Ex-News Corp journalist & Abbott propagandist Steve Lewis now a lobbyist with Newgate Communications

Steve Lewis, the former News Corp journalist who ran the ‘Abbott in Opposition’ political spin on many subjects, has joined Newgate Communications as a senior advisor. 

This company is a lobbyist at federal level for twenty-one companies – including Whitehaven Coal which has been mentioned in evidence in NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Operation Jasper and Operation Spicer investigations.

Managing partner of the Australian branch of Newgate Communication is Brian Tyson who worked as a press secretary for the Greiner and Fahey NSW Coalition Governments - and states in his Linked in entry that he worked with then NSW Planning and Energy Minister Robert Webster.

Webster coincidentally is scheduled to appear at an ICAC Operation Spicer hearing today.

How do you know when the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association is not telling the truth? It posts on its web site

Excerpt from a Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) news and media web page dated 5 December 2013 :

Some commentators continue to grab the wrong end of the pineapple when assessing the impact of liquefied natural gas exports on greenhouse gas emissions.

Singling out LNG production with scant regard for Australia’s wider industrial processing and power generation sectors provides a remarkably narrow view of a big picture and one which ignores the role cleaner forms of energy, such as natural gas, play in helping reduce greenhouse emissions.....

The Dept. of Environment’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory March 2013 quarterly update states:

Annual emissions for the year to March 2013 are estimated to be 557.0 Mt CO₂-e. This represents zero growth in emissions when compared with the year to March 2012. For the year to March 2013, there was a decline in emissions from electricity (section 2.1), reflecting lower electricity demand and changes in the generation mix. This decline was largely offset by an increase in fugitive emissions (section 2.4), resulting from increased production activity in the coal mining and natural gas sub-sectors....

Fugitive emissions occur during the production, processing, transport, storage, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels such as black coal, crude oil and natural gas. Emissions from decommissioned underground coal mines are also included in this sector. In the year to March 2013, fugitive emissions accounted for 8% of Australia’s national inventory.

Fugitive emissions from fuel extraction have increased 3.8% in trend terms in the March quarter 2013.

Annual emissions in this sector have increased by 12.7% over the year to March 2013. This annual increase was driven by a 6.3% increase in raw black coal production and a 12.9% increase in production of natural gas...... [my red bolding]

Has the Heartland Institute finally gone too far?

Heartland Institute media release:

May 03, 2012

Jim Lakely

May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too.

Heartland’s first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – is the latest effort by the free-market think tank to inform the public about what it views as the collapsing scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming. It is also reminding viewers of the questionable ethics of global warming’s most prominent proponents.

“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

Bast added, “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” For more about the billboards and why Heartland says people should not still believe in global warming, click here……

The next day a statement from one sponser, Microsoft, distanced itself:

Microsoft believes climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly. We are pursuing strategies and taking actions to reduce our own impact as well as the impact of our products. In addition, Microsoft has adopted a broad policy statement on climate change that expresses support for government action to address climate change.

The Heartland Institute does not speak for Microsoft on climate change. In fact, the Heartland Institute’s position on climate change is diametrically opposed to Microsoft’s position. And we completely disagree with the group’s inflammatory and distasteful advertising campaign…….

Two days later The Guardian U.K. stated:

The London-based drinks giant, which owns brands such as Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon, said this year that it was "reviewing any further association with Heartland" following the release online of internal Heartland documents which revealed its corporate donors as well as a plan to promote an alternative climate change curriculum in US schools. Following the widespread outcry triggered by Heartland's billboards, a Diageo spokeswoman told the Guardian: "Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo's only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future."…..

On 7 May E&E Publishing revealed another sponsorship withdrawal:

"It was disgusting. It was revolting," Brad Kading, president of the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, said of the ad in an interview over the weekend. "It was a terrible mistake."

His group, which donated $125,000 to Heartland over the last two years, told the libertarian president of Heartland, Joe Bast, that their relationship is "untenable" in a letter Friday evening.

