Joe Hildebrand: Real genius of Australia’s submarine pact is nothing to do with boats

The message that other major Anglosphere countries will give brotherly support to Australia is the main point. Considered as a whole, the Anglosphere is a substantial counterweight to China

Beijing is spitting chips about Australia’s US sub deal despite the first boat not being due for more than a decade. Their real anger is because of something else.

The biggest advantage of a nuclear submarine is that it never has to surface, which is also the biggest advantage of Australia’s nuclear submarine deal.

There has been much debate over the technical merits of the new nuclear subs we will get from the US and UK versus the diesel-powered subs we just ditched from the French. At least all our armchair epidemiologists have found a new area of expertise.

But the most critical characteristic of both the diesel and the nuclear subs is the one they have in common: Neither actually exists. Australia has no French submarines or American submarines — and it won’t be getting any of either for a very long time.

In fact, the seismic announcement that sent the French Ambassador storming out and the President sniffily screening his calls has almost nothing to do with submarines at all. Indeed, it is inconceivable that such explosive tantrums could be caused by an argument over aquatic metal.

Instead it is about something far more primal and real — and much more real than phantom U-boats.

Paul Keating knows it, which is why the former PM’s reaction was if anything even more visceral than that of the French. He may have landed on the wrong side of the argument but at least he knew what the argument was about.

The most precious commodities in the submarine swap aren’t underwater tin cans but the flags that stood behind Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson and Joe Biden as the three leaders announced the new deal.

For Australia it was a clear message to China that we might not be the biggest kid in the playground but we’ve got both Blighty and Biff at our back. For the UK and USA it was a clear message that they now have not just an eye on the region but a dog in the fight.

Many on the lunar green left have sought to paint it as a provocative action but this is merely a form of geopolitical victim blaming. After the shameless trade war that China has waged upon Australia, its ubiquitous cyber attacks on our institutions, its open belligerence towards Hong Kong and Taiwan and its literal raising of the seabed in the South China Sea to create military bases — not to mention innumerable mass-scale human rights abuses within its own mainland — one wonders what they would consider an appropriate strategic response.

There was a time in global affairs just a decade or two ago when China was rightly considered a rational and reasonable actor. Sadly its more recent actions prove that while it may well still be rational — its hyper-nationalist and expansionist agenda is nothing if not calculated — it is no longer reasonable. Reasonable countries don’t put 200 per cent tariffs on wine.

So what do we do? The truth is there is not much we can do. Obviously Australia will never be any match for China in a straight fight, be it a trade war, a cold war or — God forbid — a hot one.

Our only option is to remind the Chinese that, as Princess Leia said to Jabba the Hutt, we have powerful friends. Some might sneer that the USA is a declining superpower but it’s the only one we’ve got. And, as Crosby, Stills and Nash once sang, you’ve got to love the one you’re with.

It should also be noted that if the United States can withstand its last two presidents then perhaps reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated. If a nation can survive both Trump and Biden then surely that is a mark of infinite resilience.

It is thus both wholly and sadly unnecessary that this new — or rather renewed — alliance is causing such an identity crisis within the Australian Labor Party. Labor has always been a friend of America, to the point that it even uses the American spelling of its very name.

The great John Curtin made perhaps the most important decision in Australian history when he turned to the US to defend Australia from Japan after the fall of Singapore in World War II. It is then strange that the party has been infected by anti-American sentiment in all the decades since.

Of course in the 1990s Labor heralded the advent of the Asian century and it might have been right then. That doesn’t mean it is still right now.

Placating Indonesia while it oppressed East Timor was bad enough. Placating China while it oppresses Hong Kong and Taiwan is a whole new art of acquiescence. It certainly has no place in a party that calls itself progressive.

Anthony Albanese is right to support our reinforced position as a member of a Western liberal democratic alliance. As Opposition Leader he is obliged to ask questions and find fault but he needs to stand strong even as he is bombarded by the bonkers left.

Former PMs might carry on and cry but it’s only future PMs that count.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/work/joe-hildebrand-real-genius-of-australias-submarine-pact-is-nothing-to-do-with-boats/news-story/74ec61f9e3c3e182ed154b4a48981ee4

***********************************************

And then there's the QUAD

Australia is also allied with India and Japan

Australia will intensify co-operation with the United States, India and Japan to ensure that China does not exert excessive control over the supply of minerals essential to modern technology in one of the key goals of the first face-to-face leaders’ meeting of the “Quad” nations.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will meet with US President Joe Biden, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga at the White House on Saturday (AEST) for the first in-person leaders’ meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

In a separate speech to the United Nations on Saturday, Morrison will position Australia on the front lines of the battle to ensure China does not monopolise the Asia-Pacific.

“The global strategic environment has rapidly changed, indeed deteriorated in many respects – particularly in the Indo-Pacific region where we live here in Australia,” the Prime Minister will say.

“The changes we face are many, whether it’s tensions over territorial claims, rapid military modernisation, foreign interference, cyber threats, disinformation and indeed economic coercion.

“We must reinforce a sustainable rules-based order, while ensuring it is also adaptable to the great-power politics of our time. Our voice is clear, it’s respectful, it’s constructive.”

The Quad is rapidly emerging as an influential grouping of leading democracies working together to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.

The four leaders are also expected to announce significant initiatives on vaccine diplomacy, climate change, infrastructure and space exploration following wide-ranging joint discussions.

Morrison, Biden, Modi and Suga have agreed to map out supply chains for key minerals and products - such as semiconductors - to better understand the nations’ technological vulnerabilities.

China accounts for the majority of the global production of rare-earth minerals, including palladium and lithium, raising alarm that the rising superpower could block access to crucial consumer and defence technologies as part of a trade war with its strategic rivals.

An iPhone, for example, contains an estimated eight different rare-earth minerals, which are also integral components of high-tech weaponry such as fighter jets and guided cruise missiles.

Australia has the world’s sixth-largest reserves of rare-earth minerals, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, but they currently remain largely untapped with only two mines producing them. The largest by far is a mine at Mount Weld in Western Australia, owned by the Lynas Corporation.

In February the US Defence Department announced it had awarded Lynas a contract to develop a rare-earth processing facility in Texas.

