Queensland Government blows $46 million in another IT bungle.

$46 million written off is not a loss because it is the government’s money:

Mayor Quimby ICT Minister Finn.

In an optimistic and upbeat assessment of the ultimate healing power of the GFC titled “Creative Destruction is a sign of Progress,” Luke Johnson says:

Importantly, capital is being allocated more sensibly. In the boom times money was squandered – now lenders and investors are deploying it much more wisely. I am convinced lessons have been learnt. There should be improved returns and less waste, and more worthwhile use of resources generally.

Government and industry are demanding better value: both public and private sectors are obliged to become more efficient and productive. This must be a good thing. Similarly, more attention is being paid to a proper connection between effort and reward. This is a healthy realignment. …

This is not the case in Queensland where the government seems to toss unlimited amounts of money at IT projects, which are a disaster on every occasion. They seem to always end up with the Z Team carrying out these projects and mismanaging them themselves.

Fresh from bungling the Health Department pay system at a cost of $219 million and rising with tens of millions more being pumped into it to try to correct it, they have decided to institute a new email system. Well may you ask, “What could go wrong with that?” Well for a start, after spending $46 million on it, most government departments have rejected it. It currently has 2,000 users, which equates to $23,000 in investment for each one:

Mr Finn, (Minister for Information and Communication Technology) hit back, insisting the system was under budget although behind schedule. "This project is progressing on budget and within scope by any objective measure it is a success," he said.

Earlier, The Courier-Mail reported that a much-hyped email system which cost taxpayers $46 million had been rejected by most State Government departments.

Trumpeted as a revolutionary way to centralise systems allowing workers to more easily move between agencies, the email platform was rejected as too costly by some of the departments it was specifically designed for. So far only 2000 users have signed up, at an estimated cost of $23,000 each – the price of a small car.

A Public Works Department spokesman insisted the Identity, Directory and Email Services program was set for wider installation by 2013 but sources said the Education, Communities and Community Safety departments had already opted out. The state's largest agency, Queensland Health, is not included in the project scope and is unlikely to sign up.

The system has also been plagued by delays and is already two years behind schedule. It is budgeted to cost $252 million over the next decade, with hopes $123 million would be recouped in efficiency savings.

Curiously ICT Minister Mr. Finn has claimed that the writing off of a Treasury loan of $46 million is not a loss because it is the government’s money. It seems that he didn’t get the job on the strength of his economic credentials:

It is budgeted to cost $252 million over the next decade, with hopes $123 million would be recouped in efficiency savings.

But already a $46 million treasury loan, spent setting up the system, has been wiped to reduce charges and encourage hesitant agencies to join. About 81,000 users are needed for the system to break even.

ICT Minister Simon Finn said the wiped loan was not a loss because "it's all the Government's money." An industry source said: "They will never save one dollar on this project, ever.”

LNP leader Campbell Newman slammed the email program as a poorly handled waste of money. He promised more accountability for IT projects if the LNP won government. "You betcha," he said this morning, promising robust business cases and better oversight for all major projects.

He condemned ICT Minister Simon Finn's flippant dismissal of the decision to write off a $46 million loan to build the system. "Minister, by wasting this money, you're wasting the people's money ... and that's why people are paying higher water and power prices and rego bills.

Bad Stuff Happens

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

Cartoon: By Pickering.

The first climate scare was man-made “global warming”.

But the warming refused to appear as fast as the models predicted, so it became “climate change”.

But people were not stupid and soon were saying “but climate always changes”.

So now the climate scare industry is focussing on “extreme weather events”, and naturally they still claim these are caused by man-made carbon dioxide.

Timed beautifully for the meeting of the climatists in Durban, the UN IPCC has outdone themselves in forecasting extreme weather events – "weather on steroids". Determined to scare up a consensus in Durban, this weather scare is sprinkled with warnings of "diluvian rains", and droughts, cyclones, heat-waves of such magnitude or frequency that "settlement in some areas could be wiped out" and "some areas will become increasingly marginal as places to live" and "it is possible that many residents will have to relocate.''

