Dear Sole Subscriber,

You can learn a lot from digging through 12 years worth of Australian Electoral Commission filings. Yesterday in Crikey, Bernard Keane published his findings after picking through mining company donations to state and federal Labor parties and the Coalition since 2004. The numbers revealed the extent to which the Coalition benefited from a surge in mining company generosity after the Rudd government released its RSPT proposal in May 2010. It's particularly breathtaking in column graph form:

Today, Keane keeps crunching the AEC data to explore the correlation between out-spending your opponent and winning elections, with some interesting insights for the Queensland election campaign to boot.

Day four of the campaign proper and Queensland Labor enters the 2012 election without one of its key campaigning tools -- the ability to massively out-spend its opponents.

Queensland Labor's success over the past four elections has been built on the ability to out-spend its conservative opponents, often on a massive scale, Australian Electoral Commission data shows. But as Crikey reports today, the Bligh government's 2011 changes to political donation and expenditure laws capped not just campaign donations but also electoral expenditure since last May.

In 2001, Labor outspent the Nationals and Liberals $8.3 million to $5.6 million. In 2004, it spent more than twice as much: $14.1 million to $6.6 million. And in 2006, it carpet-bombed the conservatives with cash, spending $16.7 million to $7.7 million.

But since 2009 the tables have been turning. A unified Liberal-National Party lifted its fundraising and pulled in more than $12 million that year, and spent $11.5 million. But Labor still outmatched them, spending more than $14 million to achieve a win for Anna Bligh. Under Campbell Newman, the LNP could have expected to generate a significant increase in funding under the old rules and responded in kind to Labor's spending.

But no longer under the new rules, which the LNP has criticised for favouring Labor. And in terms of electoral cycles, they might have a point.

So the campaigns will have to get more creative with their spends -- though perhaps not as creative as this particular flier circulating in the Brisbane seat of Ashgrove right now ...

It's amazing what taking the time to do some careful maths (and checking your letterbox) can reveal about politics in this country.

Queensland Labor enters the 2012 election without one of its key campaigning tools of recent years, the ability to massively out-spend its opponents.

The Bligh government's 2011 changes to political donation and expenditure laws have capped electoral expenditure since May 2011. Queensland Labor's success over the past four elections has been built on the ability to out-fund-raise and out-spend the conservative parties, often on a massive scale, Australian Electoral Commission data shows.

But, just as the same fate may have been inflicted on Labor, the new laws will cruel a revitalised LNP that would have benefited under the old rules from Campbell Newman's ability to generate funds in south-eastern Queensland.

Using party expenditure as a rough proxy for campaign spending, the data shows Queensland Labor has consistently outspent the conservative parties in election years. In 2001, it spent $8.3 million compared to a combined total of $5.6 million for the Nationals and Liberals. In 2004, it more than doubled the conservatives' spending, $14.1 million to $6.6 million. In 2006, it simply blew the conservatives away, spending $16.7 million to $7.7 million.

At that stage, Queensland Labor was behind only the federal party and the NSW branch in spending, and it was fuelled by a massive fund-raising effort that saw revenue peak at $17.4 million in 2006.

The 2009 election was fought against a unified Liberal National Party for the first time, and it made a significant difference: the LNP lifted its fund-raising and pulled in more than $12 million that year, and spent $11.5 million. But Labor still out-matched them, spending more than $14 million to achieve a win for Anna Bligh.

Bligh's subsequent reforms to donation and expenditure laws were driven by a series of lobbying scandals, but they dovetailed neatly with the campaign by Campbell Newman for the premiership from outside the party. With the LNP now headed, at least notionally, by a Brisbane politician, the LNP could have expected to generate a significant increase in donations under the old rules and at last responded in kind to Labor's electoral carpet-bombing.

The reforms capped political donations at $5000, but the cap only applies to donations made during election campaigns (after the issue of writs) or explicitly for campaign purposes; donations outside the campaigning period aren't capped. Expenditure caps also apply, from well before the election officially begins, and caps have been in place since May last year. There are also caps on third party expenditure.

The Coalition complains that the changes favour Labor's financial links with trade unions, but the expenditure caps will also play a big role: notionally, neither side will be able to exploit any advantage in fund-raising. This has almost certainly deprived the LNP of some of the benefits of Newman's leadership, especially compared to that of Lawrence Springborg, who struggled to appeal in Brisbane.

The AEC data suggests only a nebulous connection between outspending your opponent and winning elections. A US study suggests that, despite popular belief, election spending had little impact on the outcome of congressional races, but that's not particularly comparable to state and federal elections in a compulsory voting system like ours. According to the data -- bearing in mind it's only a proxy for campaign spending -- 10 of 31 elections since the 1999 NSW election have been won by the party spending less money than its opponents in election years.

That includes Steve Bracks snatching minority government from Jeff Kennett despite Labor spending $6.7 million to the Liberals' $10.1 million (Victorian Labor was outspent in 2002 as well, but thumped the Liberals), and Ted Baillieu narrowly defeating John Brumby despite Labor spending nearly $3 million more than the Liberals in 2010.

In WA, Labor has always been out-spent by the Liberals, but managed to win in 2001 and 2005, but lost in 2008 when it nearly closed the spending gap, spending $5 million to the Liberals' $5.9 million.

But only in Queensland has there been such a big gap between party fund-raising and spending, one that was finally remedied by the Liberal and National parties agreeing to merge. No other contest elsewhere in Australia ever saw such big differences in spending, except one: the 2007 federal election, where Labor massively outspent the Liberals, $60.9 million to $37.8 million, reflecting a similar massive gap in fund-raising between the parties, with Labor reaping the excitement of Kevin 07 and union desperation to end WorkChoices.

In 2010, in contrast, Labor and Liberal federally raised similar amounts and spent similar amounts to come out with a hung parliament.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

A Queensland Health "gag order" banning medical students disclosing information inside hospitals has been slammed by students, who fear a premature end to their career if they refuse to comply.

The so-called "Student Deed Poll" was sent this week to third year medical students at the University of Queensland who are about to undertake clinical rotations in the state's hospitals. It threatens them with financial penalties for a "breach" of any one of the vaguely-worded 26 points drafted by Bligh government lawyers.

Students, who were not consulted about the document's contents, are prevented from discussing any "confidential information" gleaned during their placements, despite the retention and circulation of data often being central to their medical training. Queensland Health aren't required to prove malfeasance before slapping stressed students with an injunction -- a mere "suspicion" of a breach is grounds for action.

Crikey understands that other states' confidentiality agreements are drafted by universities, not health departments, and contain far fewer clauses than QH's 2500 word, seven-page, 26-point monster. NSW Health's clinical placements document contains basic information on police checks, however students are also required to sign the general NSW Health code of conduct.

"This QH document is unreasonable, goes well beyond protection of patient privacy and is about 'gagging' any commentary at all about any aspect of Queensland Health," one irate student wrote on the University of Queensland Medical Society website. "I can't imagine why Queensland Health thinks that any medical student particularly wants to spend their time gossiping ... we honestly have better things to do with our time, such as study -- this document is a product of paranoia and has no basis to be presented to students as a mandatory document."

The deed even contains its own internal secrecy clause banning students from discussing its existence and its contents -- despite its public availability on the Queensland Health website.

In some instances, students are required to write out "confidential" hospital information such as patient numbers on their assignments, an act that would put them in breach of the deed and expose them to lawsuits.