The Morrison government believes the fellow Quad nations represent potentially lucrative export markets for Australian-sourced minerals such as lithium given their increasing concern about China’s reliability.

Rare earths were also a focus for Morrison during his previous visit to Washington in 2019 with then -president Donald Trump.

The leaders are expected to say that “resilient, diverse and secure technology supply chains for hardware, software, and services” are vital to their shared national interests.

Specifically, the four nations will “launch a joint initiative to map capacity, identify vulnerabilities and bolster supply chain security for semiconductors and their vital components”.

Australia's race against China's 'rare earths weapon'
A global shortage in semiconductor chips is driving up the prices of cars and other electronic goods such as laptops and televisions, leading the Biden administration to make boosting supply and reducing dependence on China one of its top economic priorities.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/quad-leaders-unite-to-weaken-chinese-dominance-over-rare-earth-minerals-20210924-p58ukq.html

***********************************************

Bid to remove ‘racist’ slave trader Ben Boyd’s name from Sydney street fails

The Kanakas were NOT slaves. They were contracted labourers. They were free to return to Kanaky at the end of their contract. Most did

Calls to remove the name of slave trader Ben Boyd, who was responsible for ‘blackbirding’, from a leafy Sydney suburb have failed.

North Sydney Council will keep the name of Ben Boyd Rd in Neutral Bay and Cremorne, on the lower north shore of Sydney, after a former Green’s staffer created a petition to change the name.

The petition caused a stir in the community with the council then asked to consider a name change.

The road was named after a colonial entrepreneur who lived in Neutral Bay in the 1840s.

Boyd was known for pioneering the practice of using cheap labour from the South Sea islands to work in Australia. It is known as ‘blackbirding’.

After the petition was circulated the council asked constituents for their thoughts.

A survey was put forward and 2318 residents responded, 54.7 per cent opposed the renaming of the street while 44.3 per cent were in favour. Just 1.6 per cent were unsure.

The papers also said there were 20 council installed street signs referencing Ben Boyd Rd. The cost of replacing these would be about $6200.

There are also two plaques in the community commemorating Ben Boyd with the council preparing to alter these.

“The larger of these are soon to be reinstalled with another plaque outlining the story of Boyd’s place in Australia’s historical narrative,” council papers said.

“With that, the naming of Ben Boyd Road will be put in context, and residents and visitors can decide for themselves the nature of the man and his deeds.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/calls-to-remove-slave-trader-ben-boyds-name-from-sydney-street-fail/news-story/eeff8e3513dbbc92c629d0d11252934e

*****************************************

It’s a $50b-a-year export industry. How long until coal’s rivers of gold run dry?

If the end of coal is near, it’s hard to see it among the open pits and billowing cooling towers of Victoria’s Latrobe Valley and the Hunter in NSW.

Canyons of brown and black coal, set between green paddocks and sloping hills, loom large in these mining districts and dominate their economies as a source of great wealth, just as they have for a century or more.

A global push is accelerating to eliminate the use of thermal coal — the worst-emitting source of energy — to restrain the planet’s rising temperature and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

But the mines in Latrobe and the Hunter are still operating around the clock. White steam still rises from the nearby power plants as they burn coal to supply more than two-thirds of Australia’s electricity needs. And, at the ports, huge volumes of coal are still being loaded onto cargo ships bound for Asia, bringing in billions of dollars of export revenue a year.

“The coal industry is just so damn important to the regional centres,” says Peter Jordan, a Cessnock local and mining union official who worked in the sector for more than a decade.

“Our coal mining jobs are well-paid relative to other industries, but they support many others in the mining communities; services, retail, health … most of them wouldn’t exist without coal.”

With 50,000 coal mining jobs nationally, the industry’s head count is relatively modest in contrast to sectors such as manufacturing, which employs 900,000 Australians. But coal has an outsized influence in a handful of seats, where it is a provider of good jobs and rich revenue streams for governments.

“It sends rivers of gold to Sydney in the form of royalties,” Jordan adds, “paying for roads, schools, and hospitals.”

For now, coal is a $50-billion-a-year export industry. How long until its rivers of gold run dry?

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull lost his job over an attempt to reshape energy policy and push down emissions. Scott Morrison went to the last election warning voters that Labor’s “net-zero” target would unleash economic havoc and widespread lay-offs.

Most Australians now say they want stronger emissions curbs, new polling suggests. But fewer than half (49 per cent) think coal power should be phased out within a decade and 44 per cent want to keep mining and exporting coal for as long as buyers want it.

Australia’s coal addiction might seem hard to shake. While 10 coal-fired power plants have shut down in the past decade, coal still generates about 70 per cent of the nation’s electricity.

Winds of change are, however, blowing anyway. The clean energy era is firmly upon us. And powerful forces are radically reshaping coal’s outlook overseas and on the home front.

With 3.3 gigawatts of new wind and solar power capacity plugged into the nation’s main grid in 2020 alone, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has officially declared the transition to be the fastest of anywhere in the world, describing the pace as “absolutely staggering”.

A consequence of more wind and solar farms being built, and more Australians installing rooftop solar panels, is that coal is getting squeezed. In the past 12 months, the flood of cheaper-to-run renewable energy has pummelled daytime wholesale power prices to levels where just about every coal-fired power plant is considered at risk.

This year, EnergyAustralia brought forward the closure of its Yallourn power station to 2028, four years ahead of schedule. Last week, it said it would shut its Mt Piper plant earlier, too, sometime prior to 2040.

Other sites, though, are still licensed to be burning coal until the back half of the 2040s, or even the 2050s, putting Australia at odds with a growing chorus of world leaders calling for a markedly more urgent phase-out plan.

Ahead of the world climate summit in Glasgow, the United Nations has launched a push for all OECD countries to quit coal power by 2030, and non-OECD countries by 2040. “The alarm bells are deafening,” UN secretary-general Antonio Gutteres says.

Is it possible for Australia’s coal-dominated national power market to be rid of coal entirely by 2030? “It depends,” says Lisa Zembrodt of Schneider Electric, an adviser to many of Australia’s largest corporate energy consumers.