Source (With thanks to CCNet):

Maybe they should be reminded that extreme weather events have been occurring as far back as earth history has been recorded. Here is a listing of "extreme events" over 1900 years, prepared by James Marusek: Check them out here:


Here is another list of droughts, fires, floods and disappearing or growing ice. It starts with a record of sea floods that drowned 100,000 people in Holland in 1481. See: 



Maybe "extreme weather events" are "normal" here on earth and man has very little to do with most of them. Someone needs to tell the pampered pontificators of the IPCC: "Bad Stuff Happens– get used to it, make appropriate preparations – you are not going to stop it."



A comment on extreme weather from the Soviet era:

"Soviet farm production was down again because of the 
23rd consecutive year of unusual drought."

Back to the Dark Ages

Many people missed our last newsletter. For some reason Bigpond is rejecting mail for many supporters with Bigpond addresses. We have made changes that we hope will solve this problem. You can read that newsletter here:

How to Get Expelled from School

Professor Ian Plimer has written a new book on climate change, a sequel to his best seller "Heaven and Earth". It is entitled "How to get expelled from school." Here is a Synopsis of the book:

The IPA is holding a book launch in several places. The details for the Brisbane event are:

• Date: Thursday 15 December 2011
• Time: 5.30pm to 7.30pm
• Venue: Brisbane Polo Club, Naldham House, 193 Mary St, Brisbane

At the launch, Ian will talk about his new book and the latest on the new 'Climategate' scandal. Entry is complimentary. Please feel free to bring friends and relatives. If you'd like to come please email Rachel Leigh at rleigh@ipa.org.au or call her on 03 9600 4744. Further details are here.

The Turd in the Swimming Pool.

Have you wondered what other countries think of Australia's carbon tax? 




Reproduced with thanks from Andy Semple

TV ad aimes to repeal bicycle helmet laws.

Image: CityCycle in Brisbane which was intended to encourage usage, but has failed.

Around 20 years ago the federal government effectively blackmailed the states into introducing mandatory bicycle helmet laws, by threatening to withhold road funding to states that failed to comply. Since that time the use of bicycles has declined dramatically. Geoff Mcleod of Helmetfreedom.org has produced the following video on the issue along with the statement below it:

This is an issue that's gaining momentum as people see our bike share failing. I ask you, and your party to help repeal our nanny-state helmet laws and bring us in line with the rest of the world. Australia is only among 2% of nations (Australia, NZ, United Arab Emirates) who have who have unfair mandatory helmet laws for adult riders.

I appeal to your common sense and hope you will support a repeal of this law. This may even save our taxpayer-funded shared bike scheme and help ease traffic on our roads and the help the environment.

Bicycle helmet laws have done nothing to change injury statistics. The head to writs injury trend was never effected by these laws. The laws were only successful in stopping a generation from using bikes. For More information, visit this site.

That site has an Exposé of the failure of the Citycycle program in Brisbane where helmets are mandatory, compared with the results in Dublin where they are not, with a 25 fold improvement in usage.

For those who may doubt the validity of Geoff’s claims there is an interview with Professor Chris Risel who is the Professor of Public Health at Sydney University who is in substantial agreement with him.

Bligh Government declares war on waistlines.

Image: Hungry Jacks Ultimate Double Whopper.

The Queensland government has come up with a new plan to tackle obesity. We are going to have a War on Waistlines, Battle of the Bulge, or some such cliché in an effort to turn us into the beautiful people that Bligh approves of. The key salvo is predictably being fired at the fast food industry with legislation to force outlets to display energy content on menus.

Government policy tends to get a bit schizophrenic as the nanny state gathers steam in its attempts to do our thinking for us, and ensure that we conform to its image of what we should be like. It is not so long ago that the state was railing about the use of slim attractive models in the glossy magazines, because it gave people an unhealthy perception of body image. This could cause fat bastards people who fall outside the government’s recommended maximum weight guidelines feel bad about themselves.

The media are dubbing this new the war on obesity and are quoting all of the usual suspects like the Heart Foundation, the AMA, childhood obesity ‘experts’ and anyone else who thinks obesity is caused by burgers, rather than the eating of too many of them:

New rules to be announced today will give customers the chance to weigh up the nutritional value of meals before ordering their meal over the counter - and whether their waistlines can handle the super-sized option.

