Rafe’s Roundup 22 May

Breaking news. Nigel Lawson on the ABC! Jo Nova retrieving some value from the wreck of the Lomborg centre at UWA.

Why does the Left kowtow to Islam?

The American left has spent the past few weeks trying to tell us that they believe in free speech, but…–and the “but” is that anything that offends the sensibilities of Islamic fanatics is unnecessarily provocative, hateful, and possibly racist. Now they’ve gotten a taste of their own medicine.

An anti-censorship benefit scheduled for next month in New York City has been cancelled after the managers of the venue, the Sheen Center, “suggested that we alter the title of Neil LaBute’s play”–charmingly titled Mohammed Gets a Boner–”and alter the content of some of our panelists’ speeches.” That’s right, folks. They tried to censor an anti-censorship event.

The various panels on the event were slated to discuss “censorship of women in the arts,” “censorship of environmentalists and climate scientists,” and “censorship of LGBT artists.” The part about “censorship of environmentalists” is, of course, laughable. And these days, the only artists who are forced to recant their views are those who violate the LGBT speech codes by pointing out that Bruce Jenner isn’t a woman. So while the organizers of this event were preparing to work themselves up into a frenzy of concern over non-existent censorship, they inadvertently reminded us of the censorship threat we should actually fear.

Climate. A word from Alan Carlin, a Sierra Club activist, once upon a time.

I was actively involved in environmental protection as a Sierra Club activist and senior EPA analyst for over 45 years, but about eight years ago I concluded that I could not support the energy use/CO2 reduction objectives of the environmental movement and many governments in the developed world. These objectives are not just unlikely to be successful; they are genuinely harmful to humans and the environment.

What the world needs is not decreased fossil fuel use but increased use with careful control of conventional pollutants using conventional controls where needed and justified. Conventional controls are much less expensive and much more certain to be effective than attempting to reduce fossil fuel use in order to reduce conventional pollution.

The much maligned carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, as EPA and Obama claim, but rather a basic input to plant photosynthesis and growth, which is the basis of life on Earth. Decreasing atmospheric CO2 levels would decrease plant productivity and therefore the food supply for the rest of the ecosystem and humans, and vice versa. Further, attempts to reduce it will prove enormously expensive, futile, harmful to human welfare, and in the longer run, to environmental improvement. It is now increasingly evident that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by governmental coercion will have important non-environmental adverse effects in terms of loss of freedom of scientific inquiry, economic growth and development, and the rule of law.

Read his book, Environmentalism Gone Mad.

Backgrounder on the US Clean Power Plan, expanding the scope of the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030. The Global Warming Policy Forum.

California leading the way….to bankruptcy.

May 19 California and leaders of 11 states and provinces signed an agreement on Tuesday to limit their output of heat-trapping greenhouse gases 80 to 95 percent by 2050, a goal they hope will help prevent runaway climate change.

Called “Under 2 MOU” for a Memorandum of Understanding designed to help keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, the pact seeks to provide a template for countries to follow to cut emissions.

“This global challenge requires bold action on the part of governments everywhere,” California Governor Jerry Brown said on Tuesday. “It’s time to be decisive. It’s time to act.”

Signatories of the agreement were Acre, Brazil; Baden-Württemberg, Germany; Baja California, Mexico; Catalonia, Spain; Jalisco, Mexico; Ontario, Canada, British Columbia, Canada; Wales, and the U.S. states of Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Culture. The New York Review of Books. Books on understanding literature. Strangely missing is Theory of Literature by Wellek and Warren, arguably the best introduction of all to the whole range of lit crit and scholarship.

Education. Stephen Matchett on getting parents interested in education.

Four questions occur to the Crows about this campaign. Why spend money telling people who will actually listen to do something they already are? Do the feds think they can change behaviour with a mere $5m? Even if it has an impact how will we ever know? And, most important, is the money for a social advertising or a marketing campaign? The former is easy to make – just present a case. But the latter requires the target market to change its behaviour and when there is no financial incentive to nudge people in the right direction (as in anti-smoking) this isn’t easy.

Lifestyle. The rainrider mobility scooter. Pictures.