Put this question to the power station operators, and they invariably insist 2030 is far too soon and would raise the threat of a “messy” transition that could see price volatility or even blackouts.

AGL, which accounts for 8 per cent of Australia’s total emissions, says nine years is not nearly enough time for replacement capacity to be invested in, built and plugged into the grid.

“We certainly recognise that the date of 2030 is something that is on the table with respect of the UN targets,” AGL chairman Peter Botten says. “I believe that 2030 is a very, very challenging target.”

Still, at its annual investor meeting last Wednesday, more than 50 per cent of AGL’s shareholders including US investment powerhouses BlackRock and Vanguard defied the board and voted to support an activist climate resolution requesting consideration of new goals that would compel accelerated coal plant closures.

What it boils down to, according to Zembrodt, is a choice we have to make as a society: As expensive as it may be, are we prepared to invest in the transition — smart grids, micro-grids, demand-management technology, batteries, energy storage and infrastructure — to fill the gap?

“We should be seeking to phase out coal as quickly as possible … and 2030 is a great aim,” she says. “But we need clear policy, we need market design, we need coordinated efforts between government, the market operators and consumers to enable the transition and support it, rather than prevent it.”

Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood agrees: Australia could be capable of retiring all its coal plants and replacing them with clean energy by 2030, but it would cost a “huge amount”.

“You would have to do a hell of a lot of things in the shorter-term that you otherwise would only have done in the longer term,” he says.

Because electricity production is a dominant source of emissions, exiting coal would help sharply reduce the country’s carbon footprint. At the same time, however, state and federal ministers have also become acutely aware to the risk of abrupt plant closures leading to undesirable outcomes for consumers.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is driving development of a so-called “capacity mechanism” designed to spur investment into “dispatchable” assets – those capable of supplying on-demand power when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining.

Taylor insists the mechanism would be technology-neutral, with equal opportunity for gas, pumped hydro and batteries. But the policy has drawn fierce criticism from environmental advocates who have dubbed it “CoalKeeper” because it may see coal plants paid to guarantee future supply by remaining in the grid for longer.

NSW thermal coal has rallied this year to $US180 a tonne – a 10-year-high, and a sign of enduring near-term demand despite accelerating emissions goals globally.

As economies re-emerge from COVID-19 and energy consumption rebounds, coal markets are booming. What will happen next, though, is decidedly less certain. Top Australian coal destinations – Japan, China, South Korea – are targeting “net-zero” emissions by 2050-60, which, eventually, will diminish demand for fossil fuel cargoes.

There is much still to be answered. How sharp will the trajectory in those countries be? Will the world seek to limit global temperatures to 2.5 degrees of warming, 2 degrees or the most aspirational 1.5-degree pathway, as targeted by the Paris Agreement? What does that mean for Australian coal?

When the Reserve Bank of Australia considered these questions, it modelled four scenarios. Under one scenario of no change to existing policies in those countries, Australian coal exports rise 17 per cent by 2050. In other scenarios in which temperature rises are kept at 2 degrees or lower, coal falls by up to 80 per cent by mid-century.

“Countries are unlikely to materially alter their energy mix in the near term, and ... demand for coal will likely remain robust this decade, the RBA said. “However, as global appetite for coal tapers off from 2030 onwards under all scenarios except for the baseline, Australian coal-related investments are at risk of becoming ‘stranded assets’.”

Coal producers and analysts say Australian coal – with a relatively high quality and energy content – could face a brighter future than coal from other sources, as countries across Asia retire their older, less-efficient coal generators and move towards lower-emissions facilities.

“If everybody else goes down, we could end up holding a bigger piece of the global coal pie,” says Herd. “But is that who we really want to be? Do we want to be the last coal exporting-nation in the world?”

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/it-s-a-50b-a-year-export-industry-how-long-until-coal-s-rivers-of-gold-run-dry-20210924-p58ue9.html

*****************************************

A major Queensland university is set to ditch lectures next year in a move which has been slammed by the tertiary education union and protested by students

Seems a lot of nonsense to me, as a retired lecturer

From 2022 the University of the Sunshine Coast will no longer have in-person or online lecturers, with students instead to be provided with alternative learning materials such as quizzes and podcasts.

In a message to students about the change, USC stated “traditional style lecturers have been demonstrated to have poor learning outcomes”.

But many students have already voiced their concerns with USC psychology students launching a petition protesting the change, which has gathered more than 600 signatures.

USC Pro Vice-Chancellor (students) Professor Denise Wood told The Courier-Mai lecture attendance had been dramatically declining over the past few years, and students would now have access to more “engaging” online learning materials.

“USC remains predominantly a face-to-face on campus learning environment and that’s not changing,” she said.

“However over the years learning and teaching has changed, we are now living in a period of contemporary learning and teaching practice.

“Over the last decade, as has the entire sector, we’ve seen a gradual shift from the number of students wanting to come to face-to-face lecturers.

“A decade ago, you would see about 50 per cent attendance by week four, now you’re lucky to see between 20 and 25 per cent.”

National Tertiary Education Union Queensland secretary Michael McNally said members were concerned the university was taking a “one size fits all” approach, by ditching lecturers for all subjects.

“That’s a bit of a slamming condemnation of everything all of the staff up until now have been doing,” he said.

“A lot of our lecturers are quite happy to do some or even all of their teaching in this kind of format, because it works for them, it works for the subject they teach and their students prefer it.

“But there are also lots of situations where that type of format isn’t the best, and the academic staff need to have the ability to decide what’s the best learning format for their students.”

Prof. Wood said there would be no job losses with the change.

“The academics will still need to be available … and of course still need to respond to students,” she said.

In their petition, psychology students argued the “proposed will have a negative effect on student learning, specifically the psychology undergraduate degree”.

“Many students feel that the introduced interactive platform is a way for less and less teacher contact time,” the petition stated.

Prof. Wood said the university would listen to student feedback, with a survey currently underway.

“We will work with the student senate on analysing the feedback from students, and we will be responsive to it,” she said.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-announces-plan-to-remove-lectures-for-all-subjects/news-story/c60b9ac4fcd82b071b310bfdc2f7753d

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

***************************************

Why has the price of aluminium skyrocketed around the world?