The legislation being drafted by the Bligh Government means fast-food outlets must display the energy content of all items on their menus. The scheme has targeted super-sized servings that can almost chew up the recommended daily energy intake in one meal.

Customers will be confronted with the daunting kilojoule content - the energy value of food - of items under new-look menu boards in a bid to drive them towards healthier meal choices. …

It is expected the law will apply to fast-food and snack food chains with more than 20 outlets in the state, or 50 outlets nationally.

It is not certain what the size of the franchise has to do with the affect of the fat content of the food provided. Is the Health Minister suggesting that the bigger the chain, the fatter the meal? Perhaps it just comes down to the ‘small is beautiful’ and ‘the bigger the corporation the badder its product’ thing post modernist thinking demands.

The idea that the state has a part to play in diet is nonsensical at best, and blaming the whole thing on fast food outlets with over 20 outlets in the state is absurd. Given this logic it becomes clear that the people really need to get away from the idea that the government should be responsible for keeping them fit and healthy.

Perhaps those underweight models and the more frequent use of the term “fat bastard” would do more to encourage better diet and healthier lifestyle than all of that calorie information that very few are going to read, no matter how compulsory it is.

Labor’s gay marriage resolution a nonsense.

Cartoon: By Bill Leak.

Federal Labor would have been more sensible if they had abandoned the idea of gay marriage altogether and adopted the Queensland Labor lead of legalizing gay civil unions. Rather than coming out with a marriage equality proposal, they have adopted a policy that MPs are not bound by and is unlikely to get over the line unless the Coalition allows a conscience vote as well.

It is unlikely that they can actually do much more than show the Coalition up as intolerant unless all Labor MPs and the independents support it. Even showing up the opposition is not going to work here as the demand for a conscience vote clearly indicates that they cannot carry their own membership unanimously, which would be necessary to pass a bill.

The whole exercise is an empty gesture with smoke and mirrors, but only aimed at getting the gay vote without actually doing anything. Gay civil unions might get up, gay marriage won’t at this time.

The whole problem with the issue is that government is involved in regulating relationships, an area where it has no genuine reason to be part of. Marriage is essentially a private consensual agreement between the parties involved and is therefore a civil matter.

When politics gets involved in the process the current controversy is bound to happen. For a start conservative politicians are so full of themselves that they cannot adopt a laissez faire approach to anything without somehow getting the idea that it makes them responsible for what people do in the absence of regulation. The left are no better in this, as they can’t accept that an employer and an employee can come to a voluntary agreement, and both sides regulate voluntary transactions between traders and customers.

To really make marriage equal, it would be necessary for the churches to take part in the ceremony for those who wish to receive their Deity of choice’s blessing, something that in most cases is not going to happen. Any attempt to coerce churches to conduct these services against their stated principles is just as bad as preventing couples from having the right to get together in the first place.

About the only sane policy on the issue is that of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP):

Marriage is simply a formal declaration by two individuals of their commitment to each other. In every sense it is a private matter, based on the personal choice of those involved, and in legal terms comparable to a private contract. The role of government is to record that choice, not regulate or approve it. Having government define, control or sanction marriage, or give advantages (or disadvantages) to people based upon their marital status, is beyond the protection of individual rights. It is certainly not valid for the government to purport to give or withhold approval to marry on the basis of the sexual preference of those involved or the fact that the marriage involves two people of the same gender.

The LDP does not endorse or reject marriage - it simply regards it as a personal decision that anyone should be entitled to make free of government interference, irrespective of their sexual orientation or lifestyle choice. Thus the LDP preference is not to seek the granting by governments of equal rights for gay marriages, but the withdrawal of government so that it remains a private domain.

In a free society there would be no issues as far as homosexuality is concerned, it would not be relevant.

Another crack at Sharia in Australia.

Cartoon: From Dry Bones.