While this letter to another sponsor was posted online as one academic fought back against Heartland’s advertising:

May 7, 2012
State Farm Insurance
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington, IL 61710
Dear State Farm,
As per a recent conversation with Tony Ardise, my State Farm agent, I provided him two weeks’ notice that I intend to cancel all of my policies with State Farm Insurance because of its support of Heartland Institute. I have been a loyal customer for over 21 years and currently send almost $4500 per year to State Farm. I do not wish my money to be sent to Heartland Institute – a group that recently compared climate scientists and those concerned about climate change to “murderers, tyrants, and madmen” such as Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, and Osama bin Laden. Although Heartland stated that they will remove the public billboards, their official statement offers no apologies. It is obvious that the billboards represent Heartland’s true feelings.
This indefensible and un-American assault on climate science is just the latest attempt by Heartland to discourage action on climate change, but there is a long history. As has been widely reported in mainstream media, Heartland Institute has been leading the charge for years to confuse our policymakers, the general public, and our school children about well-understood climate change science.
The United States National Academy of Sciences tells us that the climate is warming, humans are responsible, and that this behavior is increasing risks across a broad spectrum of society. Every international academy of science agrees and recent studies show that 97-98% of publishing experts concur.
Who else is concerned? Military and intelligence experts warn that climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions and health officials warn us that climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. These are experts who are warning us of a serious problem. We need to listen to these experts and not to Heartland Institute.
State Farm states: “We’re working with organizations all across the country – organizations like the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Protecting America – to help protect you and your family from the human injuries, property destruction, and financial impact that can result from natural disasters.” Climate change has been shown to have increased the frequency and intensity of droughts, fires, heat waves, and floods. Along with sea level rise, these types of disasters have already cost your industry many billions of dollars according to financial experts. I find it quite disturbing that State Farm would send money to a group that is clearly hurting its bottom line. Would the American Lung Association send money to Philip Morris?
General Motors and AT&T have publicly stated they will no longer fund Heartland Institute. State Farm should immediately do the same. If so, I will remain a loyal customer. Otherwise, I will take my business elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Mandia

Two months ago when the names of Heartland Institute sponsors became public knowledge, General Motors publicly withdrew from the Institute’s funding pool, according to The Guardian:

In a statement, GM said that it now runs its business "as if climate change is real and believe we have a role to play in developing new cars, trucks and technologies that can make a difference".

The U.S. Blog Forecast The Facts is currently running an online petition urging all sponsors to follow suit.

Australian Mining Industry: So which version do you believe is the more accurate?

http://youtu.be/N3RNdqdmGto

http://youtu.be/DbYO4MLvP7E

mUmBRELLA 20 April 2012:

Less than two hours after publishing the story we received the following letter from XStrata Coal:

I refer to the video titled “Ad pastiches mining industry’s ‘This is our story’ campaign” published on your website:

http://mumbrella.com.au/ad-pastiches-mining-industrys-this-is-our-story-campaign-86514

The video found on this link contains a parody of the piece concerning (name withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons).

Xstrata recognises that there is legitimate scope for parody in public debate, and appreciates the importance in public life of a free and frank exchange of views. Nonetheless, we take exception to the piece concerning (name withheld by Mumbrella) because it makes a number of suggestions concerning (name withheld) that are unfair and defamatory. In particular:

• (allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);

• (allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);

• (allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);

• (allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);

These examples are by way of illustration only.

Xstrata is happy to accept robust criticism. But we are not content to allow a valued employee to be defamed in so unfair and personal a fashion. We therefore require that the video found in the above link (and on any other website hosted by Mumbrella or YouTube) be removed immediately and remind you that all persons involved in the publication of defamatory material are equally liable for defamation. We also observe that the reproduction of the whole of the video taken from www.thisisourstory.com.au appears to constitute a breach of copyright. We request your immediate confirmation that the videos will be removed from Mumbrella and YouTube and we expect that it will be taken down forthwith.