A world first in design and functionality, this unique mobility scooter is the only scooter on the market that is fully covered for protection against all the types of weather Australia has to offer. Engineered to maximise not only safety but comfort, this little scooter redefines practicality with automotive grade glass front and rear windscreen to keep the rain out, and fully removable doors to provide ventilation during our scorching Australian Summers.

Around the town. Hendo and the media watchdog [Updated on Friday afternoon]. The Australian Institute for Progress, (AIP) “because the future does not look after itself”. IPA HEY. The Sydney Institute. Australian Taxpayers Alliance, Quadrant on line, Mannkal Foundation, Centre for Independent Studies.

Don Aitkin. Jim Rose, feral and utopian! Jo Nova, climate realist par excellence. Sean Gabb’s site.

Sites of interest. Spiked on line . Richard Hammer, Free Nation Foundation. Aust NZ libertarian students. Powerline. The British libertarian alliance.

Education, accuracy in academia.

For nerds. Melvyn Bragg’s radio program. Stephen Hicks, always interesting for nerds.

Critical Rationalist Scholars (certified by Rafe Champion at the CR Blog). See the list under People of Interest.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Guest Post: Peter O’Brien – Passing the hat around for Gaia

The UN is calling for national leaders to sign up to a global agreement on reduction in human CO2 emissions that will “limit global warming to 2C degrees above the pre-industrial level”.  This agreement is to be signed in Paris in December 2015.   Australia has agreed to participate.

The process for reaching this agreement was thrashed out at the 2014 Lima conference.  Individual nations ‘that are ready to do so’ will submit national pledges by the first quarter 2015.  Australia has now said it will submit its’ pledge by mid 2015.

But it is not clear whether or not the Australian government subscribes to the 2C target.  The recently released issues paper ‘Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions’ does not refer to this aim.

I have unsuccessfully sought clarification on this from Minister Hunt and from my local member, who is a member of the Government.

The 2C limit is a very specific target.  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of ‘wiggle room’.  Which is as it should be if one accepts the prognostications of catastrophe upon which the need for this agreement is based.  (Which, for the record, I don’t – but let’s play the game anyway.)

The obvious question at this point is – exactly how much atmospheric CO2 will result in such a warming?  The IPCC tells us the warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is anywhere between 1.5C degrees and 4.5C degrees. (So much for ‘settled science’!)

So how are individual governments to know what emission cuts would be necessary and sufficient to meet the aim?

In other words, what official guidance has been issued to countries?

If such guidance exists it is not widely published, as the 2C degree limit is.

In the case of Australia, one would have thought that such guidance would be issued by the Department of the Environment but I can find no reference to any guidance on their website.

So I checked the Climate Change Authority (CCA), and it has issued some guidance.

The Authority has issued a report, based on a paper by Meinshausen et al (2009) which assigns various probabilities of limiting warming to 2C against various emission scenarios. The report can be read at http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3.

These scenarios are based on total cumulative global CO2e emissions (called global budgets) from 2000 to 2050.  There are four of them equating to various probabilities of limiting warming to 2C.


Probability of remaining within 2C















The budget that the CCA has chosen to base its’ recommendations upon is 1700 GT of CO2 equivalent between 2000 and 2050.  (As a point of reference, the global CO2 equivalent emission for 2014 is roughly 50GT.)  And it is worth noting that the Authority recognises that roughly 40% of this 1700GT budget has already been used between 2000 and 2014.

Thus we have a residual global budget of only 1020GT CO2e to 2050.

According to Meinshausen et al, limiting emissions to this budget, would deliver a probability of 67% of not exceeding 2C degrees.   (I do not have the technical knowledge to comment on the scientific merit or practical value of this paper but it is surely worth scrutiny by someone who does.)

The CCA report recommends that Australia’s ‘fair share’ of this residual budget (2013 to 2050) is 10.1GT.  This works out at 0.27GT per annum.

Australia currently emits approx. 0.6GT CO2e per annum.

The CCA report says that the pathway to achieving the desired cuts is flexible but the principle is that the overall budget should not be breached.  The CCA has issued some interim targets but, for simplicity’s sake, let’s just look at the overall picture.