For some time the rantings of Sharia advocate Siddiq Conlon and his organization, Sharia4Australia have been rejected. Now another viper has raised its ugly head in the form of a request for ‘Koranic’ courts on the same lines as Koori courts for Aboriginal defendants who plead guilty in the far flung regions, only 'Koranic’ ones would have more scope:

Somali Community of Victoria president Abdurahman Osman said Koranic courts would maintain Islamic culture while also reducing legal costs borne by the state. "Instead of applying sharia law in Australia, it is better to have a Koranic court (like) the court Australia has for the Aborigines," he said. "That could help all African communities, especially the Somali community. …

Indigenous defendants who plead guilty to their charges and live in certain areas can elect to have their case heard in the more informal setting of the Koori court. Indigenous sentencing courts operate in all mainland states and territories, usually as a division of the magistrate’s court.

Offences involving family violence or sexual assault are not permitted to be heard in the Koori court, but Mr. Osman told The Australian domestic issues would be appropriate for a Koranic court, where a jury of elders from the same background as the defendant would rule on the case. "Domestic violence and problems between two families, between husband and wife, and if the crime comes from children, if youth are fighting each other -- these kind of things we could solve in our cultural way," he said.

That kind of ‘cultural way’ allows for wife beating, honor killings, death for apostates, forced conversion, genital mutilation, and women being second class citizens, just to mention a few.

It is undesirable to accept the existence of multiple legal codes in a nation, but in the case of Koori law there is an acknowledgement of the fact that Aboriginals were here first, had their own set of laws, and in remote areas are still strongly influenced by elders of their community. The same is not the case with the Islamic community.

Islam has existed here for since the 1860s/70s and its adherents have always been subject to the law of the land and have in no way suffered for it, and have always accepted it in the past. There is no logical reason for those coming into this country to have a special law just to suit them. It would be irrational for an Australian traveling abroad to insist that he be only subject to Australian law.

Probably one of the most worrisome aspects to this demand is the possibility that the multiculturalites will consider this a great idea leading the way to cultural diversity. Even more worrying, is that despite Attorney-General Robert McClelland ruling out any changes which would introduce aspects of sharia law, Gillard and her crowd may see some votes in it and place ‘political pragmatism’ above common sense and equal justice before the law.

Jeremy Clarkson comments, so what’s all the fuss about?

Google searches for the terms, Jeremy Clarkson, shoot them, and execute unionists seem to be very popular today according to sitemeter, which indicates that Jeremy has made some sort of politically incorrect statement. In this day and age it doesn’t take much to offend the panty pissing paragons of political correctness, they tend to be a soft target.

A quick check reveals numerous reports of Clarkson stating a desire to shoot strikers and execute them in front of their families. Anyone who watches Top Gear or any show he appears on is well aware that he tends towards the controversial, and that it is pretty much tongue in cheek. Many possibly tune in for the sake of getting a dose of irreverence.

While there are myriad calls for him to be sacked, and a union is seeking legal advice to see whether they can pave him prosecuted, the reality is that he has been deliberately taken out of context. He was in fact taking the piss on the issue of ‘balance’ requiring another opinion, other than that presented as that alternative opinion.

‘Balance’ is an issue over here as well and deserves the sort of ridicule Clarkson dished out. People like Andrew Bolt and Allan Jones have been accused of failing to provide it. It’s a bit silly to suggest that Bolt should provide space to climate frantic, Tim Flannery or that Barnaby Joyce must allow space in his Canberra Times column for Gillard to answer.

This is what is being presented as Clarkson’s comments:


The reality is that this is only a brief excerpt of a longer segment. Here though is the full transcript of the interview, which makes clear the dishonesty of this attack:

Matt Baker [presenter]: Well Jeremy, schools, hospitals, airports, even driving tests, have all been affected. Do you think the strikes have been a good idea?

Jeremy Clarkson [guest]: I think they have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty.

Alex Jones [presenter]: The traffic, actually, has been very good today.

Jeremy Clarkson: Airports, people streaming through with no problems at all. And it's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow.

Matt Baker: Do you know anyone who has been on strike today?

Jeremy Clarkson: Of course I don't, no. What, somebody public service? No, I don't. No, absolutely. But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC.

Matt Baker: Yes, exactly.

Jeremy Clarkson: Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?

Matt Baker: Well, on that note of balancing an opinion, of course those are Jeremy's views.

Alex Jones: Only Jeremy's views.

Jeremy Clarkson: They're not. I've just given two views for you.

The whole thing is a storm in a tea cup over a misrepresentation. Perhaps the people doing this should be the ones that get sacked.