Other concerns include the deed's "onerous and unreasonable" wording, the lack of prior consent and the waiving of the presumption of innocence usually granted under misconduct allegations. Students have no choice but to sign -- a failure to complete third-year placements would halt their eventual graduation and employment as doctors and specialists.

In one clause, the document directs students not to "distribute, copy or take photocopies" of policies relating to particular procedures or medications. However, it is necessary for students to take home many of these documents to study thorny topics like post-operative thromboprophylaxis, the Warfarin Protocols and the Chest Pain Management Flow Chart.

In another scenario, a student discussing a patient's medical history in a hospital corridor could be exposed to the possibility of court action.

Australian Medical Students Association President James Churchill said his organisation was investigating the document and expressed concerns over students' invidious positions.

"We need to make sure the Queensland students are not being taking advantage of in their need to undertake their placements in Queensland Health," he said. "I think the question here is whether the Queensland document is in the right spirit or overly complex or overly harsh. It's putting these students in a very difficult position I think."

The issue of medical secrecy is a sensitive topic in Queensland following the notorious case of Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel. Government prosecutors relied upon medical staff to blow the whistle with Anna Bligh lauding that the hospital employee who spoke up, Toni Hoffman, for her "great service by whistleblowing on an important case". Hoffman received the 2006 Australian of the Year Local Hero Award for her role as a whistleblower.

Queensland Health's media unit did not respond to a request for comment this morning.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Ben Hubbard was Labor's beacon of hope when he took over as Julia Gillard's chief of staff last February. Here was the man, the true believers thought, who could end the policy stuff-ups, sharpen the government's message and bring order to an out-of-control office.

A year on, it's hard to judge the boy from Bendigo's tenure as anything but a disappointment. HMAS Gillard is floundering -- and could soon go under altogether.

Ask Labor insiders for their thoughts on Hubbard and you'll hear the same words again and again: organised, well-liked, calm, policy-focused. While blokey and bawdy -- a frequent dropper of the "f" bomb -- he's not bad-tempered.

"I can't imagine anybody not liking Ben," says a former senior Gillard staffer; "it's hard to think of a bad thing to say about him," remarks a former ALP national secretary.

Hubbard helped the PM manoeuvre the carbon and mining taxes through a hung parliament -- both legislative triumphs. And there's no doubt he's made Gillard's office a smoother, more cohesive unit.

One of Hubbard's first decisions was to launch a "war on crap" to clear out piles of unread paperwork. He set up clear structures to deal with bureaucrats and ministers. And he instituted a more formal dress code, telling staff: "This is not an abattoir or a f-cking ad agency. This is the prime minister's office."

But Hubbard is not just an administrator: he's also the prime minister's chief political adviser. And there's no escaping the Gillard government's political blunders. They all lead to one conclusion: Gillard is being given poor advice -- or she's receiving sound counsel and ignoring it.

The first mistake was perhaps the most damaging: failing to foresee the fury that Gillard's decision to break her "no carbon tax" promise would unleash. Gillard's line -- that she'd always supported putting a price on carbon --simply hasn't cut it with voters. By March 2011 Labor's primary vote, according to Newspoll, had crashed to 30% and it's been stuck there ever since.

Later came Gillard's speech to the ALP national conference -- widely panned for her use of the trite phrase "we are us" and the pointed omission of any reference to Kevin Rudd's achievements as prime minister. Then there was the Australia Day Tent Embassy debacle that claimed a media adviser's scalp. And, most recently, Gillard's disastrous decision to appear on the ABC's Four Corners.

Gillard, of course, is the ultimate decision maker. The primary charge against Hubbard is not incompetence -- it's impotence. The hung parliament has weakened the prime minister's authority and, consequently, her chief of staff's. White-anting from Rudd supporters, ruthless oppositionism from Tony Abbott, and hostility from the populist media have made a tough job even tougher.

Being the prime minister's chief of staff, at any time, is one of the most challenging gigs going. When parliament is sitting, a work day for Hubbard starts before 7am, finishes after 10pm, and involves everything from scrutinising legislation to meeting with business leaders and trade union bosses.

"You are the head of the praetorian guard for the prime minister," explains veteran ALP strategist Bruce Hawker on the role. "You have to take overarching responsibility of all the ministries in the government. You have to be the confidante of the prime minister in a way that no one else would be. You have to handle political and administrative duties."

A senior Gillard staffer describes the job more bluntly: "Everything that's shit lands up on your desk."

*Read the full profile at The Power Index

This story is just a taste of what Crikey subscribers will have access to on The Power Index.

Learn more about it from Paul Barry here.

Is a scientist who adopts a fake identity in order to get information from a group that actively works to discredit the science a hero or a villain? That's the question facing the scientific community, after the Heartland Institute leaked documents scandal took a surprising turn when well-known climate scientist Peter H Gleick admitted he passed the documents to journalists.

While Australian scientists want him seen as acting alone, one told Crikey today his actions demonstrate the frustration around the mainstream media's failure to prosecute the case on climate science.

Gleick revealed his surprising story yesterday. He was anonymously sent a Heartland climate strategy memo a few weeks ago. In order to authenticate the document, he set up a fake email address pretending to be someone who works at Heartland and convinced the institute to send him a number of confidential documents outlining major donors and scientists on the payroll. Gleick then anonymously forwarded those documents and the climate strategy memo to journalists.

The scientist called his actions "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics": "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected."

Heartland President Joseph Blast responded in a statement: "A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage."

In his confession, Gleick also confirmed that apart from the climate strategy memo -- which Heartland declared a fake from the start, and questions remain over who wrote the document and sent it to Gleick -- the rest of the documents republished by DeSmogBlog and others were in exactly the form that he received them from Heartland.

Heartland began pursuing legal action against bloggers and journalists who had reported on the documents earlier this week, claiming it had been unable to verify the authenticity of all the documents.

Repercussions for Gleick's actions came swiftly from the scientific and environment journalist community. Andrew Revkin, the Dot Earth blogger for The New York Times, wrote a scathing article on Gleick's announcement, saying: "One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.

At The Guardian, Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences and the founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, hailed Gleick's actions: "Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years. Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him."

A Grist article captured the question: "Peter Gleick: hero or moral moron?"

Reactions were mixed in Australia. Ken Baldwin, deputy director of the Climate Change Institute, was quick to differentiate Gleick's actions from the science.

"Certainly he needs to be seen as having acted as an individual rather than as a scientist," Baldwin told Crikey. "The rest of the scientific community would view his actions in that way and not in any sense as representing the broader scientific community."

But the University of Western Australia's Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist that studies how people process climate-related information, views Gleick's actions as "something akin to a whistleblower". Lewandowsky says many scientists have taken on a more journalistic role in recent years as the mainstream media's investigative journalism departments have shrunk.

"By and large owing to cutbacks and the funding crisis there just isn't investigative journalism and in many ways scientists are now doing that," he said. "Some people will agree that Peter went too far, others will say 'who cares?' I don't have a firm opinion either way. Certainly when it comes to the Pentagon papers, most people will view Ellsberg as a hero rather than a villain."

Lewandowsky says the impact on the broader climate science community remains unclear. But he expects it will intensify the "war" between climate scientists and various ideologues and think tanks.