Northern Australia has huge and easily accessible deposits of of bauxite right by the sea (at Weipa) and only a short sail from Asia. So it is already a major supplier. It may soon become even more dominant as a supplier. It easily has the reserves to replace Guinea and buyers should see that

What happened this week was a huge spike in the price of aluminium, which goes into everything from cars and trucks to phones and beverage cans. The metal touched $3000 a tonne — the highest it’s been since the 2008 global financial crisis — before settling down a wee bit after a couple days. But it’s still almost 70% more expensive than this time last year.

Why has the cost soared?

Because of Guinea, a tiny country in West Africa. Earlier this month, a military junta ousted Guinean president Alpha Condé in a coup driven by frustration over a lack of social and economic reform during his tenure. (Ramming through a referendum to ignore term limits and extend his time in office didn’t win Condé any friends either.)

Guinea is one of the major producers of bauxite, the mineral that is the raw ingredient for the production of aluminium. With a country so dependent on mining producing a commodity the world is so reliant on, a military coup naturally introduced uncertainty into the market — and uncertainty often means volatility. Even though Guinea’s mines are making an effort to keep operations normal and production steady, prices can still rise because commodities are traded speculatively. This means traders are nervous about what could happen with this batch of colonels, or even the next government, whenever it’s formed.

Guinea’s travails have indirect effects. Any blip in the bauxite supply chain has potential to wreak havoc later on. This is especially true seeing that China, which turns much of Guinea’s rocks into shiny metal, has become a net importer of aluminium recently, so it doesn’t necessarily have the domestic back stock to keep up with industry demand.

Aluminium comes from an ore called bauxite. According to the US Geological Survey, bauxite is the “only raw material used in the production of alumina on a commercial scale”. In other words, if the world wants aluminium, the world needs bauxite. The process that turns bauxite into aluminium is called smelting, and it is fairly resource- as well as energy- and emissions-intensive. It’s a messy business.

While Australia was the world’s largest producer of bauxite last year, digging up 110 million tonnes, Guinea produced 82 million tonnes, or 22% of the world’s supply. For a country of just 13.6 million people, that is no small feat. More importantly, perhaps, it also has the world’s largest reserves of bauxite, with 7.4 billion tonnes. Guinea may not be to aluminium what the DRC is to cobalt, but it’s almost there.

What does this mean for the prices of goods that use aluminium?

Well it’s not good. Aluminium is everywhere these days. It’s used heavily in automobile production: Ford’s F-150 pick-up, the best-selling vehicle in the US, uses loads of it, which unfortunately got pricier thanks to former US president Donald Trump’s tariffs on imported aluminium. It’s in mobile phones. It’s in cans. The US uses it extensively in defence production. And the post-pandemic “greening” of the economy has led to increased aluminium demand due to its prevalence in electric car production and solar panels, as NPR’s Marketplace pointed out.

Increased demand, combined with continued political uncertainty in Guinea, could keep aluminim prices sky high. If that happens, the prices of consumer goods will inevitably inch upward. The more volatile Guinea’s political situation is, the bigger the effect.

How long will this last?

It depends on how long political instability in the country persists. Lately, consultations have begun to shift from military rule to a transitional government. But it could take weeks — or a whole lot longer — for a final decision to be made.

In the meantime, the leader of the coup, Colonel Mamady Doumbouya, rushed to assure big mining companies he wouldn’t do anything to disrupt operations, which might take some of the froth out of the market.

Bauxite is Guinea’s golden goose, so it’s not likely the new junta will do anything to jeopardise exports in the short term. But if political instability continues — or if the government decides to take a bigger bite of mining revenues, potentially even leading to closures — supply problems could creep into an already jittery market. And if you drive, talk, or eat leftovers, that is not what you want to hear.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/why-has-the-price-of-aluminium-skyrocketed-around-the-world/ar-AAOLa36?ocid=chromentpnews

******************************************

Tim Blair: Inclusion actually means exclusion in the woke community

In the names of inclusiveness and social justice, girls and women are losing opportunities for athletic achievement – and even losing their gender identities, writes Tim Blair.

If ever you hear a woke type ­talking about the need for ­“inclusion”, brace yourself. It usually means someone is about to be excluded.

The latest victims of inclusion are female netball players. Last week several girls’ netball teams were swept aside in a state championship because netball administrators allowed a boys’ team to compete.

By “compete”, I mean “dominate”. The Queensland Suns Under-17 team, an all-male outfit, easily won the Under-18s championship in Brisbane against all-female ­opponents.

As you’d expect.

Parents and fans at the final expressed understandable outrage. So did NRL legend Cameron Smith, whose wife watched a game in which fellow former NRL star Matt Geyer’s daughter played against the boys.

“She just said Matt’s daughter’s team were a gun side and they had no chance. The males were just too fast, too physical. It was just a disadvantage to the girls,” Smith said on SEN.

“It’s crazy. How do you put one male team in against all the other ­females and expect the girls to compete? Particularly at that age when they’re still developing. It’s not fair.”

Damn straight. But according to Netball Queensland, allowing boys to play against girls was even better than fair. It was inclusive, the highest level of woke accomplishment to which ­humanity can possibly aspire.

Following criticism, Netball Queensland issued a statement boldly defending its decision to deny girls any chance of winning. It’s a masterpiece of social justice sophistry. Let’s take a walk on the woke side:

“We want to make clear that there is a place for everyone in our sport.” Except for a place on top of the podium. That’s now reserved for boys.

“We stand by the decision to choose inclusion over exclusion.” Says the same organisation that excluded girls from even the possibility of a championship win.

“We recognise that change is sometimes uncomfortable …” Especially for girls, who will probably give up netball entirely if they’re going to be beaten in every match.

“We are buoyed by the support of our wider netball community …” As one sharp-eyed observer noted, they really should have used a more inclusive term than “buoyed”.

“We’d like to address the assertion that the young women who played the State Titles were disadvantaged in any way.” Really? The boys won their games by an average of 29 points and took out the final 46-12. If that’s not evidence of disadvantage, then what the hell is?

“We see this as a great development opportunity.” But not for girls, at least in terms of claiming a title.

