or plantation, is well managed and balanced (and we continue to learn how to do this effectively) it continues to be the ultimate and most effective recyclable primary industry.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 12:15 am
Clearfelling or selectively cutting down the really big trees causes much more intense bushfires because of the greater undergrowth (read: more fuel) with a lower canopy level.

Read Jared Diamond's 'Collapse'; the first chapter on Montana is has a fairly evenly balanced coverage of the spectrum of evidence on clearfelling to wholesale protection.

Interestingly there is a cogent argument that fighting bushfires causes more intense bushfires.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 01:46 am
Ah well, seeing as we are ignorant and wish to remain so, I guess there is little point in talking about this topic, as you say.

By the way, just a small note...that thing I said much earlier about QLD being second behind Brazil in landclearing...that was and is because of cattle grazing, not forestry.

Apart from the plantations up here, there doesn't seem to be much harvestable wood for logging (though there used to be).
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 06:03 am
Interrupting the discussion for a minute with this quick prayer.:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/12/svCARTOON_gallery__470x328.jpg



(g'day hinge! Very Happy )




Please continue now .....
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 06:34 am
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/13/svCARTOON_gallery__470x364.jpg
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 06:54 pm
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22245709-5003402,00.html

Has a link to a film called 'Constructing Fear' that may or may not be worth watching. I'm downloading it out of curiosity Shocked
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:24 am
Honestly, who cares if he loathes, Howard? (Doesn't everyone?) I'm finding all the media space take up by this "issue" rather tedious. The only bit that interests me is why are the journalists revealing the details now? ... two years after Costello's big talk? Confused Rolling Eyes :

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/16/rgop_cartoon_gallery__470x357.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:28 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5612245,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:38 am
Now this I find utterly reprehensible. What going on here? And why?:

PM defends uranium sale to India
Posted 1 hour 10 minutes ago
Updated 53 minutes ago


Prime Minister John Howard has explained why he intends to allow the sale of Australian uranium to India, even though it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Mr Howard will be speaking to his Indian counterpart today about the possible supply of uranium.

He has told Parliament that he does not believe Australia should refuse to sell uranium to India when it sells to China.

But Mr Howard says there would be conditions including that India agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"India does have a very good non-proliferation track record [and] it has indicated that it does not intend to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

"So we think it's worthwhile finding practical ways to bring it into the non-proliferation mainstream."

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2007179.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2007 02:45 am
...& look whose back!:

Hanson 'sick of Muslims'
August 16, 2007 - 9:48AM/the AGE

Senate candidate Pauline Hanson has urged federal parliament to hold a moratorium on the number of Muslims entering Australia.

The right-wing former One Nation leader is seeking to register Pauline's United Australia Party in her bid for a political comeback by winning a Queensland senate seat in the upcoming federal election.

The 53-year-old former fish and chip shop owner, who won international notoriety during her brief spell as the independent MP for Oxley in the late 1990s, says she will targeting Muslims in her campaign.

"I want a moratorium put on the number of Muslims coming into Australia," Ms Hanson told the Nine network.

"People have a right to be very concerned about this because of the terrorist attacks that have happened throughout the world.

"I'm sick of these people coming out here and saying that our girls are like the meat market and the bible that is urinated on ... am I supposed to be tolerant?"

But Ms Hanson said she would have the support of Muslim women if they knew how oppressed they were.

"I think that if Muslim women realise how they have been treated I probably would get a lot of support," she said.

"Maybe we should look at the female genital mutilation that happens to young girls in this country ... if people want to live by these ways then go back to the Muslim countries."

Ms Hanson said immigration was not her only concern and she would campaign on other issues such as the privatisation of water.

She said many of the issues raised in her maiden speech to parliament in September 1996 had been adopted by the Howard government.

"Don't just say I'm simplistic and I don't know what I'm talking about. They said the same about the Aboriginal issue but the prime minister actually abolished ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) and that was in my maiden speech."

Ms Hanson believes her campaign is winning strong support among the people of Queensland.

"I wouldn't say I've got no chance ... I've travelled around Queensland quite extensively over the past six months. There is tremendous support from people."

"They are wanting someone else to vote for ... so they are looking at me."

Ms Hanson was elected to parliament as an independent MP for the Queensland seat of Oxley at the 1996 election after being disendorsed as a Liberal candidate because of her strong views on race and immigration.

She failed to win the neighbouring seat of Blair in 1998, a senate seat in 2004 and a position in the NSW upper house in 2003.

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hanson-sick-of-muslims/2007/08/16/1186857636317.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 04:34:01