Rumours abounded before his confession that Gleick may have been the Heartland leaker. He'd been notably absent from his Twitter account and his Huffington Post blog. Jim Lakely, the communications director at Heartland, tweeted accusations about Gleick on Sunday:

"I emailed invite to @PeterGleick to Heartland climate debate. He indignantly refused. Why? Disclose ur donors, he said. Hmm. #fakegate"

"1st debate invite to @petergleick from me 1/13. Last "no," disclose donors email 1/28. Email fraud to Heartland began 2/3. Hmm. #fakegate"

Crikey asked Lakely if he knew before Gleick's confession whether he had been the leaker and whether Heartland had put any pressure on him to come forward. He replied: "Interesting questions ... But you’ve seen our statement. Go with that. And may I suggest it’s time for Peter Gleick to answer some questions. Have you reached out to him? Can I expect some exclusive interview at your site in the near future? I’m sure he agrees with the ideological bent of your site, so he can trust you to be fair, right?"

Gleick has been contacted by Crikey but is yet to respond.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Last night I entertained myself by rewriting sections of the Gonski review of schools funding. Where it referred to schools or education, I substituted health. The results suggest that health and education reformers might be able to save a small fortune (at least in the production of reports) by pooling their efforts in future.

For example, the tweaked Gonski review says:

"Australia lacks a logical, consistent and publicly transparent approach to funding healthcare.

"The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government health sector, should make reducing health disadvantage a high priority in a new funding model. This will require resourcing to be targeted towards supporting the most disadvantaged populations.

"New funding arrangements for health should aim to ensure that: differences in health outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions; all Australians have access to a health-promoting environment and a high standard of healthcare regardless of their background or circumstances."

It’s not surprising that the issues identified by the Gonski review as important for education are so similar to those that matter in health. As the report points out, the health and education of individuals and communities are closely related.

It says: "As many researchers have found, higher levels of education are associated with almost every positive life outcome -- not only improved employment and earnings, but also health, longevity, successful parenting, civic participation and social cohesion. Countries that have significant numbers of people without adequate skills to participate socially and economically in society endure higher social costs for security, health, income support and child welfare."

But the real take-home message -- from the tweaked Gonski report, anyway -- is that the people and communities who are suffering educational disadvantage are also more likely to suffer worse health.

The "five factors of disadvantage" that Gonski and co say are affecting educational outcomes are also important for health: socioeconomic status, indigeneity, English language proficiency, disability, and location in a remote area.

At the same time, health and education policies often end up cementing that disadvantage. Those who are most likely to suffer poor health often have worse access to health care than better educated, healthier, wealthier people (who are more likely to have attended private schools).

While in an ideal world we might have equity-based funding for health and education, this only ever going to be part of the solution. The education portfolio is not the only powerbroker when it comes to addressing education inequities -- just as the health portfolio cannot be expected to solve inequities in health.

The solutions also lie elsewhere, including in the broader social and economic environment, and in community development. They also lie with us, the electorate and whether we understand or care that inequities in health and education matter, for society as a whole, as well as for those who are not currently getting a fair deal.

It is therefore disappointing that the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Education Minister Peter Garrett have been framing the Gonski discussion as a matter for schools.

Garrett, in inviting the public to participate in a discussion this morning (using Twitter hashtags #schoolsfunding and #gonski), wrote: "We’re starting the nation’s biggest schools conversation. We want to hear from everyone involved in schools. We want to know what people think about the Gonski report, schools funding and the future of Australia’s schools."

On a similar note, the Prime Minister tweeted on Monday: "We want to know what everyone involved in schools thinks about #Gonski's recommendations".

The Gonski report could instead be used to start a conversation about what sort of society we want: a fair one where all children have a chance to achieve their potential, or one where children growing in some places are likely to end up with poorer educational opportunities, worse health, and shorter lives.

These are not only moral concerns; more equitable societies are likely to do better in many ways.

This recent article in The Atlantic, extolling Finland's equity-focused school system, noted the benefits for the economy and wider society. Perhaps one day, federal cabinet will combine with state and territory leaders to run a Twitter chat discussion under the hashtag #fairsociety …

For more health debate, visit our blog Croakey

Cash-for-gifts fund feeds LNP. Campbell Newman's Liberal-National Party machine is generating plenty of cash in corporate donations. A Queensland political insider reports:

"Not only are they managing to squeeze significant sums out of major Queensland corporates vying for the recognition of a potential new government, they're taking things one step further by leaning on the business community to reward their staff. Major firms are not only being asked to stump up campaign coffers by sponsoring events, but the team is very cheekily asking for contributions towards daily prizes to reward and recognise the election campaign team. Desirable gifts include dinner vouchers, free holidays and accommodation packages, theatre tickets and gift vouchers to high-end retailers.

"One wag remarked that cashing in while the currency was high was one thing, but blatantly milking freebies for salaried staff may be taking the friendship a little too far. We wonder if this is even allowed by the AEC? Even more so, those same campaign beneficiaries are likely to be hopeful of securing jobs as advisers under a new government and be the same people who ignore phone calls and emails like many ministerial staff do once they reach the lofty heights of political offices. For those corporates willing to handover goodies, does this guarantee them some inexperienced junior adviser will take their phone call. We don’t think so."

We're curious about how this works, too. Do you know of any companies or staff approached? Drop us a line or use the anonymous form -- anonymity is assured.

Rudd rumblings: what's Perrett doing? It's hard to keep up with the Labor Party manoeuvring. On Monday our tipsters were telling us Graham Perrett was definitely ready to follow through on his threat to quit the Labor Party if Julia Gillard was rolled by Kevin Rudd -- and he was sticking to that publicly yesterday -- but today we hear there's "whispers in Canberra" that Perrett is talking to the Rudd camp about backing the Foreign Minister and potentially securing a promotion in a reshuffled government line-up. We put a call into Perrett's Brisbane office this morning but didn't hear back.

Rudd rumblings: could Kevin quit? Or maybe the Foreign Minister himself could simply quit the party if he fails to win any leadership ballot and force Gillard to an election. That was one rather bizarre theory promoted to us today. There's no end in sight, folks.

Insurer gets charitable -- by overcharging. From today's 3AW Rumour File: "Charity Begins at Home and Contents says rumour is that a leading insurance company has admitted they overcharged on a policy and have offered customers the option of having the overpayment donated to a charity of the insurance company's choice." Which insurance company might that be?

Crimes needs a number cruncher. Fairfax's Canberra Times is advertising, via an internal vacancies email, for a new chief financial officer.

Sydney's long and ugly New Year's hangover. It's February 22, so why is the Sydney Harbour Bridge still adorned with imagery from the New Year's Eve fireworks extravaganza? One local reckons it makes the coat-hanger a bit of an eyesore and wrote to the council about it. The response?

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your email, we are glad you enjoyed the 2012 Sydney New Year's Celebrations.

The City of Sydney works with the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in order to install and dismantle the Bridge Effect, this project is subject to weather conditions and other planned maintenance on the Sydney Harbour Bridge which are out of our control. We will continue to work with RMS to dismantle the Bridge Effect as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Dee Jones

Administration Officer, Sydney New Year's Eve
City Of Sydney

Do you know more? Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Twenty-five years after the Challenger shuttle tragedy killed seven astronauts, a rare amateur video recording of the event has surfaced depicting naive onlookers watching 80 kilometres from the launch site.

View our Video of the Day gallery

It's election time … you're at the local cafe, reading the paper, while you sip on a caramel latte and a lovely serve of bacon and eggs on wholegrain toast ... sounds like the perfect way to spend a Sunday morning. However, everything that you have in front of you -- including the printing of the paper, the delivery of the food to your cafe, and the gas that cooked your food and heated the water for the coffee, is the subject of huge conflict at present.