We do not wish to escalate this to a legal dispute, but you should not underestimate our willingness to do so if your website continues to defame our employee.

Yours sincerely

Tom Cregan

Legal Counsel

Xstrata Coal

Three tales of the same Tweed River

“The Tweed Shire council have funded a report on boat wake and river bank erosion. The report is very misleading, inaccurate and BIAS towards boat wake. The report does not comment about how the natural environment and human kind has an effect on the river banks or even the recent floods on the Tweed!
There is a group called TRAC (Tweed River Awareness Committee) and they have uploaded a website for YOU to have your say to all of the Tweed Shire Councillors! WE NEED to have our say because we are up against a minority group that have do not have anything better to do then voice up and complain!”  howled rubberjohnny. Rather strangely ignoring the fact that this study did take the natural environment into account and definitely looked at flood impact.

Over at tweedriverusers.org an unknown voice was getting all shouty about sneaky bans being just around the corner for Tweed boaties. Mr. Unknown seemed to believe that just because a river erosion study on the NSW South Coast did not identify wave action generated by boats as a problem this applied as a natural law to all Aussie rivers.

Apparently this Tweed River ban will be capable of blinding and strangling water skiers as well – if this pic is to be believed.

Of course Tweed Council is doing little to douse the conspiratorial flames, because the Mayor foolishly tried to play down the fact that recommendations in the Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study did contain Supplementary Bank Enhancement Measures which listed “Vessel management to restrict boat wake waves” and that council “has oversighted the preparation and implementation of detailed management plans for specific sections of the river and specific issues eg. bank erosion” according to NSW Roads & Maritime Services.

Turn it up, fellas! Any fool can see power boats won't be banned from the river - they'll just have to keep to a 'below hoon' speed and maybe stop towing water skiers in particularly vulberable areas.

Australian health professionals are sometimes a bitter pill to swallow

Symptom of a very unhealthy relationship?

News.com.au:

“DRUG companies spent more than $40 million in six months on events to "educate" Australian medics last year.

The money was spent on a range of "education events", with wining and dining of doctors, and some nurses and other health professionals….

The $40 million - up more than $8 million since 2008 - includes $18 million for hospitality alone for more than 18,000 events drawing 423,000 attendees, with other costs including the hire of venues and speakers.”

According to Medicines Australia in 2011:

Currently the medicines industry is:

> the largest high-technology exporter from Australia—$3.8 billion in 2010-11;

> the highest manufacturing industry investor in R&D—$1.0 billion in 2009-10; and

> one of the largest employers of science graduates in Australia.

GetUp! does Monckton, Rinehart and capturing the news media

Click on image to enlarge

GetUp! mock up of newspaper under a Fox News-style editorial policy envisioned by Lord Monckton and relayed to members attending a meeting at the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation in West Australia.

http://youtu.be/aX2kMAfJggU

GetUp! shoots over the bows of Mining Billionaires

Newspaper advert which began appearing on breakfast tables across Australia last Friday.
Just gotta love these young scrappers.....

Willie Soon tells the world that porkers can fly

 

“One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies.

Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportedly unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies. ‘{The Guardian on 28 June 2011}

Porker flew in from Google Images

The Strange World of Alan Jones

Michelle Grattan writes of 2GB Radio shock jock Alan Jones on 1 June 2011:
Jones “has agreed to be the founding patron of Australia's newest and arguably most extreme climate-science denier organisation - the paradoxically titled Galileo Movement.
This group's leaders aren't merely sceptical about mainstream climate science - they outright deny that the world is warming (the thermometers are in the wrong place). They scoff at the idea that human activity can cause warming (carbon dioxide is just plant food); and they even reject that global warming could be harmful (relax, do nothing - it's natural).
Instead, they fervently believe that it's all part of a secret ideological conspiracy by corrupt scientists using fake data to collude with greenies, socialists, libertarians and the United Nations to falsely alarm the gullible and enrich themselves by stealing our money and sovereignty. Fair dinkum.
Now that new movement has a familiar ring to it. Ah, yes – it’s the Monckton mob downunder.

