Garrett’s insulation scheme:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Regardless of whether Garrett goes, these problems will recur” (yesterday, item 1).  I don’t quite understand Bernard Keane’s argument. Why is the insulation scheme “a particularly vivid demonstration of exactly why a market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions is more efficient than other mechanisms”?

Keane points out that the smell of “huge cash handouts” “lures shonks and spivs by the truckload”.  But isn’t this a market mechanism at work?  His objection seems to be that the “cash” was handed out by the government, rather than percolating through the economy as a result of an emission trading scheme.  But of course an ETS would have to be set up by the government.  As would every other solution.  If “the market” was going to produce its own solution it would have done so long ago.

The assumption that “the market” does it better — despite all evidence to the contrary — seems to be based on the common fallacy that only governments have costs and only governments make mistakes.

Double dissolution:

Les Heimann writes: Re. “Rudd navigates the thicket of early election timing” (yesterday, item 16). Well of course there will be a double dissolution. Our busy bee PM must assuredly be buzzing with anticipation at the demise of “family first” types and the likes. Besides what an opportunity to create a platform based on all those reviews — “if elected we will actually do something” Wow!

Consider the other side. Labor gets a trigger or two and doesn’t fire the gun, what does that say to “working families”. It says our PM is a wimp, and right now he’s desperately looking to find a way to positively contrast himself with Abbott.

Is our PM a wimp?  If he doesn’t call a double dissolution. he looks like a wimp, he acts like a wimp and he is a wimp and his opponent will reel him in just like the “lifesaver” he appears to portray.

Mary MacKillop:

Justin Templer writes: Warwick Sauer (yesterday, comments) is right to point out that supporters of the sainthood of Mary MacKillop seem strangely hesitant to draw attention to the fact that she might have performed a miracle or two.

Even Tim Fischer, Australia’s ambassador to the Holy See (surely the biggest sinecure of them all?) can only point to the fact that Mother Mary was compassionate and a “leader in education and many other fields”.

If one of those fields happened coincidentally to involve performing miracles, Tim Fischer does not seem to think that worth a mention.  But he does go on to trumpet that the impending sainthood will “boost Australia’s profile in this busy competitive hub of Rome and way beyond”.

Possibly all the way to the land of the Jedi?

A budget surplus:

Rod Metcalfe writes: Re. “Business as usual: Heroic work at Fairfax … Insurance slug on the way … Party poopers in the UK” (yesterday, item 21). In the debate over budget surpluses and deficits (and also who is responsible for the GFC) I note that no-one has belled the cat that much of the budget surpluses of the past (both state and federal) have come from infrastructure cutbacks.

Our metropolitan daily newspapers, now crying at the lack of public transport spending, port upgrades and road works, were all previous champions of “surpluses”.  I may be wrong but this may have all started in the Thatcher/Friedman era of monetarism.

Somehow, I am reminded of Mr Garrison in South Park — “Government spending is bad, Ok”.

Budget surpluses only come three ways — either through tax (we pay immediately), assets are sold or through cuts in spending (we pay eventually). But not all surpluses are bad and not all deficits are bad.

Centrelink couples register:

Adam Coleman  writes: Re. “The pink list: Centrelink couples register scaring the pants off gays” (yesterday, item 18). Sue-Ann Post is wrong about wealthier (non-Centrelink payment-receiving) gays being able to avoid the government’s terrifying “Pink List”.

Last time I did my tax return, I noticed that, from this tax year, I will have to include my live-in boyfriend as a spouse. I am not sure what impact this will have on my tax assessment, but I am pretty sure I won’t be getting a bigger refund out of it.

Gays can’t argue for equality and then bitch about the consequences. We would look justifiably ridiculous. And, in real life, most of probably have more immediate things to worry about than a future, hypothetical police state using old government forms to track us down and persecute us.

In any event, they will be persecuting all of us, welfare-receiving or not.

Nuclear waste:

Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, writes: writes: Re. “Consent, consultation and politics: how to site a nuclear waste dump” (Monday, item 1). Federal resources minister Martin Ferguson’s announcement on Tuesday that he will pursue plans for a national nuclear waste dump at the Muckaty site, north of Tennant Creek in the NT, continues the shabby and unfair process set in train by the Howard government.

Mr Ferguson’s media release falsely claims that the nomination of the Muckaty site has the support of the Ngapa Traditional Owners. He well knows that many Ngapa Traditional Owners oppose the dump; for example he was sent a letter opposing the dump in May 2009 signed by 25 Ngapa Traditional Owners and 33 Traditional Owners from other Muckaty groups.

Mr Ferguson is also well aware of the unanimous resolution passed by the NT Labor Conference in April 2008 which called on the federal government to exclude Muckaty on the grounds that the nomination of the site “was not made with the full and informed consent of all Traditional Owners and affected people and as such does not comply with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act“.

Mr Ferguson should repeal the nomination of the Muckaty site and start from scratch with an inquiry into all the options available for managing Australia’s radioactive waste, including the option of ongoing storage at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor site – the source of most of the waste and most of Australia’s radioactive waste management expertise.

Victorian liquor laws:

Dave Dreimann writes: Re. “Brumby’s backflip on live music could claim Maclellan” (yesterday, item 12). I hate to be a glass half empty kind of guy, but if you look closely there’s not much more than a couple of sips and a lot of froth in the latest pour from the Victorian Government.