Under business as usual we would emit 22GT by 2050, so we are looking at an overall cut of  greater than 50%.

What is the likelihood that the Australian government will sign up to something like this in December?

But it’s even more problematical when one looks at the global picture.

Let’s assume the rest of the world adopted the same target (1020GT CO2e from 2015 to 2050).

Currently, China emits roughly 15GT CO2e pa and its’ emissions are forecast to grow until 2030, when, supposedly, they will peak.

The developed world currently emits 24GT CO2e pa.

The developing world (not including China) emits roughly 15GT CO2e pa and its’ emissions are also forecast to grow.

(Source: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf.  Note:  I have converted CO2 to CO2 equivalent using a factor of 1.5, which is what is used in the CCA report.)

Last year China’s emissions grew at 3%.  If that growth continued until 2030 (and why wouldn’t it, China having been given carte blanche by President Obama to do just that?), and then peaked, China will have emitted a total of approx 760GT CO2e by 2050.

If the developing world also grew at 3% until only 2030 it would have emitted the same – 760GT.

So already we have consumed 1520GT of our global budget of only 1020GT CO2e.

Even if the developed world achieved a 50% cut in emissions, it would still have emitted roughly 430GT by 2050

Against a budget of 1020GT, actual emissions would total 1950GT.  (And I think my assumptions are conservative as to the growth in emissions from China and the developing world and ambitious as to the cuts in emissions achievable by the developed world.)

So even if Australia achieved its’ 10GT budget, in the best case, the world will have overshot the mark by 90%, equating to a probability (according to Meinshausen) of limiting warming to 2C of only 50%.

The Climate Change Authority has been in existence for two and a half years with an annual budget of $6 million.  So this report has cost us about $20 million.

But we can be pretty sure the government will not use this guidance.  It has said it will base its’ cuts on what the rest of the world does.  And yet it also says it respects the science of climate change.  There’s not a lot of science in this process.

Already, it seems, some of the lead UN figures in the process are hedging their bets and suggesting that the 2C target is not the be all and end all.

As it is, the process instigated by the Lima conference resembles nothing so much as an office farewell party:

 We’re passing the hat around for Charlie.  As you know he’s leaving the company after 30 years’ service.  We’d like to get him a gold Rolex but chip in whatever you can and we’ll get what we can afford.

It’s time to end this costly farce but I’m not holding my breath.

Posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Uncategorized | 33 Comments

“It’s not all military parades or victories” – Jihadi

Well, no. There is a lot of rape, murder, and mayhem.

Rita Panahi has an excellent op-ed in the Herald Sun today talking about the 3 Australian jihadis who want to come “home”.

“A lot of people when they come they have a lot of enthusiasm about what they’ve seen online, what they’ve seen on YouTube,” he said. …

Let’s think for a minute about the type of material that inspired that man and his ilk to join the terror group.

Islamic State propaganda that the group so skilfully disseminates online isn’t just about victory parades; it is often a celebration of the vilest brutality imaginable.

It includes bound victims being beheaded on camera for the crime of being Christian or Shiite or any number of other offences these vicious extremists deem worthy of a horrible death on camera.

Their videos show terrified men being thrown off buildings for the crime of being gay; in one instance the victim did not die on impact, so he was stoned to death.

There are images of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of prisoners being lined up and shot in cold blood. And women aren’t forgotten; Islamic State fighters proudly boast of their work in beheading female Kurdish fighters and enslaving Yazidi girls.

There are even productions starring children executing prisoners.

That is the type of sickening barbarism that is attracting young Muslim men from around the world to give up their comfortable Western lives and head to Syria and Iraq to fight what they see as a holy war.

So it turns out that raping and murdering isn’t as much fun as expected. Perhaps there are diminishing returns to raping and murdering – so it was fun at first but the enjoyment wore off after the nth mass murder or mass raping. Who knows? Who cares?

These people are criminals and need to face the criminal justice system – so I have a lot of sympathy for the “You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail” attitude taken by Tony Abbott. I’m not sure how credible the threat to deprive people of their citizenship is – but the government could and should implement the practical consequence of that threat anyway. After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty).