“The inclusion of both women and men in the competition in 2021 was about affording all netballers the opportunity to play and develop our great game.” And for boys, and boys only, the opportunity to win.

“While we have been subject to commentary around the different physical attributes it should also be remembered that men are new participants to our sport and play a different style of netball.” A style known as “successful”. Because they’re boys playing against girls.

“It’s also imperative that we provide a platform for men and boys to participate – because if you can’t see it, you can’t be it.” I can’t see a girls’ team ever winning a netball championship again if boys are allowed to compete.

“And we aspire to be a sport for all.” You’ve taken a sport designed for girls and women and have handed it over to boys and men. Congratulations, ladies.

Queensland Netball’s idiocy, which if extended to other exclusively-female sports would scrub women from peak athletic involvement, is part of a broader woke war on women.

Last week the totally woke American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the memory of late Supreme Court justice and feminist hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg by promoting an old Ginsburg quote.

Problem was, Ginsburg’s 1993 quote used non-woke words such as “her”, “woman” and “she”. So the ACLU helpfully edited it, which turned an eloquent statement on abortion rights into an abortion ­itself.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] wellbeing and dignity,” the updated gender-neutral version reads.

“When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices.”

Fully adult humans should be capable of hearing or reading words that refer to women without having an ­inclusiveness-based panic attack.

Similarly, formerly-prestigious British medical journal The Lancet last week indicated its devotion to wokeness by also excluding women. “Historically,” The Lancet reported, “the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been ­neglected.”

Seriously? “Bodies with vaginas”? That’s where wokespeak is taking us. They are reducing women to their genital component form.

Sensible people, such as psychologist and author Dr Jessica Taylor, took issue with this. How, Dr Taylor wondered, could The Lancet present itself as caring about the exclusion of female bodies and female biology from medicine and science when the journal won’t even name them?

“I would like to hear The Lancet explain their scientific rationale for keeping the use of the word ‘men’, ‘male’ and ‘man’ when they are refusing to use the word ‘woman’, ‘women’ and ‘female’,” Dr Taylor added. “Genuinely, I would like to hear that argument.”

They don’t have one. That’s why we hear nonsense phrases instead, like “if you can’t see it, you can’t be it”.

We are increasingly seeing women not mentioned in elite correspondence. What happens next?

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/tim-blair-inclusion-actually-means-exclusion-in-the-woke-community/news-story/5faefc8050b1be872e52586fc444f202

**********************************************

Qld, WA may face legal challenges over border closures

Barriers betwen the states are clearly ultra vires of section 92 of the constitution

Queensland and Western Australia could find themselves vulnerable to unprecedented legal issues as the rest of Australia embraces ‘Covid normal’ in the coming months.

Constitutional lawyer Professor Kim Rubenstein told Ten’s The Sunday Project that anyone adversely affected by the states’ refusal to open their borders could have grounds for a case.

“Any person who is impacted by these restrictions and who can show that this is a disproportionate burden on trade (could mount legal action),” she said.

“So that if it can show that it is, in fact, protecting one state over the other, without a legitimate or proportional response, then it really is available for challenge. And we may, in fact, see that ahead of us.”

Professor Rubenstein told The Sunday Project that the Australian constitution “was motivated by a desire to travel freely across the country”.

“Section 92 was placed there to discourage any restriction of travel within Australia,” she said.

Professor Rubenstein said the court would examine “whether these restrictions are needed for the purpose that they‘re seeking to achieve in terms of health protection.”

If they’re found wanting, the state could be much more “vulnerable” to legal action.

It comes amid criticism over Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she was unwilling to reopen the state’s borders even at 80 per cent national vaccine coverage.

Ms Palaszczuk on Friday said she was unwilling to reopen as “80 per cent actually takes you backwards and I do not want that for Queensland”.

Her remarks have since come under heavy criticism with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg labelling it a policy that would keep Queensland families apart.

“The decision, and the announcement by the Queensland government, which means we may not see an opening of the borders consistent with the National Plan, is not good, and it would be a bad decision that would cost Queensland jobs,” he said.

“It would be a bad decision that would mean Queensland families are kept apart and it would be inconsistent with what was agreed at the National Cabinet.

“It’s really important that, in Queensland, the borders open in accordance with those 70 and 80 per cent vaccination rates.

“People want their lives to come back to what it was, and it’s up to those premiers and chief ministers to give those people hope, to give them a chance to reopen their businesses, to be reunited with loved ones, to send their kids back to school.

“That’s what the people of Australia are expecting from their state and territory leaders.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/coronavirus/qld-wa-may-face-legal-challenges-over-border-closures/news-story/53842ef836eea72af83916426b66421f

********************************************

Australian PM refuses to commit to phasing out fossil fuels

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison refused to commit to phasing out fossil fuels as a major climate conference approaches, while his deputy doubled down on opposing targets for net zero emissions of greenhouse gases.

Australia, the world's top coal and a major gas exporter, is under growing pressure to come up with emissions reduction targets ahead of November's COP26 United Nations climate conference in Scotland.

The International Monetary Fund called on Australia to set a "time bound" target to reach net zero emissions on Friday, when the country's treasurer warned that Australia must brace for much higher borrowing costs if it fails to commit to a net zero target by 2050, as many peers have done.

In interviews with Australian media after a summit in Washington, Morrison said his government was still working on its emissions plans, declining to commit to curbing fossil fuels that account for a major part of Australia's export revenue.

He told broadcaster SBS in an interview that aired on Saturday night that he was not prepared to pull back any fossil fuel industries immediately.

"We don't have to, because that change will take place over time," he said. "We are working on the transition technologies and fuels and the ultimate technologies that will be there over the next 20, 30 years that can get us to net zero... This doesn't happen overnight."

Morrison, who has a largely undefined slogan of "technology not taxes", was part of a government that torpedoed a carbon pricing scheme after winning the 2013 election while opposing the mechanism as a tax.

His deputy prime minister, climate change sceptic Barnaby Joyce, dug in on Sunday against a net zero target.

"We look at it through the eyes of making sure there is not an unreasonable, or any loss of... regional jobs," Joyce, whose National party represents largely rural voters, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Joyce said proceeds from mining and agriculture industries were vital for people in regional towns, from hairdressers to auto service providers.