The issue? Mining coal seam gas in agricultural areas. The conflict? Balancing food security and energy security.

Both of these forms of security are paramount to the survival and growth of Australia. Food security so that we may feed ourselves (and a hungry world), and energy security for transport, heating, lighting and various other activities that we enjoy at present.

How is conflict resolved, and what role does the law play?

What happens when there is a perceived conflict between these two vital forms of security? Should one give way to the other, can they happily co-exist, or is it the role of the law to create a framework where the interests of both are protected?

It is these difficult questions that governments, especially NSW and Queensland, are facing at present. The development of unconventional sources of gas (such as coal seam and shale gas) is providing Australia with energy security, as well as generating a huge export industry in the form of LNG.

Unlike most traditional mining activity, CSG is often found on highly fertile agricultural land

However, many of the coal seam gas deposits occur in areas of high agricultural fertility. This includes the fertile Darling Downs area in Queensland, and the Liverpool Plains in NSW, which comprises only 6% of Australia’s total agricultural area but produces more than 22% of its food.

This is Australia’s breadbasket.

Conflict over land use and concerns over fracking

This creates conflict in land use; farmers are understandably reluctant to allow their prime agricultural land to be used for coal seam gas extraction. However, as the law stands at present, even if a farmer owns the land, a government has the right to grant a licence to an energy company to extract the coal seam gas from under the ground, by drilling wells to extract the gas.

At the heart of this conflict are the methods used to extract coal seam gas: hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Under this process, vast amounts of water, chemicals and sand are pumped at high pressure down a well to fracture the coal or shale to release the gas. The water is then returned to the surface, sometimes along with the naturally occurring salty water if it is in coal seams, and the gas is collected in a pipe and sent off for processing and use.

There are several major concerns with fracking:

• the high use of water in agricultural areas
• the chemicals and sand used in the water
• the amount of water returned to the surface (produced water)
• possible damage to underground water structures (known as aquifers) as a result of the fracking process
• the number of wells required to successfully extract the coal seam gas in an agricultural area
• the number of trucks and service vehicles that enter a farmer’s land in order to undertake the fracking process.

Water and CSG

Water use in Australia has always been an issue, particularly in agricultural areas. The major concern for farmers, and quite rightly so, is governments' inconsistent attitude to water conservation and management. If the federal government is attempting to restrict water use in the Murray-Darling Basin, then why are energy companies able to extract vast amounts of water (which the farmers see as important for agriculture) to undertake commercial enterprises that only profit the companies?

Related to the use of water is the real danger of damage to ground water resources. Unlike in Western Australia, NSW and Queensland are part of the huge underground water resource known as the Great Artesian Basin. The concern is that if the chemicals used in fracking enter the groundwater, there is a likelihood that groundwater could be contaminated.

The major cause of contamination of aquifers has been linked to poor fracking well construction and design. This can lead to a well leaking fracking fluids into the surrounding aquifers. Many farmers are concerned that the groundwater movement in some areas is little understood, and have called for hydrological studies to map ground water so that potential effects of fracking compounds in the water can be monitored.

In NSW and Queensland contamination is more likely than in Western Australia, since the aquifers are very close to the coal seams being fracked. Therefore, it is necessary for the government regulating gas extraction to ensure that the well design and construction has multiple barriers to reduce the likelihood of such a contamination.

Contamination can also come from the produced water that is returned to the surface. A major challenge for governments is how this produced water, which contains fracking chemicals and compounds, is going to be treated and disposed of. It must be done in a manner that ensures it does not escape to enter surrounding water sources, such as streams, rivers and bores, thus contaminating water sources used for agriculture.

Call for an embargo

Finally, land access and conflict of land use is of major concern for farmers. This issue has been recognised by the Queensland government, which has declared a two-kilometre exclusion zone on mining activities near towns with more than 1000 people. Many farmers are calling for a similar embargo over prime agricultural areas.

Clearly there is a conflict in the use of the same area of land for agricultural purposes and the extraction of coal seam gas.

Farmers' concerns about water use and aquifer contamination are real.

Governments are attempting to manage these important land management and technical issues. Coal seam gas development is going to forge ahead, especially since it is providing many important jobs in the declining Australian economy.

Dr Tina Hunter is assistant professor of law at Bond University, and a member of the Legal Culture Research Group and the Research Group for Natural Resources, Environment and Development Law at the University of Bergen, Norway. Read more about FAQ Research writers here.

The question isn’t how much? but rather for what? A couple of days before the Australian government released its Review of Funding for Schooling this week, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published an attempt to answer the question Does Money buy strong performance in PISA?

The Australian report was full of calls for increased government spending, perhaps an extra $5 billion a year. The OECD’s report concluded that the countries with the best educational outcomes were not those that spent the most money.

What closely links the two reports is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that the OECD developed and that the Australian review used to justify its belief that more money is needed.

Says the Australian report in its executive summary:

Overall, Australia has a relatively high-performing schooling system when measured against international benchmarks, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment. However, over the last decade the performance of Australian students has declined at all levels of achievement, notably at the top end. This decline has contributed to the fall in Australia’s international position. In 2000, only one country outperformed Australia in reading and scientific literacy and only two outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy. By 2009, six countries outperformed Australia in reading and scientific literacy and 12 outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy.

Says the OECD:

In education, as in everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Right? Well, as in everything else in life: not necessarily. As many OECD governments are poised to trim public budgets and cut expenditures, parents, educators and policy makers can take some comfort from PISA findings that show that the success of a country’s education system depends more on how educational resources are invested than on the volume of investment. The countries that are the strongest performers in PISA are not the wealthiest, nor do they allocate more money to education.

The difference in approach of the two reports is quite marked and the OECD’s conclusions should make governments wary about expanding their budgets to find the extra billions being asked for.

Some of those OECD findings:

PISA results suggest that above this threshold of USD 20 000 in per capita GDP, national wealth is no longer a predictor of a country’s mean performance in PISA. The amount these high-income countries spend on education is similarly unrelated to their performance in PISA. A country’s/economy’s cumulative expenditure on education is the total dollar amount spent on educating a student from the age of 6 to the age of 15. After a threshold of about USD 35 000 per student, that expenditure is unrelated to performance. For example, countries that spend more than USD 100 000 per student from the age of 6 to 15, such as Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, show similar levels of performance as countries that spend less than half that amount per student, such as Estonia, Hungary and Poland. Meanwhile, New Zealand, a top performer in PISA, spends a lower-than-average amount per student from the age of 6 to 15.

The strongest performers among high-income countries and economies tend to invest more in teachers. For example, lower secondary teachers in Korea and the partner economy Hong Kong-China, two high-performing systems in the PISA reading tests, earn more than twice the per capita GDP in their respective countries. In general, the countries that perform well in PISA attract the best students into the teaching profession by offering them higher salaries and greater professional status.

This relationship between performance and teachers’ salaries does not hold among less wealthy countries and economies, however. In all PISA-participating countries and economies, school systems that invest in higher teachers’ salaries tend to have larger classes. At the country level, PISA finds that the size of the class is unrelated to the school system’s overall performance; in other words, high-performing countries tend to prioritise investment in teachers over smaller classes.