The Galileo Movement Pty Limited which was registered in February 2011 and has a Crows Nest NSW address:
“has available expert advice from Australian and international specialists across all diverse fields of global warming including meteorology and climate science, palaeoclimate, physical sciences (physics, chemistry), life sciences (biology), social science (economics), formal science (mathematics, statistics), communication, law.
These experts include eminent professors, PhD's, scientists and people with diverse life experience including” {wait for it}:

And; “The Galileo Movement's patron is Australia's own Alan Jones. Alan has a long history of speaking out for the downtrodden and for protecting freedom. His innate expertise straddles the fields of politics, sport and the media. His wealth of experience complements the basic science that is the Galileo Movement's core.”
The Movement was founded by Queenslanders John Smeed (who professes to be a retired company director with a diploma from QIT School of Mechanical Engineering who supports the Liberals) and Case Smit (another retired company director who claims a Bachelor of Science from a unstated institute of higher learning). The same duo who organised former journalist and climate change denier Lord Monckton’s antipodean tour in 2010.
This group now has its very own dedicated page over at Source Watch.

During May this year Alan Jones interviewed Professor David Karoly (who supports global warming as a scientific reality) and those Galileo Movement advisers Professors Bob Carter and Richard Lindzen, along with Timothy Ball another adviser - as well as Malcolm Roberts the Movement’s project manager.
Now I’ve only heard the Ball podcast listed as “Alan Jones speaks to Professor Timothy Ball about climate change and the Galileo Movement”, but I don’t remember hearing Jones declare an ‘interest’ in the Movement – did you?
Perhaps that’s something else the Australian Communications and Media Authority might consider if they again investigate this outrageous propagandist (previous investigation).

Galileo download webpage with all Alan Jones podcasts

Australian Christian Lobby sharing a little bit of God's love

Jim Wallace (tweeting since 3rd February 2010) sharing the love....

Then blamimg Twitter for his own bad judgement....

The War On Science - an update

The Australian Press Council published thirty-eight adjudication notices on a variety of issues in 2010 and is off to a good start in 2011 with five listed so far this year. However, complaints about inaccurate or misleading reporting on the subject of climate change appear to be thin on the ground.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority received hundreds of complaints in the 2009-10 financial year - none of which appear to have involved radio presenters speaking about climate change.

Last Tuesday Simon Sheikh for the GetUp! team sent out an email which stated in part that this organisation had; Put the shock jocks on notice with formal complaints about their misinformation.

Hopefully he will succeed and hopefully he will also consider objecting to some of the more outrageous claims made in the print medium. Particularly those claims published by The Australian newspaper, often referred to on Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog as The Australian’s War On Science.

Thankful to be a fallen, ignorant, parasitic unbeliever.....and female!

Sometimes religion spawns the truly scary individual and the Christian religion more than most......


We Need a Christian Dictator
Uploaded by OnKneesforJesus. - News videos hot off the press.

The GMO lobby creates a LOL

So which contributor in the BIOfortified: stronger plants, stronger science and stronger communication online community was responsible for telling the world that the humble macadamia nut (eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years) is a relatively new food?

franknfoode Frank N. Foode

@HerbRealm How many years have Kiwifruit and Starfruit and Macadamias been trialled on humans to ensure their safety? (relatively new foods) 13 Jan

The joke gets better when we remember that 'Starfruit' is merely the commercial branding of a fruit cultivated and eaten for hundreds of years in Asia and, that 'Kiwi Fruit' is the marketing re-brand of a conventionally created cultivar of another ancient food.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Never a truer word - GetUp! continues to disappoint

Save Wooli would be the first official GetUp! campaign I have heard of which doesn’t appear to have been canvassed with members first. Or as this activist organisation now coyly plays it – joins campaign to save Wooli.