"You've got to remember, fossil fuels are your nation's largest export and if you take away your nation's largest export, you've got to accept a lower standard of living," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/australian-pm-refuses-to-commit-to-phasing-out-fossil-fuels/ar-AAOPo5K?ocid=chromentpnews

******************************************

Spanish mackerel ban shows contemptible disregard for commercial fishermen

Peter Gleeson

If you like eating Spanish mackerel, you might have to start saving your pennies because the price is about to skyrocket.

It follows the establishment of a so-called working group, which will look at banning the commercial ­fishing of mackerel in north Queensland waters.

The plan is to ban fishing in certain areas from July 1 next year, abolishing the existing quota system.

Fisheries Queensland has been managing the resource through a quota system since 2004 under the sustainable fishing banner.

They have recently announced the East Coast Spanish Mackerel biomass is at a critically low level and changes to the management will be implemented next July.

Among other possibilities, the most likely result of this is a drastic quota reduction for the fishermen.

No doubt there will be the standard stakeholder working groups and public discussion papers so that Queensland Fisheries can be seen to be going through the consultation process, but the outcome is inevitable.

This is yet another hijacking of a perfectly legitimate business by the Greens and their Labor Left mates.

The Greens hate all commercial fishing. It’s a bread-and-butter issue. Greenpeace have made an art form of trying to destroy fishing industries.

Unfortunately, there are not enough commercial fisherman left to have any voting clout, so outcomes become inevitable.

The utter disregard for the consequences to fishermen’s personal and financial circumstances shown by Queensland Fisheries is contemptible.

Fishermen in the north Queensland area are in despair at the proposed changes.

For Spanish mackerel farmers such as Peter Guymer, the fish are all caught one at a time on a line.

There is no trawl or net fishery for this species, and the fish he catches are consumed by Queenslanders.

Mr Guymer says this latest issue for the Spanish mackerel industry is part of a broader campaign to undermine the professional fishing industry.

“The demand for wild caught local seafood has never been stronger,’’ Mr Guymer says.

“The ultimate loser here is the seafood-eating public who cannot or don’t wish to catch it themselves and will be eating imported farmed product.’’

The Queensland Seafood Industry Association has tried to talk sense into the State Government, but received little solace.

The Government says Spanish mackerel stocks are under threat from overfishing, with 300 tonnes commercially fished each year since 2004.

The latest damning Fisheries Queensland view follows a 2020 report, which said harvest numbers were good.

If a ban was implemented, it would throw dozens of fishermen out of work, and mean Spanish mackerel would be off the menu at most ­restaurants.

This is a typical Greens-Labor Left stitch-up, with a Labor government complicit in sending a section of the industry to the wall.

Let’s hope sanity prevails and the quota system remains. It’s a very fishy situation indeed

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/peter-gleeson/opinion-spanish-mackerel-ban-shows-contemptible-disregard-for-commercial-fishers/news-story/b04b8344bf3ff474e568aa2b07709acd

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

***************************************

Why has the price of aluminium skyrocketed around the world?

Northern Australia has huge and easily accessible deposits of of bauxite right by the sea (at Weipa) and only a short sail from Asia. So it is already a major supplier. It may soon become even more dominant as a supplier. It easily has the reserves to replace Guinea and buyers should see that

What happened this week was a huge spike in the price of aluminium, which goes into everything from cars and trucks to phones and beverage cans. The metal touched $3000 a tonne — the highest it’s been since the 2008 global financial crisis — before settling down a wee bit after a couple days. But it’s still almost 70% more expensive than this time last year.

Why has the cost soared?

Because of Guinea, a tiny country in West Africa. Earlier this month, a military junta ousted Guinean president Alpha Condé in a coup driven by frustration over a lack of social and economic reform during his tenure. (Ramming through a referendum to ignore term limits and extend his time in office didn’t win Condé any friends either.)

Guinea is one of the major producers of bauxite, the mineral that is the raw ingredient for the production of aluminium. With a country so dependent on mining producing a commodity the world is so reliant on, a military coup naturally introduced uncertainty into the market — and uncertainty often means volatility. Even though Guinea’s mines are making an effort to keep operations normal and production steady, prices can still rise because commodities are traded speculatively. This means traders are nervous about what could happen with this batch of colonels, or even the next government, whenever it’s formed.

Guinea’s travails have indirect effects. Any blip in the bauxite supply chain has potential to wreak havoc later on. This is especially true seeing that China, which turns much of Guinea’s rocks into shiny metal, has become a net importer of aluminium recently, so it doesn’t necessarily have the domestic back stock to keep up with industry demand.

Aluminium comes from an ore called bauxite. According to the US Geological Survey, bauxite is the “only raw material used in the production of alumina on a commercial scale”. In other words, if the world wants aluminium, the world needs bauxite. The process that turns bauxite into aluminium is called smelting, and it is fairly resource- as well as energy- and emissions-intensive. It’s a messy business.

While Australia was the world’s largest producer of bauxite last year, digging up 110 million tonnes, Guinea produced 82 million tonnes, or 22% of the world’s supply. For a country of just 13.6 million people, that is no small feat. More importantly, perhaps, it also has the world’s largest reserves of bauxite, with 7.4 billion tonnes. Guinea may not be to aluminium what the DRC is to cobalt, but it’s almost there.

What does this mean for the prices of goods that use aluminium?

Well it’s not good. Aluminium is everywhere these days. It’s used heavily in automobile production: Ford’s F-150 pick-up, the best-selling vehicle in the US, uses loads of it, which unfortunately got pricier thanks to former US president Donald Trump’s tariffs on imported aluminium. It’s in mobile phones. It’s in cans. The US uses it extensively in defence production. And the post-pandemic “greening” of the economy has led to increased aluminium demand due to its prevalence in electric car production and solar panels, as NPR’s Marketplace pointed out.

Increased demand, combined with continued political uncertainty in Guinea, could keep aluminim prices sky high. If that happens, the prices of consumer goods will inevitably inch upward. The more volatile Guinea’s political situation is, the bigger the effect.

How long will this last?