Successful PISA countries also invest something else in their education systems: high xpectations for all of their students. Schools and teachers in these systems do not allow struggling students to fail; they do not make them repeat a grade, they do not transfer them to other schools, nor do they group students into different classes based on ability. Regardless of a country’s or economy’s wealth, school systems that commit themselves, both in resources and in policies, to ensuring that all students succeed perform better in PISA than systems that tend to separate out poor performers or students with behavioural problems or special needs.

The bottom line: Money alone can’t buy a good education system. Strong performers in PISA are those countries and economies that believe - and act on the belief - that all children can succeed in school. Among wealthier economies, those that prioritise the quality of teachers over smaller classes tend to show better performance. When it comes to money and education, the question isn’t how much? but rather for what?

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

It is assumed philosophically by governments that preserving the environment always comes at an economic cost and the carbon tax provides no better example. The argument recently has been about how much of "environmental" loss can be borne electorally as a consequence of the mining boom.

Over the past two decades, governments have been good at targeting the commercial fishing industry to pick up "green votes" -- preserving the marine environment and spreading the economic losses among scattered coastal communities. The loss of an entire commercial fishery at Gladstone from a development to process coal seam gas is different. The threat it now also poses to recreational fishing is likely to generate an electoral backlash -- from the catchment to the sea.

The Queensland and federal governments support for rapid industrialisation of Queensland's World Heritage coastline will test the regional economic and electoral limits of a poorly regulated mining boom.

It was in May last year that Julia Gillard stood beside Anna Bligh to launch an LNG plant on Curtis Island, a World Heritage area opposite the town of Gladstone. This generated immediate objections from the World Heritage body, which is here now to inspect the Great Barrier Reef -- but what will be the electoral consequences of this project?

Gillard and Bligh are strong women prepared to take on the excessive "green preservation" for what they see as vital mining project -- even in a World Heritage area. They likely see it as generating thousands of jobs and a founding project for the industrialisation of southern Queensland -- overwhelming any "environmental objections" for essential development during a global economic crisis.

With such powerful national support, the Queensland and Commonwealth environment bureaucracies "fell into line", ticking all the boxes for approval and skillfully avoiding identifying any major environmental pitfalls. Months later, the environmental consequences have become dramatic, generating international publicity. Sick commercial and recreational fishermen, diseased fish, dead turtles, dugongs and dolphins as the consequences of decades of industrial mining and agricultural waste are "dredged up".

Though not yet seen as significant nationally, locally the loss of commercial fisheries, fresh fish sales, recreational fisheries and the spending they generate has provided Bob Katter's Australia Party (KAK) an opportunity to pick up seats.  This threatens to be very much like One Nation in 1998 when that party won 11 seats and 23% of the vote.

KAP has positioned itself well to capture a strong rural vote with clear opposition to very unpopular coal seam gas development. Along the coast, Luke Hargreaves is a fish, fruit and vegetable mobile retailer, impacted by the loss of the Gladstone fishery, and is now the endorsed KAP candidate for Keppel.

In his media release on being nominated in November last year, he clearly states the economic consequences of poorly planned development: "The Gladstone Harbour has been severely impacted and the small local businesses which relied on it have been cast aside for the interests of foreign-owned mining companies. I am now very concerned that similar damage will be done to the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay."

The Greens, too, are working hard on the Great Barrier Reef for the Queensland election, with Senator Larissa Waters hammering the Queensland and federal governments on its proposed industrial port development. The Greens, however, support for marine parks and no-take zones for fishing. They cannot take advantage of the recreational fishing and farmers' vote like KAP but will take other hard-won urban and green won votes from the Queensland Labor Party.

Clearly, the Great Barrier Reef has a great economic value to the Queensland and Australian economies. However, the lack of understanding of just how and where that value is generated is threatening not only the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage listing but the the ALP's electoral fortunes.

When the natural environment is well managed, it attracts tourists and fish-folk, who spend freely. It also provides employment, recreation and a holiday destination for many Queenslanders, who will be voting at the coming election.

Two current British government campaigns pull no punches about urging all smokers trying to quit to use drugs. One puts it bluntly: "Don’t go cold turkey."

Another poster on display in the nation’s waiting rooms says: "There are some people who can go cold turkey and stop smoking. But there aren’t many of them."

That statement is manifestly incorrect and an inquiry should be undertaken into how such nonsense was approved for publication. In 1986, just a few years after nicotine replacement therapies became available, the American Cancer Society stated: "Over 90% of the estimated 37 million people who have stopped smoking in this country since the Surgeon-General’s first report linking smoking to cancer [1964] have done so unaided."  How did they possibly manage to do it without drugs?

We have long known that if you survey ex-smokers and ask them what strategy they used on their final, successful quit attempt, around two-thirds to three quarters answer "cold turkey". This was the case in the early days of NRT, and it remains so today.

In a national US survey of 29,537 smokers, of  those who had quit in the past 12 months for more than four weeks, unassisted cessation produced more than double the number of successes than all other methods combined. Yet it continues to be denigrated by those promoting pharmaceuticals as having the worst success rate.

But the notion of the quitting attempt requires careful scrutiny. Millions around the world make quit attempts each year. Some are serious attempts, but others are half-hearted, brief and quickly forgotten. Mainly of these attempts barely deserve the name, so if they are entered into success estimates, unassisted cessation can appear to do badly.

The much-telegraphed claim that pharmaceutically assisted cessation doubles or triples your chances of quitting derives from a large bedrock of clinical trial data. But there are important differences between trying to quit when in a clinical trial and  being a smoker trying to quit out in the "real world". Some examples:

• Trialists have frequent contact with  researchers trained in cohort retention. This creates Hawthorne effects (effects caused by the attention paid to you when being researched);
• Trial participants are unrepresentative of the general population
• Cessation trials exclude many people, including  light smokers and those with mental health problems who are heavily over-represented among smokers. This removes many "hard cases", flattering clinical trial effects.
• Trialists complete their drug courses  far more than in real world use
• NRT trials have poor blindness integrity. Over half of studies in one review showed trial participants were significantly more likely than chance to accurately guess that they were allocated to the placebo arm, meaning that their faith in the treatment they received was likely to be poor. This would tend to exaggerate the differences between placebo and active NRT.

All of these combine to produce inflated success rates in trials that are often not reflected in real world quitting.

An important illustration of this has just been  published in the British Medical Journal’s Tobacco Control. The study examined an important simple question likely to be on the minds of many wanting to quit: if you follow a group of smokers who have quit smoking using different methods for two years after they have stopped, which method  produced the best long-term quit rates?

The Massachusetts study found that after two years, those who used NRT to quit had relapsed at the same rate as those who quit on their own. This has caused a storm among smoking cessation leaders, many of whom have long histories of engagement with pharmaceutical companies. (One review showed that industry sponsored trials produce better outcomes than those conducted without ties).

But none of the reactions are so revealing as that from the Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence, representing nearly 450 tobacco treatment specialists. Their statement emphasised two arguments.

The first acknowledged that in population studies of cessation (as opposed to clinical trials): "Studies have shown that those who chose to use NRT have more past failures, more dependence, etc and thus should have lower quit rates. This bias, in which the more severely ill subjects receive a treatment and the less-ill do not is known as "indication bias".

This is a clear admission that those who chose to use NRT in real world quit attempts often have poorer quit success than those who try to quit unaided.