In a move timed just before the SLAM rally protest the Brumby government signalled its intent to back down on some aspects of its contentious liquor laws. What exactly is happening? Not much really.  The government are going to “recommend” to the Director of Liquor Licensing that there be more discretion in the crowd control requirements.

Does the director have to act on this recommendation? No. What about businesses that have had breaches, say a few too many people in the venue, but no violence, could they still be forced to take on excessive measures or pay excessive fees? Yes.

We may (or may not) finally see common sense prevail and security requirements be removed from some venues, but fees that have risen 300% aren’t coming down. The average small business is still going to struggle, changes in legislation have not been proposed, the final say still rests in hands of the Director of Liquor Licensing who remains in a position independent of government.

Also the non binding accord will be reviewed in 12 months.

It’s obvious on a day where 20,000+ people were expected to take to the streets that the government are trying hit a chord with the public. Brumby can say — “the Government has listened to the concerns of the live music industry” and look sympathetic in the sound bites, but he’s not actually doing anything.

It doesn’t remove the imaginary link between amplified music and violence. It do nothing to protect small businesses from being victimised at the whim of a vindictive Liquor Licensing Director. It does nothing to address the increases in liquor licensing fees.  Florists can still no longer send bottles of champagne with flowers, sporting clubs can still no longer have a couple of beers after the game.  Dan Murphy’s still get a better deal than Swords’  Some businesses have seen an increase in liquor licensing fees from $300 to $30,000.

Yes it’s a step in the right direction but it’s just talk, and talk, unlike a liquor license, is cheap.

ConnectEast:

James Tonkin, General Manager, Corporate Affairs, ConnectEast Group, writes: Re. “Companies going for gold by massaging the message” (18 February, item 21). Further to Glenn Dyer’s  commentary on Crikey last Thursday about ConnectEast’s half year results and the fact we did not refer specifically in our covering ASX statement to our net loss (although it was detailed in the accompanying presentation), I thought it might be worth explaining our rationale.

Large infrastructure projects such as EastLink require significant initial capital outlays — in our case nearly $4bn.

This initial capital investment is recorded on the balance sheet and amortised over the concession period through annual charges to the income statement, meaning that in early years the group is likely to record an accounting loss.

However, in cash terms, large projects usually begin generating a positive operating cashflow within a year or two of opening.

Operating cashflow is the most important measure for infrastructure projects because it is the basis for distributions to unitholders. Large infrastructure projects also typically operate through a trust structure which allows these positive cash flows to be distributed to unitholders despite accounting losses being recorded – something a company structure is not able to (companies can only pay dividends to its shareholders from operating profit while trusts ‘pass through’ its underlying cash flows and distributions to its unitholders).

We started generating positive operating cashflow (after non-recurring swap break fees) in the December 2009 quarter due to continued traffic ramp-up, cost control and the capital structure initiatives we undertook in late-2008 and mid-2009.

Accordingly we believe measuring the growth in operating cash flow performance of EastLink (i.e. revenue less operating costs and less financing costs) is a better way of understanding how well the asset is performing as opposed to accounting profit or loss which includes significant non-cash items that often makes comparison from one period to the next more difficult.

I hope this helps by way of explanation.

Afghanistan:

Neil James, Executive Director, Australia Defence Association, writes: Jeff Sparrow (18 February, comments) emotively brandished more straw men and red herrings than seen in a middle-ages European folk festival.

Surely any Australian with a conscience and a sense of social responsibility would reasonably think twice before making untrue and — in the complex and nuanced situation of Afghanistan — inflammatory and dangerous claims about the ADF supposedly “assassinating Afghan civilians”, etc.

Sparrow ignores that Air Chief Marshal Houston, in a press conference with Defence Minister John Faulkner, specifically refuted both the “assassination” and “targeted killing” slurs when the incorrect article “Australian” article by Mark Dodd appeared in August 2009. Houston also explained the dangers of such careless and incorrect reporting.

Sparrow also avoids the commonly accepted distinction between beliefs and actions that are legitimate and reasonable dissent in a democratic society, and intentional or reckless actions that exceed such limits because they infringe the rights of others to a dangerous extent or cause them harm.

All Australians have a right to argue with our government about Australia’s participation in a war.

But during any verbal or physical protests all Australians also have a moral and citizenship responsibility not to blame, defame or endanger the troops our government sends to fight it on our behalf.

Climate change:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 15). Richard claims that Phil Jones of the CRU did not admit that “from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming”.  Yet in the same piece he quotes Jones as saying “Yes, but only just” to that exact question from the BBC.

Jones goes on to explain that there is a positive trend of 0.12C since 1995, but as is constantly pointed out to me when I note the 0.1C cooling trend since 2001, the trend is not statistically significant, i.e.; the data is so random that there is basically no trend.

So Jones is right and Richard is wrong:  There has been no global warming since 1995.  Yet not a day goes by without the “crisis” of global warming being proclaimed.

What a weird mass hysteria it is.

Peter Wotton writes: Whether you believe the climate change scientists’ view on global warming or the view of the denialists (there nailed my colours to the mast), there appears to be universal agreement that the seas are becoming more acid as a result of increasing absorption of carbon dioxide.

While not as uncomfortable as higher temperatures and raised sea, the end results of this will be massively changes to our oceans and the enjoyment and produce we derive from them. How can we stop  this happening? Why simply reduce the amount of CO2 we release into the air.

Funny how this is the same solution needed to reduce global warming.