Mr Palmer of course is presumptuously believing the Greens and Labor would not vote for the "direct action"... But then it could a set up, like a double dare... Who knows... I am not cynical.

With budget deficits supposedly for the next decade and government debt growing, the need for budget repair is regurgitated by any LNP politician within sight of a microphone.

Certainly the ageing population and associated increases in expenditure and declining revenue base is in need of discussion. But the Government has gone beyond this to actually arguing that moving to a surplus will improve the economy.

Tony Abbott has articulated this view many times - such as when he told Parliament that "if you want to fix the economy, you have got to fix the budget first". Joe Hockey similarly claimed that "the bottom line here is that if we are to maintain our standard of living as a nation we have to fix the budget."

Behind such talk is the implicit belief that ongoing deficits are bad for our economy, and the debt is a drag on our growth.

And yet the link between government debt and economic growth is pretty skint. There is a plethora of evidence showing a correlation between the two - that increased government debt occurs at the same time as poor economic growth. But proving that debt causes lower economic growth is rather more tricky.

Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in 2010 tried, but after much trumpeting by austerity supporters around the world, it was discovered their conclusions were based on an error in their Excel spreadsheet. Indeed, one of the reasons the budget is projected to be in deficit is because GDP growth is not expected to be high like it was in the 1990s when the recovery from the recession powered the return to surplus.

Saying that fixing the budget will fix the economy is again confusing correlation with causation.

We are also told ratings agencies like budget surpluses. It seems we think more of ratings agencies than they think of themselves. Standard & Poor's lawyer told a court last year that "Triple A does not mean anything hanging out there as a concept," and that it was akin to Top Gear giving a car a good rating.

While it may be nice to have a AAA rating, the reality is our bond rates are driven by numerous factors and presently the difference between Australian and USA's government 10-year bonds yields (or interest rate) is just below the 10-year average...

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/jericho-coalition-banks-on-blind-faith-in-budget-fix/5404046

The land set aside to offset the rare forest being bulldozed for the Maules Creek coal mine in NSW has been shown to be totally wrong, but Whitehaven Coal couldn’t care less. Lachlan Barkerreports.

NORTH-WEST OF TAMWORTH, in the rural belt of NSW, a David and Goliath battle is on.

Big Coal, represented by Whitehavenand Idimetsu Kosan, with the backing of The Minister for Making a Lot of Money out of Coal, Greg Hunt, are desperate to destroy a unique piece of ecology in the quest for coal profit.

Whitehaven’s Maules Creek coal mine is located within the Leard Forest and theLeard Forest is what the coal company seeks to destroy.

There are four mines in play: Maules Creek, Tarrawonga, Boggabri, and nearbyGoonbri.

Local ecologist Phil Spark says that in the end the companies wish to bulldoze 3,400 hectares in and around Leard Forest to allow mining activities.

This is bad enough ‒ sheer destruction for profit ‒ but what’s worse, the “offset” for these mines is totally and utterly bogus.

Let's start with offsetting — what is it?

Offsetting is a procedure that anyone ‒ be it a company or private landholder ‒ has to go through if they wish to destroy a piece of ecology.

So if you wish, say, to build a new housing development and have to bulldoze a 50 hectare stand of tree 'X', then to "offset" it, you will have to find another 50 hectare stand of the same type of tree, and preserve that.

And the law of offsetting is the nub of the furore over Leard Forest.

Within Leard Forest are the last large stands White Box Gum Grassy Woodland, in good order, on Earth.

Local ecologist Wendy Hawes described it to me as:

"… the last of the last.”

To do the bulldozing for Maules Creek, Whitehaven are required to find another 554 hectares of White Box Gum Grassy Woodland, in good order, and preserve that.

But, these days, with the amount of damage we have done to this continent, finding a matching bit of ecosystem is becoming increasingly difficult.

And in the case of Leard Forest — impossible.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/the-maules-creek-coal-mine-ecological-disaster,6413

Every now and then, something happens in federal politics which provides a glimpse into the future.

One of them happened this week.

It was the moment when that larger-than-life character, Clive Palmer, threatened the Abbott government with all kinds of Senate mayhem unless it agreed to put up legislation for its "direct action" climate policy as a separate bill rather than as part of the budget papers.

The government is planning to establish the centrepiece aspect of the scheme - the $1.55 billion emissions reduction fund - as an appropriation bill, believing it will not therefore be blockable in the Senate where Labor would be honour-bound to wave it through.

So incensed was big Clive that he floated no longer supporting the repeal of the carbon and mining taxes. Were he to see that threat through it might qualify as one of the most dramatic about-faces in modern political history.

Not that Palmer's worried. If there is one thing this episode has demonstrated it is that Big Clive is no ideologue.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/clive-palmers-jive-seals-his-partys-fate-20140423-zqyb1.html

Billionaire politician Clive Palmer is taking more legal action against timeshare investors at his Palmer Coolum Resort, after a series of votes over control of the resort went against him.

Angry villa owners locked out of their holiday homes at the resort by Mr Palmer have hit out at the increasingly powerful politician, calling him a "spoiled brat" and a "tyrant".

About 300 owners who invested in time shares at the resort have been unable to access their villas, rendering an investment valued at as much as $110,000 worthless.

Mr Palmer declined to be interviewed by 7.30 but in an ABC radio interview on April 7 he accused the villa owners of not paying their rates.

"The issue about their villas is that they haven't paid their electricity bills or water bills that your listeners have to pay everyday and they think because they come from a socio-economically advantaged group, they don't have to pay for electricity and water. They want me to pay it," he said.

Western Sydney small business owner Ivan Mikulic and his wife Catherine are among the investors frustrated with the situation.

Mr Mikulic says they continue to pay their rates and it infuriates him when Mr Palmer says otherwise.

"We've paid every bill and every levy that's come our way," he said.

"We've got a folder that thick of all of our invoices and transfer receipts so it's a straight out lie to say that.

"Because we're just ordinary people paying our way and he's walking all over us like we're nothing."

Madeleine Gilmour, 71, is leading a growing number of owners prepared to publicly challenge Mr Palmer - one of Australia's most powerful and litigious men - and she is not concerned about being sued.

"I'm a grandmother. I'm quite capable of representing myself if I need to," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/clive-palmer-renews-legal-action-against-coolum-villa-owners/5433976