Read the rest of this article and comment at Crikey's health blog Croakey

Clive Palmer gets angry, again. Mining magnate Clive Palmer is looking to score a hat-trick of mega fallouts for 2012. The billionaire is on a roll. Three weeks ago he was warring with QR National, yesterday it was with Frank Lowy, and today it's against Hyatt.

Palmer -- Australia's fifth richest man -- has launched legal action against American resort group Hyatt, whose five-star Hyatt Regency Coolum Golf Resort on Queensland's Sunshine Coast he bought eight months ago. He has attempted to terminate Hyatt's management of the resort and threatened the company with a $60 million lawsuit, claiming the luxury hotel chain has siphoned $60 million from the Coolum resort over the past two decades and covered it up. -- Lucy Clark (read the full story here)

Megaphones Watch: Bolt, Jones, Hadley, Kiwi. Andrew Bolt goes ballistic on his blog, Alan Jones mixes with the Greens, Ray Hadley gets a footy gig and NZ's most controversial megaphone prepares to take on Mel and Kochie.

Here's what Australia's most powerful megaphones have been up to over the past week ... -- Angela Priestley (read the full story here)

Record profits for Seek. Jobs website Seek, set up by brothers Andrew and Paul Basset, has today posted record first-half profits of $60.6 million.

The website has established itself as the most popular in Australia and New Zealand, with 14.7 million hits in January alone. It was co-founded by brothers Paul and Andrew Bassat -- one of the most successful partnerships in Australian digital media and members of "The Backers" in The Power Index's Digital Media power list. -- Lucy Clark (read the full story here)

This story is just a taste of what Crikey subscribers will have access to on The Power Index.

Learn more about it from Paul Barry here.

Another quiet week within the Federal Labor Party. Well at least The Australian will be able to eventually get the caucus count right because it looks like almost all of them will get around to declaring their hand publicly in the tit for tat "layoff Julia-layoff Kevin" roundabout.

Meanwhile the second luckiest politician in the world, Tony Abbott (Obama must take first prize given what’s happening in the Republican primaries), can completely forget about trying to work out a consistent line on budget cuts among his economic team as no-one is paying any attention anyway.

Oh yeah there’s an election in Queensland too, with the only question of real debate whether it’s possible that Campbell Newman won’t win his own seat in the coming easy LNP victory. And the Gonski report has still managed to get some coverage, although it was never going to be much of a circuit breaker for the Government as they’re not willing to commit to much of it, in particular the funding boost.

Nothing can stand in the way of the surplus now. Although nice among all the hand wringing to see one commentator pointing out that the reason that kids in some other countries are doing so much better than ours is because they work so much harder. Do we want our kids to be kids or robots?

Supposedly there’s some kind of leadership speculation, or perhaps it’s just everyone commenting on whether they like Kevin’s tea or not, now that you can get it on the supermarket shelves. Anyhoo, Tony Abbott a very rare distant third online.

So, the greatest Australian batsman of his generation, with some claim to being second only to Bradman overall, has been moved aside from the one day team, with now perhaps one or two test series left before the final curtain. His has been a fascinating career, statistics extraordinary on almost every level, but three Ashes defeats leaving him almost a Quixotic figure in the eyes of many.

The Power Index’s top 10 PR people raises some fascinating questions about how you judge PR people and their influence in what is essentially a transient industry operating within complex societies.

Being a PR person for a conservative cause or party is not that hard in the US or Australia where some mass-market media outlets are always willing to publish outlandish and distorted claims and propaganda about anything that damages any progressive cause. On the degree of difficulty, a diver would be judged by, such PR people might struggle to get above a six or seven for their performance.

The recent anti-mining industry tax campaign is a good example. While the advertising was good, it was predictable and its strength was this predictability. It would be surprising, if given good research, half a dozen other ad agencies could not have come up with something similar and as effective.

The media management side was equally easy when CEOs could blithely describe the tax as the biggest sovereign risk facing them and others could claim they would up sticks and head to Africa and other places with few challenges. According to The Economist, South Africa is considering a 50% super profits tax; Ghana is raising taxes from 25% to 35% and introducing a 10% super profits tax; Zambia is doubling royalties on copper; Guinea is demanding that bauxite producers hand over a stake in their companies, Namibia is pursuing quasi-nationalisation; Nigeria is re-negotiating off-shore oil contracts -- and that’s just Africa and doesn’t include similar moves throughout South America.

The probability of you seeing sustained media publicity for these developments is about the same as seeing sustained coverage of UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres’, comments that the debate about refugees in Australia was way out of proportion. You are more likely, in this case, to see variations on The Daily Telegraph’s fantasies about refugees being given plasma TVs and caviar for dinner.

Political PR people are also handicapped by transience -- in opposition you always struggle, although if you win you are suddenly recognised as a genius then become a loser again when your party inevitably loses later in the cycle. Speech writers tend to be better known and have longer lives -- often because their literacy allows them to shape the record by writing their own books (eg: Don Watson and Graham Freudenberg) -- than ministerial media advisers many of whose literacy is on a level with their knowledge of communications, outside of dealing with the gallery.

Profile is often a poor gauge because most senior PR strategists have little to do with the media or have a public profile at all. The ones who deal a lot with journalists -- as political PR people are forced to -- are assumed to be more important because journalists assume PR is about talking to them. Indeed, as a general rule, the more visible a PR person is, the less important they probably are. Similarly, most people would never have heard of many of the most successful marketing communications PR people, although in many ways their jobs are more difficult than the jobs in the regulation-constrained financial PR field.

Just how influential PR people are in forming opinion is also problematic. Most PR people work within ruling ideologies and hegemonic beliefs rather than changing them. They may reinforce attitudes and opinions but that they rarely create strikingly new ones.

Longevity is probably important and a fascinating list would be the top 10 people in Australian PR history. Probably Geoff Allen (who is not in PR, of course) would be the only contemporary player to get a guernsey. Others such as Eric White, the founder of EWA, which became Hill & Knowlton in Australia; Laurie Kerr, IPR founder; and, Sir Asher Joel would probably be in such a top 10 list and there would be many arguments about who else might be on it.

Increasing specialisation, geographic factors and the changing structure of the industry -- with a shift away from the significance of consultancies to corporate and government PR -- also shape judgments about who is important and who isn’t. When specialisation and geography is taken into account, there are several names (all of whom I have worked with, work with from time to time or have competed against) in consultancy that come to my mind immediately: Peter Mahon (does most major administrations and the Catholic Church), John Ridley (lobbying, strategy and PPPs) in Victoria, Stephanie Paul (corporate and financial) in Queensland, Lelde McCoy (social marketing), Anthony Tregoning (financial PR), Robina Xavier (education and financial PR) at QUT, and Pino Migliorino and Joseph Assaf (multicultural marketing).

Most other people in the industry could come up with a similar list of names, equally valid, across a range of areas from their own experiences. In corporate areas an even longer list would be easy to construct -- some of them the names on The Power Index list but many others not.

All that is certain is that in another decade there will be another list of "PR gurus" who will be alleged to shape what we think. Don’t be mistaken -- they will be influential, but just less so than you think.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Gus O'Donnell would be 100 this year. For years he worked to enable Australian writers, including freelance journalists, to be paid photocopy royalties. The royalties are still being paid, but with digital technology taking over, for how much longer?

Journalists were among the first victims of digitisation. As a result of changes to Australia's copyright law, negotiated in 1998 between the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and media proprietors, the rights for the use of journalists' work from a digital source were granted to publishers, not writers.