Posted in Tough on Crime, tough on criminals | 206 Comments

The renewable scam: a never ending story

In an article in The Australian today the head of Origin Energy, Grant King, suggests the industry would be hard pressed to build the amount of capacity our callow political leaders have determined we should accept as part of the “compromise” deal to build 33,000 GWh by 2020. Grant King suggests that it would be difficult to have this, a more than quadrupling of capacity, constructed in the period.  Predictably, Tristan Edis, Business Spectator’s resident shill for the wind farmers does not think 33,000 is enough and vilifies the Senators involved in the current Inquiry into wind farms as religious nutters supported by the ‘fossil fuel funded Australian Environment Foundation’ (the gigantic annual income of which would not pay a week of his own funding).

Grant King may be right about the capability of the industry to supply the capacity with its subsidy at twice its market value, though when the question was put to me at the Senate committee wind farm hearing on Tuesday, I answered that with a sufficient financial incentive in subsidies and with sufficient certainty that a future government would not welch on out year payments, it should be possible.  This is based on the fact that the turbines are bought off the shelf and erecting them is straightforward.  I added that the main reason they might not be built on time is the (in this case welcome) morass of planning hurdles that the builders face.

Unfortunately, these barriers have been reduced by the airheaded government in Victoria which only wants to see the immediate jobs and money spent on the negative value-added facilities.  As Alvarez and his colleagues demonstrated for Spain  for every four jobs wind farms create, nine are lost because of the higher cost they impose (in the context of relatively inflexible wages – if wages were flexible no jobs would be lost and the subsidies would simply leave us poorer).  Spain, with policies like this bringing unemployment at 26 per cent has seen the light and terminated them, in some cases retrospectively withdrawing the subsidies.

In response to the Australian article “Terrence” commented:

The rorting of energy users accelerates with the new RE target of 33,000 GWh by 2020. From what I’ve read one wonders if anyone has actually reviewed the feasibility of this half-baked plan given it’s huge costs and few (if any) benefits.

In 2014 the RE industry generated a miniscule 9% of Australia’s power – a total of 19,500 GWh with two thirds coming from hydro and one third, less than 7,000 GWh from wind/solar. To reach the new RE target (hydro is not allowed and solar is insignificant) wind will have to add 13,500 GWh to existing 19,500 GWh to reach the target of 33,000 GWh by 2020.

In other words Australia’s wind generated capacity will have to TREBLE in five years, even though it’s taken 15 years to get this far.

According to the RE industry’s Chris Judd this expansion will require an additional 4,800 MW of wind turbines.

These wind turbines (+/- 2,000) will probably cost in the order +/- $4 million a MW = a staggering $19.2 billion capital cost for these bird killing monstrosities that only work seven hours a day and with a life of 15 years max. $20 billion could buy our new subs, or 40 major hospitals.

Canberra needs to go back to basics and produce a realistic energy plan for Australia’s future and discard this Green driven Alice in Wonderland version that, in the real world would be thrown out and the perpetrators put in care for their own protection.

Posted in Uncategorized | 27 Comments

Media principles

The great danger for Western civilisation is that the media have with honourable exceptions been captured by the left. The result is that:

1. The media never criticise parties of the left under any circumstances.

2. The media find every possible fault they can with actions taken by or statements made by representatives of the parties of the right – or even by people who can be made to appear as representatives of the parties of the right.

3. The media, as with the left in general, are beyond hypocrisy. There are no principles, only tactical advantage. The media, like the left, are totally consistent, bearing in mind they have no fixed values themselves but seek only power and wealth.

4. Deterioration in every aspect of life is allowed to take place without comment if someone on the left can be held responsible for the damage.

5. No one on the conservative side of politics is permitted to repair any damage caused by the left without intensive criticisms over the harm such repair is doing to particular individuals. Fairness is not based on any standard but only on who is making the change. If the change is made by a party of the right, it is be definition unfair and will be opposed to the fullest extent.

Posted in Media | 80 Comments

Wednesday Forum: May 20, 2015

Posted in Open Forum | 1,055 Comments

Remember it’s not really your money

Mr Morrison was referring to Labor’s superannuation tax policy, which will affect 170,000 people who are either retirees with $1.5 million in their accounts or people still working who earn over $250,000 a year.

Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley said it was “ridiculous” for Mr Morrison to argue that money in superannuation belonged to those who saved it, but pensions were fair game for change because they are taxpayer funded.

“It is absurd that we treat people on superannuation as a protected species even though they are earning potentially $100,000 a year that somehow all of those earnings are off limits,” he said.

“They’ve largely contributed [to their nest egg] out of pre-tax earnings. Everybody else has to save out of post-tax earnings and secondly they have accumulated the current capital base by paying less than the marginal rate on their earnings. We are big time involved as taxpayers.”

Simply Astonishing.

I’m just wondering who are the people not on or in superannuation? Are they taxpayers? Who are these “everybody else” who have had to save out of post-tax earnings?

(HT: James)

Posted in Hypocrisy of progressives | 74 Comments

Fair Work Commission staff to strike: hilarious

You might have thought that the FWC is something of a dab hand at human resource management – or whatever it is called these days.  The story below might shake your confidence.

I do love the fact that the enterprise agreement covering FWC (non-statutory office holders) doesn’t contain a productivity clause even though the President and other know-nothing members of the FWC think that productivity clauses in EBAs are the way forward.

Indeed, they think they are so expert that they can tell management a thing or two about improving workplace productivity, even though most of them have never seen anything other than the inside of a union office or law firm followed by the posh offices of the FWC located around the capital cities.

(The FWC head office is in that fancy building on the corner of Exhibition and Flinders Lane – all paid courtesy of the taxpayer.  What’s wrong with Broadmeadows, I say.  There would be some cheap rental accommodation there.)

Here is the story of over-entitled, under-worked staff members thinking they should have an additional lend of the taxpayer.

Some of you will already be aware that the CPSU has invoked the disputes procedure in the enterprise agreement because of concerns about the relief conciliator program.   The CPSU has today notified the FWC of a dispute.
This email sets out management’s point of view, so that you can form your own judgment.  The difference centers around a claim that the program should all be in paid time or TOIL.    We have not agreed to this because no member of staff is required to participate in the program – it is entirely voluntary.    We think it is an opportunity highly valued by staff, which enables them to acquire new skills, which in turn has the potential to make them genuinely competitive when conciliator vacancies arise, and/or provides access to a payment at the EL1 level if they undertake relief conciliations.
From the outset we made it clear that whilst most of the program would be run in work time, the 5 day theoretical component would include a weekend of participants’ own unpaid time.    As there is no management requirement for any participants to acquire these skills for their current roles, we considered this a reasonable contribution by participants.  We see it as analogous with studies assistance – if an employee is approved external studies assistance – they are not undertaking it at the direction of management, and whilst they may get some study leave, they also have to undertake most study in their own time and without any recourse to overtime, TOIl or any other payment.
The program also benefits the Commission, providing a pool of relief conciliators.    Whilst there are benefits to the Commission, we can alternatively simply recruit conciliators externally.   Where we have done this in the past, the fields have been exceptionally strong and very few, if any staff, would otherwise be competitive for these roles.   However, we are strongly committed to offering staff the opportunity to develop new skills and give you access to career progression opportunities not otherwise available.
In these circumstances, the Program represents a significant investment by the Commission, and management needs to be satisfied that it is a responsible and appropriate use of Commonwealth resources.
More than 40 staff expressed interest in the program, and 20 were selected to participate.     When the CPSU raised concerns about the program, we asked all staff who had expressed interest to anonymously record whether they would prefer the program to be run for 20 participants including the 2 weekend days in their own time, or alternatively, reduce the program to 12 participants run during working days.    With a 64% response rate, 82% said they would prefer the program to be run for 20 employees, in the original terms proposed.   Accordingly, that is the decision management took, notwithstanding the CPSU’s concerns.
Despite several discussions with the CPSU and delegates, agreement has not been reached.   The CPSU’s view is that the program must be either run entirely during Monday to Friday, or if it  includes a weekend, must attract overtime or TOIL.    Management’s view is that overtime or TOIL only apply when staff are required by management to work/perform duty.
We have seriously considered cancelling or suspending the Program, but are very reluctant to do this because we don’t want to deprive staff of this valuable opportunity.
I am aware that the CPSU has made various assertions in their emails to union members, including that staff “who do undertake this training may be working 12 days straight which also contravenes clause 13.5.5 of your EA”.   You can read for yourself, that the agreement provides no such thing.  And of course, management’s view is that participation in the program is voluntary and the Saturday and Sunday are no more “working days” than an employee on approved study leave spending time on a weekend to complete assignments or prepare for an exam.
Posted in Uncategorized | 26 Comments