This is the opening and very inaccurate salvo in its online campaign:

“I hope that people look after Wooli so that it will be here forever.” That’s six year old Evie talking about her favourite place – the small coastal community of Wooli.

But this typical beachside town might not be here forever. Increasing coastal erosion due to climate change is on a course to wipe out half the houses as higher and higher tides climb the sandbanks. Rather than readying a response to increasing coastal erosion due to climate change, the recommendation before the Clarence Valley Council is to head for the hills and abandon the village to the rising tides.

Does someone senior in this activist organisation have a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in land or business in the Wooli area on the NSW North Coast? Or has the organisation fallen into the error that it must always have a ‘new’ campaign on offer to remain relevant with the fickle enthusiasms of mainstream media?

The Daily Examiner 27 December 2010:

LABELLING a “Save Wooli” campaign and online petition by GetUp! as “misguided”, Greens Clarence candidate Janet Cavanaugh has come out in support of Clarence Valley Council’s planned retreat proposal for Wooli.

The environmental scientist said the proposal had also been endorsed by the council’s climate change advisory committee and local environment groups.

“I am usually supportive of the progressive stance taken by GetUp! but I’m concerned by the level of misinformation being used to support this campaign,” she said.

“The proposal put forward by council is to relocate the southern residents to another area within Wooli. There is no plan to ‘abandon’ the village as claimed in the campaign.”

ABC News 28 December 2010:

The Greens candidate for the seat of Clarence says she is surprised and disappointed by a campaign to help Wooli residents deal with erosion.

The national advocacy body Get Up has launched campaign to try and block the Clarence Valley Council's proposed strategy of a 'planned retreat'.

Local candidate, Janet Cavanaugh, says the council's policy to relocate residents to other areas of the village is the only 'realistic' approach.

"I would have expected from Get Up that they would have actually consulted with their local members before taking on what is a very complicated issue," she said.

"I disagree with the fact that they are criticising the planned retreat as a legitimate form of climate change adaptation.

"They're calling for alternatives, though the campaign is extremely vague on what those alternatives should be."

Ms Cavanaugh says Get Up's stance is misguided and will further confuse residents affected by erosion.

"I was surprised and a little bit disappointed with the fact that Get Up supported this campaign," she said.

"I think it was an ill-conceived campaign for them to run.

"But it does highlight that there will be local consequences to climate change and that there are hard decisions that will need to be made.

"This is an emotional issue because it's talking about people's houses."

Comment to GetUp! from Antony McCardell:

As an environmental scientist I can say that, sadly, the campaign to save Woolli is misplaced. What can rate-payer funded local councils like Clarence Valley Council do? The most common method used to protect beach communities is to build protective sea walls and groins. This can cause as much harm to up-current beaches and their ecosystems as they produce "security" for the settlements "protected". This is because sea walls dramatically increase beach erosion up-current. This is supported by extensive studies here and worldwide. No, beach erosion and sea level rise are pretty much inevitable unless the world tackles climate change head-on. More power to GetUp if it can achieve THAT... but...

Timthorncraft on the same subject:

Wooli is built on a sand spit. On energetic unprotected coasts like NE NSW, sand spits are temporary features at the best of times and in the face of sea level rise we have two options.
We can go with the geomorphological flow and gradually retreat from low lying vulnerable sand areas like the south end of Wooli Spit or,
We can have the real estate industry pick which bits we want hang on to, fortify them with vast amounts of concrete and rock, costing vast amounts of public money, releasing vast amounts of CO2, and turn places like quaint dear old Wooli into something resembling an industrial wharf complex, and then in 20 or 50 or 100 years we can watch the rising sea eat it all anyway!
I'm a long standing supporter of Getup campaigns but I think that Getup is backing a real loser this time.

Letter from a Coffs Harbour shire councillor:

Dear Getup!

I have been a proud supporter of Getup! over recent years and have, to date, agreed with and supported most of your campaigns. I too love Wooli greatly and will be greatly saddened to see the coastline of the Clarence Valley change drastically as a result of sea level rise.