In 1967 O'Donnell, a public servant and writer, joined the Australian Society of Authors and the next year was appointed to the society's management committee and given responsibility for copyright. He protested that the creators of material being copied were entitled to compensation for their loss of book sales. When the education establishment gave that idea the flick, a furious O'Donnell set up the Australian Copyright Council and instituted legal proceedings. He was also the driving force behind the establishment of Australia's Copyright Agency Limited.

The council, founded in 1968, is primarily concerned with providing advice about copyright law and pursuing changes to the law in response to changing times, while the agency, established in 1974, pursues, collects and distributes royalty payments to writers and artists, including Aboriginal visual artists and recording artists.

O'Donnell, then a senior officer at the Housing Department, used his office phone to lobby politicians about the exploitation of writers and artists. His correspondence with the likes of Gough Whitlam and Arthur Calwell is now at the National Library.

Yet it took 12 years of  litigation before Australian copyright law was amended to make it mandatory for educational institutions to pay a licence fee for the right to allow copyrighted material to be photocopied on their premises. Even so, high-level attempts to stymie the legislation continued. More court battles ensued until the cheat sheet was eventually ordered withdrawn and destroyed by Federal Court appeal judges. It wasn't until 1986 that the first photostat royalty cheques began to lob.

But there was renewed controversy about the matter of Copyright Agency payments to publishers. A couple of years ago The Australian's Luke Slattery reported publishers were receiving CAL payments of about $76 million a year, while payments to writers were in the region of $9 million. It was noted in a headline that even CAL's administrative staff were receiving more money than the writers.

Comment on Slattery's story included a letter to The Oz from literary agent Lyn Tranter. She advised that a contract she had then recently perused had stated that 100% of the royalties collected by CAL was to be paid to an international publisher. When she attempted, on behalf of the authors, to negotiate a 50-50 split she said the publisher threatened to drop the project. She suggested that writers are not being so well looked after by CAL and that although most of the agency's income continues to be collected from taxpayer-funded Australian education institutions, the lion's share goes to major publishers.

One of CAL's author directors, James Bradley, also discussed the issue in The Australian. He stressed that publishers pass on much of the income they receive from CAL to their authors and illustrators as part of contractual agreements with those writers and artists. Slattery, however, snapped back in a footnote that "the salient point here is that neither CAL nor the publishers are able to say how much has been passed on to authors".

Bradley advised, though, that the agency was then in the process of implementing a new and improved distribution system, CALdirect. This system is now in operation, although the latest online (February 2012) issue of  the Australian Society of Authors' newsletter leads with this announcement:

"The ASA has concerns regarding the recent elimination of the Author Manager position at Copyright Agency (CA), under the operation of the online CALdirect system.

"While the ASA understands the removal of this position may be within the scope of normal management procedures, our concern is to establish what impact this will have on our members who are also members of CA.

"As the ASA remains to be convinced that the system can function without a dedicated author person, and does not feel all the ramifications for authors have been anticipated, we have asked CA management to agree to a joint, future review of CALdirect from the author's perspective.

"Such a review should assess progress of the online self-service functions and CALdirect's interface with author members, taking in experiences and information from both organisations and addressing any problems."

Bradley in The Australian then went on to mention that CAL invests more than a million dollars a year to promote Australian writing. He pointed out that the licences CAL issues continue to enable copyrighted material to been conveniently utilised, while also ensuring rights holders are compensated. He said that were it not for those licences, corporations, government agencies, education institutions and many other organisations would have to track down individual rights holders and negotiate with them every time they wanted to use their copyrighted work. The alternative would be to risk prosecution for copyright infringement.

Read the full story on our website

ABC current affairs boss Denise Eriksen quits. The ABC’s head of current affairs, Denise Eriksen, who has been in the role for less than one year, stepped down today. Here is the full statement from the ABC:

The ABC's Head of Current Affairs, Denise Eriksen, has today tendered her resignation for personal reasons.

"The recent successful launch of two new business programs and the appointment of a new Executive Producer for 7.30 means my immediate work is complete and it's an appropriate time for me to leave," said Ms Eriksen. "I've relished working with the amazing team in ABC Current Affairs -- on television and radio. They are second to none in bringing the stories Australia needs to hear to our audiences -- professionally and with dedication and determination. Long may that continue and I wish them all good things in the future.

"But for now, events in my personal life mean that the time is not right for me to continue in this job. I've had eight fantastic years in senior executive positions both here at the ABC and at SBS, but it's time now to explore other options for my professional life -- including those which allow me to work again at the coal face of content creation."

Denise returned to the ABC in 2010, initially helping relaunch 7.30 and then leading the current affairs stable of programs across radio, television and online. She helped guide the changes to ABC News business coverage, including reformatting Inside Business with Alan Kohler, and working with the business team and ABC News 24 to develop The Business with Ticky Fullerton.

"I want to thank her for her contribution to ABC News and for the drive, energy and commitment she has shown over the past 18 months," said Director of ABC News, Kate Torney. "Denise brought wide-ranging experience to the role and injected a great deal of energy into the job of leading our talented current affairs teams. I wish her all the very best for the future."

Denise will leave the ABC on March 30, 2012.

Drone journalism takes off

"Rapid technological advances in low-cost aerial platforms herald the age of drone journalism. But it will not be all smooth flying: this new media tool can expect to be buffeted by the issues of safety, ethics and legality." -- ABC News

ABC to shut online messageboard, users unhappy

"ABC is directing viewers to private and commercially driven social media platforms to make comments on it shows instead of an ABC-moderated messageboard." -- TV Tonight

WSJ’s Facebook pages target of 'comment flashmob'

"A number of Facebook pages run by The Wall Street Journal were the target of an apparent spam attack by a group claiming links to the online hacking group Anonymous." -- The Wall Street Journal

Facebook's nudity and violence guidelines laid bare

"The strange world of Facebook's image and post approval system has been laid bare by a document leaked from the outsourcing company oDesk to the Gawker website." -- The Guardian

Paramount sues Puzo estate over Godfather sequels

"In papers filed in New York federal court, Paramount Pictures accuses the estate of author Mario Puzo of tarnishing the godfather brand by publishing a series of mediocre sequels." -- Paid Content

Is YouTube too big to fail?

"Too Big to Fail is the albatross of the Great Recession. Now under the spectre of a double dip, does the phrase apply to online content distribution as well? On the surface, banks that bet on mortgage securities do not belong in the same sentence as YouTube." -- Mashable

The Glenn Dyer breakdown: Seven's night. Packed To The Rafters averaged 1.481 million at 8.30pm. It definitely has faded from last year and the current episodes have a bit of a sameness about them being ones held over from 2011. My Kitchen Rules had over 1.6 million viewers

Ten's The Biggest Loser dropped sharply from Monday night's year best audience of 897,000 to 656,000 last night. If only we could see that sort of weight loss in the program's contestants.

Tonight: Interesting, with the ABC debuting Woodley (a comedy built around Frank Woodley) on ABC 1 and Kitchen Cabinet on ABC 2, which has Annabel Crabb talking cooking and politics over a meal.

Seven has My Kitchen Rules and then Please Marry My Boy.

Ten has Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation, which is under pressure. The Good Wife follows.

Nine has Sherlock at 8.30pm which disappointed Nine with a low audience. Will that be repeated tonight?