It certainly has not turned out well for America under Barack Obama, nor for anyone else either

Barack Obama has done fantastic damage to the US. Two things today. First domestically, from Thomas Sowell who discusses government commandeering of your tax money, which it doesn’t ask for but takes, and to little purpose:

And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.” Remember the soaring words from Barack Obama, in his early days in the White House, about “investing in the industries of the future”? After Solyndra and other companies in which he “invested” the taxpayers’ money went bankrupt, we haven’t heard those soaring words so much.

The US has also managed to keep unemployment down by making even thinking they might find a job so impossible, that millions have left the job market, while others have been bribed to take up alternative income earning by living off the government “Food Stamps” program. Unemployment rate falls because there are fewer unemployed in the official statistical base.

And then, internationally. This is so incredible, with the most incredible part how silent the media has been, The Fall of Ramadi and Anbar Province to ISIS:

On Monday, a day after the reported fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to Islamic State forces, the Pentagon downplayed the significance of the loss.

“To read too much into this single fight is simply a mistake,” said a Pentagon spokesman.”What this means for our strategy, what this means for today, is simply that we, meaning the coalition and our Iraqi partners, now have to go back and retake Ramadi.”

The reality is much more complicated. Even as the Islamic State takeover of the capital city of Iraq’s largest province seemed nearly complete on Sunday, the Pentagon continued to argue that the situation was still “fluid and contested.” That assessment was countered by reports that “hundreds of police personnel, soldiers and tribal fighters abandoned the city,” leaving it and a “large store” of American weapons in ISIS hands. The BBC cited a statement “purportedly from IS” claiming that the city had been “purged.”

I am now convinced that Drudge has been gotten to in the US since there was one report yesterday and then nothing today about what you would think is the most disturbing event since the War in the Middle East began. This is “Nazis take Stalingrad”. Is the news now so suppressed that it can truly be said that we are at war with Eastasia in alliance with Eurasia, as we have always been, and no one notices a thing?

Posted in American politics, International | 67 Comments

You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed

This is lifted straight from Tim Blair. It speaks to the moral vacuum that is at the heart of the left across too much of the world.

Labor’s Bill Shorten spoke at a press conference earlier today:

JOURNALIST: There were three Aussie jihadis trying to come home at the moment, should the Government be helping them to do that?

SHORTEN: Well first of all let me just state the principle that Australians shouldn’t be going overseas to fight in these causes or these battles. We’ll get an update about the national security and about what’s happened with these people reported in the media in the last couple of hours.

JOURNALIST: I guess our justice system is based on belief in rehabilitation and shouldn’t that apply to everybody?

SHORTEN: Well fundamentally we believe in rehabilitation, there’s the law of the land and we’ll seek a briefing from the Government.

JOURNALIST: What sort of punishment do you think though they should receive if they were to come home? A jail term?

SHORTEN: There are laws in place, I’m not going to play judge and jury and again we’ll ask the Government to update us with what’s happening with these matters that have just been coming through in the last couple of hours.

Contrast Shorten’s pathetic timidity with the Prime Minister’s more direct approach:

“We have seen with our own eyes on TV the mass executions, the beheadings, the crucifixions, the sexual slavery. This is a gruesome, ghastly, medieval barbarism which has erupted in the modern world. The last thing any Australian should do is join it.

“The Australian people expect their country to be safe and someone who has been a terrorist abroad could very easily become a terrorist here in Australia.

“If you go abroad to join a terrorist group and you seek to come back to Australia, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and jailed.

And Shorten wonders why Labor’s poll advantage is eroding.

Posted in Ethics and morality, Federal Politics | 67 Comments