In the instance of your "Save Wooli" campaign I completely disagree. This is because:
1. Sea levels are rising - most estimates now commonly exceeding 1m of sea-level rise by 2100, with many recent indications that it could be 2m by 2100. There is no indication whatsoever that sea levels will stop rising at 2100, to the contrary they are likely to continue rising due to our (the human species) ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.
2. There are only two solutions to adapt to the impacts of sea-level rise on residential, commercial and industrial premises:
i. Move to higher ground
ii. Engineer costly solutions such as sea walls, levees and put in place fill to physically protect premises.
3. The cost of engineering solutions to protect all vulnerable coastal properties is most likely well beyond available public funds.
4. It is not an equitable use of public funds to pay for the protection of a very limited number of properties in a highly vulnerable coastal locality. If Clarence Valley Council and the State and Federal Governments are called upon to fund the protection of a very limited number of properties at Wooli this will draw much-needed funds away from Hospitals, Schools, Aged Care Facilities, Libraries and Environmental Protection and Restoration projects.

These are the hard realities and consequences of the fact that Australians are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases globally. We are the greatest per-capita contributors to the very problems that you highlight in your "Save Wooli" campaign. As a nation we need to make some very tough decisions in the public interest. Protecting a limited number of coastal properties to the detriment of many needy social and environmental services is not, in my opinion, a fair and equitable campaign.

I have always associated Getup! with fairness, equity, reason and rationality and a fair-go for our people and environment. In this instance I feel very strongly that you have got it wrong.


Yours Sincerely
Councillor Mark Graham
Coffs Harbour City Council.

Petering Time on the Save Wooli campaign here.

Fast food giant McDonalds 'enraged' over PCRM's public service announcement [video]

Washington-based health lobby Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has commissioned a provocative new fast-food commercial drawing attention to the link between heart disease deaths and fast food.

Reportedly this advertisement was recently aired on American television and has "enraged" fast food giant McDonald's.

Given that McDonald's Australia is on schedule to impose its presence on the small NSW coastal community of Yamba before Christmas 2010, I'm sure that this ad is being noted and that residents will bring it to the attention of Clarence Valley shire councillor Margaret McKenna who brazenly argued that McDonald's food was "nutritious" before voting for the multinational's development application.

Banned advert is political statement or encouraging suicide? You choose [video]

Exit International which asserts that is is a non-profit information and advocacy group (supporting the idea that all individuals should have end of life options available to them such as voluntary euthanasia) has run foul of FreeTV's legal advice that its attempt to run an advertisement on free-to-air television is in fact '"...a promotion or encouragement of suicide as voluntary euthanasia would be considered to be a subset of suicide."

Now I cannot see that motive in the short advertisement which was originally scheduled to run on Channel 7. To me it seems to be a straightforward attempt to lobby Australian governments.

The advertisement was posted on YouTube. You decide.

GetUp! calls Abbott a welcher and throws down the gauntlet

Excerpt from today's email from the lobby group GetUp!:

Yesterday Tony Abbott sent a campaign email entitled, "We will stop the boats." Ahead in the polls, he's announced that the Pacific Solution will return on day one of an Abbott Government. It seems Tony Abbott has a lot to say on refugees, except to those he promised to meet in June after GetUp members won a charity auction.

GetUp members chipped in more than $16,000 to help secure the winning bid in a charity auction for a surfing lesson and meeting with Tony Abbott. We gave the prize to a group of refugees because we know how powerful human stories are. But his office, having suggested the meeting would occur before the election, have now stopped returning our calls. They are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.

If Tony Abbott won't come to meet us, we've got to go and meet him. That's why today, with your help, we'll begin rolling out (literally - they're mobile!) massive billboards to follow him around on the campaign trail and remind him of his broken promise to go surfing for charity with a group of refugees............