It depends on how long political instability in the country persists. Lately, consultations have begun to shift from military rule to a transitional government. But it could take weeks — or a whole lot longer — for a final decision to be made.

In the meantime, the leader of the coup, Colonel Mamady Doumbouya, rushed to assure big mining companies he wouldn’t do anything to disrupt operations, which might take some of the froth out of the market.

Bauxite is Guinea’s golden goose, so it’s not likely the new junta will do anything to jeopardise exports in the short term. But if political instability continues — or if the government decides to take a bigger bite of mining revenues, potentially even leading to closures — supply problems could creep into an already jittery market. And if you drive, talk, or eat leftovers, that is not what you want to hear.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/why-has-the-price-of-aluminium-skyrocketed-around-the-world/ar-AAOLa36?ocid=chromentpnews

******************************************

Tim Blair: Inclusion actually means exclusion in the woke community

In the names of inclusiveness and social justice, girls and women are losing opportunities for athletic achievement – and even losing their gender identities, writes Tim Blair.

If ever you hear a woke type ­talking about the need for ­“inclusion”, brace yourself. It usually means someone is about to be excluded.

The latest victims of inclusion are female netball players. Last week several girls’ netball teams were swept aside in a state championship because netball administrators allowed a boys’ team to compete.

By “compete”, I mean “dominate”. The Queensland Suns Under-17 team, an all-male outfit, easily won the Under-18s championship in Brisbane against all-female ­opponents.

As you’d expect.

Parents and fans at the final expressed understandable outrage. So did NRL legend Cameron Smith, whose wife watched a game in which fellow former NRL star Matt Geyer’s daughter played against the boys.

“She just said Matt’s daughter’s team were a gun side and they had no chance. The males were just too fast, too physical. It was just a disadvantage to the girls,” Smith said on SEN.

“It’s crazy. How do you put one male team in against all the other ­females and expect the girls to compete? Particularly at that age when they’re still developing. It’s not fair.”

Damn straight. But according to Netball Queensland, allowing boys to play against girls was even better than fair. It was inclusive, the highest level of woke accomplishment to which ­humanity can possibly aspire.

Following criticism, Netball Queensland issued a statement boldly defending its decision to deny girls any chance of winning. It’s a masterpiece of social justice sophistry. Let’s take a walk on the woke side:

“We want to make clear that there is a place for everyone in our sport.” Except for a place on top of the podium. That’s now reserved for boys.

“We stand by the decision to choose inclusion over exclusion.” Says the same organisation that excluded girls from even the possibility of a championship win.

“We recognise that change is sometimes uncomfortable …” Especially for girls, who will probably give up netball entirely if they’re going to be beaten in every match.

“We are buoyed by the support of our wider netball community …” As one sharp-eyed observer noted, they really should have used a more inclusive term than “buoyed”.

“We’d like to address the assertion that the young women who played the State Titles were disadvantaged in any way.” Really? The boys won their games by an average of 29 points and took out the final 46-12. If that’s not evidence of disadvantage, then what the hell is?

“We see this as a great development opportunity.” But not for girls, at least in terms of claiming a title.

“The inclusion of both women and men in the competition in 2021 was about affording all netballers the opportunity to play and develop our great game.” And for boys, and boys only, the opportunity to win.

“While we have been subject to commentary around the different physical attributes it should also be remembered that men are new participants to our sport and play a different style of netball.” A style known as “successful”. Because they’re boys playing against girls.

“It’s also imperative that we provide a platform for men and boys to participate – because if you can’t see it, you can’t be it.” I can’t see a girls’ team ever winning a netball championship again if boys are allowed to compete.

“And we aspire to be a sport for all.” You’ve taken a sport designed for girls and women and have handed it over to boys and men. Congratulations, ladies.

Queensland Netball’s idiocy, which if extended to other exclusively-female sports would scrub women from peak athletic involvement, is part of a broader woke war on women.

Last week the totally woke American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the memory of late Supreme Court justice and feminist hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg by promoting an old Ginsburg quote.

Problem was, Ginsburg’s 1993 quote used non-woke words such as “her”, “woman” and “she”. So the ACLU helpfully edited it, which turned an eloquent statement on abortion rights into an abortion ­itself.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] wellbeing and dignity,” the updated gender-neutral version reads.

“When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices.”

Fully adult humans should be capable of hearing or reading words that refer to women without having an ­inclusiveness-based panic attack.

Similarly, formerly-prestigious British medical journal The Lancet last week indicated its devotion to wokeness by also excluding women. “Historically,” The Lancet reported, “the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been ­neglected.”

Seriously? “Bodies with vaginas”? That’s where wokespeak is taking us. They are reducing women to their genital component form.

Sensible people, such as psychologist and author Dr Jessica Taylor, took issue with this. How, Dr Taylor wondered, could The Lancet present itself as caring about the exclusion of female bodies and female biology from medicine and science when the journal won’t even name them?

“I would like to hear The Lancet explain their scientific rationale for keeping the use of the word ‘men’, ‘male’ and ‘man’ when they are refusing to use the word ‘woman’, ‘women’ and ‘female’,” Dr Taylor added. “Genuinely, I would like to hear that argument.”

They don’t have one. That’s why we hear nonsense phrases instead, like “if you can’t see it, you can’t be it”.

We are increasingly seeing women not mentioned in elite correspondence. What happens next?

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/tim-blair-inclusion-actually-means-exclusion-in-the-woke-community/news-story/5faefc8050b1be872e52586fc444f202

**********************************************

Qld, WA may face legal challenges over border closures

Barriers betwen the states are clearly ultra vires of section 92 of the constitution

Queensland and Western Australia could find themselves vulnerable to unprecedented legal issues as the rest of Australia embraces ‘Covid normal’ in the coming months.

Constitutional lawyer Professor Kim Rubenstein told Ten’s The Sunday Project that anyone adversely affected by the states’ refusal to open their borders could have grounds for a case.

“Any person who is impacted by these restrictions and who can show that this is a disproportionate burden on trade (could mount legal action),” she said.

“So that if it can show that it is, in fact, protecting one state over the other, without a legitimate or proportional response, then it really is available for challenge. And we may, in fact, see that ahead of us.”