We know it is only fair that Tony Abbott meet with Riz Wakil. After all, he promised to do so. When Mr Abbott's Press Secretary told us that Mr Abbott would like to have the meeting before the election, and that he would ring back to confirm a date, we took him at his word. But after repeated phone calls from us - that his office have now stopped returning - its time for us to up the ante.

With a week and a half left there's still time for Mr Abbott to meet his commitment before the election. That's why with your help we'll take a message to him that he can't miss: massive mobile billboards asking him to honour his commitment and meet with Riz.

You've stood behind Riz before - can you stand up for him again?

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/HonourYourCommitment

A great big new tax - it's gonna ruin us! Again!

It's Going To Ruin Us YouTube video

Australian mining industry piles on the tax distortions as it tries to win over the electorate

If one relies on media reports it would appear that the Australian mining industry might have a case against the Rudd Government's proposed Resource Super Profits Tax which is due to activate in 2012.

The RSPT will replace the crude oil excise, and operate in parallel with State and Territory royalty regimes and Under the RSPT a refundable credit for royalties paid to State and Territory Governments will be available.

However, if one cares to open the media releases put out by the Mining Council of Australia the flimsy nature of arguments used by the anti-RSPT lobby begins to emerge.

To date my favourite assertion is; The super tax is, in effect, a Government-mandated sale of 40% of Australia's resources industry at a Government mandated price.

Another favourite is the statement that; For the industry as a whole in 2007-2008, ATO statistics show mining companies paid 27.8% effective corporate tax rate, which rises to 41.3% when royalties are included.

While Mining pays a higher tax rate than any other industry stands out as a blatant attempt at misdirection.

All these quotes are found in the Mineral Council's The truth about the super tax –the myths and the facts, 25 May 2010.

So let's look at the forced sale argument.

No established mining corporation is talking of selling off the parent company or subsidiaries - in the middle of a resources boom most of these companies are very profitable and likely to continue so for many years even with mooted tax reform.

The only threats being made by some mining companies is that they will reassess their scheduled mining projects in light of the proposed tax and rebate scheme.

What about that colossal corporate tax rate quoted, I hear you ask.

Well in 2007-08 there were according to the Australian Taxation Office 2007-08 statistics; 4,290 mining companies having combined incomes which totalled $160,323,192,189, which in turn had combined taxable incomes of $29,010,243,407 and net tax actually paid was $8,068,463,15 after all allowed deductions had been made.

As for royalty payments made in Australia these added up to $3,924,902,975 in 2007-08, which was a little over half of all royalty payments across all listed industries made in that financial year. (Update: A hat tip here to Peter Martin for pointing out in a recent post that mining royalties are tax deductible)

What the Tax Office also points out is the fact that of these 4,290 mining companies there were some who paid no tax at all and, these comprised 68.3% of all mining companies.

In fact the mining sector has the second-highest percentage of 'no tax paid' than any other listed industry.

How did they do that?

Well there are at least 20 deductions, rebates, concessions, exemptions, offsets etc. available to the mining industry and their combined value is literally worth billions.

The industry total for expenses claimed under R&D concessions alone was $2,508,321,897 and immediate deduction for capital expenditure $3,785,347,506, in 2007-08.

So how does the claim that the mining industry is paying a higher tax rate than any other industry fare?

Quite frankly the mining industry tax rate does not stand alone from some other listed industries in terms of comparable tax percentages to taxable income.

It is worth noting that in 2007 the Business Council of Australia in Tax Nation calculated corporate tax (as a percentage of profit) at 20% for the mining industry.

Interestingly this same document stated; Taxes Collected are negative for the mining industry group because as major exporters survey participants reported a significant GST refund which more than offset other Taxes Collected.

It is also interesting to see that the Mining Council of Australia's advertisement presently being broadcast states that the mining industry currently pays 38% tax, which is a figure significantly lower than those quoted in other council documents which had the combined company tax and royalties running at 41.3%.

Next time you see a talking head spruiking for the mining industry or catch one of the industry's televised advertisements - remember that all is not as these miners would have you believe.

Image from Mumbrella