Professor Rubenstein told The Sunday Project that the Australian constitution “was motivated by a desire to travel freely across the country”.

“Section 92 was placed there to discourage any restriction of travel within Australia,” she said.

Professor Rubenstein said the court would examine “whether these restrictions are needed for the purpose that they‘re seeking to achieve in terms of health protection.”

If they’re found wanting, the state could be much more “vulnerable” to legal action.

It comes amid criticism over Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she was unwilling to reopen the state’s borders even at 80 per cent national vaccine coverage.

Ms Palaszczuk on Friday said she was unwilling to reopen as “80 per cent actually takes you backwards and I do not want that for Queensland”.

Her remarks have since come under heavy criticism with Treasurer Josh Frydenberg labelling it a policy that would keep Queensland families apart.

“The decision, and the announcement by the Queensland government, which means we may not see an opening of the borders consistent with the National Plan, is not good, and it would be a bad decision that would cost Queensland jobs,” he said.

“It would be a bad decision that would mean Queensland families are kept apart and it would be inconsistent with what was agreed at the National Cabinet.

“It’s really important that, in Queensland, the borders open in accordance with those 70 and 80 per cent vaccination rates.

“People want their lives to come back to what it was, and it’s up to those premiers and chief ministers to give those people hope, to give them a chance to reopen their businesses, to be reunited with loved ones, to send their kids back to school.

“That’s what the people of Australia are expecting from their state and territory leaders.”

https://www.couriermail.com.au/coronavirus/qld-wa-may-face-legal-challenges-over-border-closures/news-story/53842ef836eea72af83916426b66421f

********************************************

Australian PM refuses to commit to phasing out fossil fuels

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison refused to commit to phasing out fossil fuels as a major climate conference approaches, while his deputy doubled down on opposing targets for net zero emissions of greenhouse gases.

Australia, the world's top coal and a major gas exporter, is under growing pressure to come up with emissions reduction targets ahead of November's COP26 United Nations climate conference in Scotland.

The International Monetary Fund called on Australia to set a "time bound" target to reach net zero emissions on Friday, when the country's treasurer warned that Australia must brace for much higher borrowing costs if it fails to commit to a net zero target by 2050, as many peers have done.

In interviews with Australian media after a summit in Washington, Morrison said his government was still working on its emissions plans, declining to commit to curbing fossil fuels that account for a major part of Australia's export revenue.

He told broadcaster SBS in an interview that aired on Saturday night that he was not prepared to pull back any fossil fuel industries immediately.

"We don't have to, because that change will take place over time," he said. "We are working on the transition technologies and fuels and the ultimate technologies that will be there over the next 20, 30 years that can get us to net zero... This doesn't happen overnight."

Morrison, who has a largely undefined slogan of "technology not taxes", was part of a government that torpedoed a carbon pricing scheme after winning the 2013 election while opposing the mechanism as a tax.

His deputy prime minister, climate change sceptic Barnaby Joyce, dug in on Sunday against a net zero target.

"We look at it through the eyes of making sure there is not an unreasonable, or any loss of... regional jobs," Joyce, whose National party represents largely rural voters, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Joyce said proceeds from mining and agriculture industries were vital for people in regional towns, from hairdressers to auto service providers.

"You've got to remember, fossil fuels are your nation's largest export and if you take away your nation's largest export, you've got to accept a lower standard of living," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/australian-pm-refuses-to-commit-to-phasing-out-fossil-fuels/ar-AAOPo5K?ocid=chromentpnews

******************************************

Spanish mackerel ban shows contemptible disregard for commercial fishermen

Peter Gleeson

If you like eating Spanish mackerel, you might have to start saving your pennies because the price is about to skyrocket.

It follows the establishment of a so-called working group, which will look at banning the commercial ­fishing of mackerel in north Queensland waters.

The plan is to ban fishing in certain areas from July 1 next year, abolishing the existing quota system.

Fisheries Queensland has been managing the resource through a quota system since 2004 under the sustainable fishing banner.

They have recently announced the East Coast Spanish Mackerel biomass is at a critically low level and changes to the management will be implemented next July.

Among other possibilities, the most likely result of this is a drastic quota reduction for the fishermen.

No doubt there will be the standard stakeholder working groups and public discussion papers so that Queensland Fisheries can be seen to be going through the consultation process, but the outcome is inevitable.

This is yet another hijacking of a perfectly legitimate business by the Greens and their Labor Left mates.

The Greens hate all commercial fishing. It’s a bread-and-butter issue. Greenpeace have made an art form of trying to destroy fishing industries.

Unfortunately, there are not enough commercial fisherman left to have any voting clout, so outcomes become inevitable.

The utter disregard for the consequences to fishermen’s personal and financial circumstances shown by Queensland Fisheries is contemptible.

Fishermen in the north Queensland area are in despair at the proposed changes.

For Spanish mackerel farmers such as Peter Guymer, the fish are all caught one at a time on a line.

There is no trawl or net fishery for this species, and the fish he catches are consumed by Queenslanders.

Mr Guymer says this latest issue for the Spanish mackerel industry is part of a broader campaign to undermine the professional fishing industry.

“The demand for wild caught local seafood has never been stronger,’’ Mr Guymer says.

“The ultimate loser here is the seafood-eating public who cannot or don’t wish to catch it themselves and will be eating imported farmed product.’’

The Queensland Seafood Industry Association has tried to talk sense into the State Government, but received little solace.

The Government says Spanish mackerel stocks are under threat from overfishing, with 300 tonnes commercially fished each year since 2004.

The latest damning Fisheries Queensland view follows a 2020 report, which said harvest numbers were good.

If a ban was implemented, it would throw dozens of fishermen out of work, and mean Spanish mackerel would be off the menu at most ­restaurants.

This is a typical Greens-Labor Left stitch-up, with a Labor government complicit in sending a section of the industry to the wall.

Let’s hope sanity prevails and the quota system remains. It’s a very fishy situation indeed

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/peter-gleeson/opinion-spanish-mackerel-ban-shows-contemptible-disregard-for-commercial-fishers/news-story/b04b8344bf3ff474e568aa2b07709acd

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

***************************************