The top 10 national programs (metro & regional combined):

1. My Kitchen Rules (Seven) 2.385 million
2. Packed to the Rafters (Seven) -- 2.209 million
3. Seven News -- 1.609 million
4. Nine News -- 1.479 million
5. Home and Away (Seven) -- 1.424 million
6. A Current Affair (Nine) -- 1.354 million
7. ABC News -- 1.311 million
8. Today Tonight (Seven) -- 1.306 million
9. NCIS  (Ten) -- 1.243 million
10. 2 Broke Girls (Nine) -- 1.138 million

Metro Winners:

1. My Kitchen Rules (Seven) (7.30pm) -- 1.682 million
2. Packed to the Rafters (Seven) (8.40pm) -- 1.481 million
3. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.176 million
4. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.031 million
5. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.017 million

The Losers: Cricket fans: given the performance of some of Nine's mid-evening programs, the ODI between Sri Lanka and India on Gem would have been more entertaining to a wider audience. The cricket averaged 201,000 on Gem for the evening session (from around 6.30pm to around 10pm Sydney time).

It was a night of disappointment for Nine: Two and a Half Men at 8.30pm -- 671,000, The Big Bang Theory at 7pm  -- 725,000, The Big Bang Theory at 7.30pm -- 776,000 and 2 Broke Girls at 8pm -- 816,000.

Nine had one program with a million or more viewers. Ten again failed to have one.

Metro News & CA: Nine News won Sydney and Melbourne, Seven News won the rest. A Current Affair won Sydney, Today Tonight won the rest.

1. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.176 million
2. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.031 million
3. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.017 million
4. ABC News (7pm) -- 946,000
5. A Current Affair (Nine) (6.30pm) -- 902,000
6. Ten News (5pm) -- 673,000
7. 7.30 (ABC) (7.30pm) -- 667,000
8. Foreign Correspondent (ABC) (8pm) -- 555,000
9. The Project (Ten) (6pm) -- 480,000
10. Insight (SBS) (8.30pm) -- 203,000
11. Lateline (SBS (10.30pm) -- 170,000.
12. SBS News (6.30pm) -- 168,000
13. Dateline (SBS News (9.30pm) -- 136,000
14. The Business (ABC) (11.05pm) -- 72,000
15. SBS News (10.30pm) -- 55,000
16. The Drum (News 24, 6 - 6.45 pm) -- 51,000

*On News 24 simulcast

In the morning:

1. Sunrise (Seven) (7am) -- 349,000
2. Today (Nine) (7am) -- 327,000
3. The Morning Show (Seven) (9am) -- 158,000
4. Mornings (Nine) (9am) -- 93,000
5. The Circle (Ten) (9am) -- 55,000

FTA: Seven (3 channels) won with a share of 34.4%, from Nine (3) on 26.2%, Ten (3) was on 20.0%, the ABC (4) ended on 13.8% and SBS (2) finished with 5.6%. Seven leads the week with 32.1% from Nine in 28.3% and Ten on 19.2%. Main channels: Seven won easily with a share of 28.3% from Nine on 18.3%, ten was on 14.6%, ABC 1 ended on 9.4% and SBS ONE was on 4.2%. Seven leads the week on 26.1% from Nine on 21.2% and Ten on 14.0%.

Digital: The ODI cricket from Brisbane saw Gem win with a share of 4.3%, from GO on 3.6%, 7TWO on 3.5%, Eleven and ABC 2 on 2.9% each, 7mate on 2.6%, Gem on 2.5%, SBS TWO on 1.4%, News 24 on 0.8% and ABC 3 on 0.7%. The 10 digital channels had an FTA share last night of 25.2%. GO leads the week with 3.7%, from Gem on 3.4% and 7TWO on 3.3%,

Pay TV: Seven (3 channels) won with a share of 38.6%, from Nine (3) on 21.8%, Ten (3) was on 16.7%, Pay TV (200 plus channels), was on 14.2%, the ABC (4) ended on 11.5% and SBS (2) was on 4.7%. The 15 FTA channels had a total share of viewing last night of 85.8%, with the 10 digital channels on 21.0% and the five main channels, 64.8%.

The top five pay TV channels were:

1. Fox 8 (2.67%)
2. Fox Classics (2.35%)
3. TV 1 (2.02%)
4. 111 Hits (2.0%)
5. Crime & Investigation (1.91%)

The five most-watched programs on pay TV were:

1. The Simpsons (Fox) -- 85,100
2. Coronation Street (UKTV) -- 69,500
3. The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (Arena) -- 66,600
4. Family Guy (Fox 8) -- 65,400
5. Futurama (Fox 8) -- 61,000

Regional: Prime/7Qld (3 channels) won with a share of 34.7%, from WIN/NBN (3) on 27.7%, SC Ten (3) was on 20.3%, the ABC (4) ended with 12.5% and SBS (2) was on 4.8%. Prime/7Qld won the main channels with 27.5%, from WIN/NBN on 17.7%. Gem was the digitals (with the ODI cricket) on 6.8%. 7TWO was second with 4.1% and Eleven was third on 3.3%. The 10 digital channels had an FTA share last night of 28.5%. Prime/7Qld leads the week with 33.0% from WIN/NBN in 29.5%.

The five most-watched programs in regional markets were:

1. Packed to the Rafters -- 724,000
2. My Kitchen Rules -- 709,000
3. Seven News -- 523,000
4. Nine News -- 461,000
5. Home and Away -- 45,000

Major Markets: A clean sweep for Seven, overall and in the main channels, in all five metro markets. Ten was second overall and in the main channels in Perth, and the main channels in Adelaide. Gem win Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth with the cricket. 7TWO won Brisbane.

(All shares on the basis of combined overnight 6pm to midnight All People)

*Source: OzTAM, TV Networks reports

Read more from the world of TV on Dan Barrett's blog White Noise

After a year of seeing false dawns in every euro summit communique, the markets finally got the second Greek bailout right: the reaction was muted, cautious, distrusting even. There was nothing to cheer about.

As it is, the bailout (here's the bailout statement issued by eurozone finance ministers after an epic 14 hours of talks) and forced cut in the value of bonds held by banks and others, is being regarded as a sort of default (a Clayton's default?) anyway, but not one that plunges markets into the unknown.

It was probably for that reason that all major European markets fell (after most Asian markets had risen after the announcement yesterday) and US markets were cautious. Gold and oil rose, the euro rose, then dipped. The Dow hit 13,000 for the first time since May 2008, then retreated to end the day slightly down. And the Australian dollar, a good global barometer for "risk on" investing and confidence, sold off slightly overnight as investors worried about the deal working.

The general reaction was along the lines of "what's next" and when's the next roadblock. The detail of the E130 billion deal tells us a lot: no benefit to the Greek people, a lot of benefit to the banks, even though they take a "loss" of 53% on the current value of their bonds (70% on the nominal value). They get made good, the Greek people get nothing, except the prospect of not defaulting and leaving the euro for another year.

But that's all based on the E130 billion being enough. As the Financial Times and others have reported, there is considerable doubt among the financiers of the bailout that it will be enough. A leaked "troika" document prepared for the ECB, the European Commission and the IMF suggested the bailout deal is based on some heroic assumptions about Greek growth. If the Greek economy fails to return relatively quickly to growth (2.3% in 2014, the deal assumes), Greece could need E245 billion, nearly twice the bailout amount.

That reflects the simple maths of austerity: the more Greece cuts its spending, the worse its growth and the higher its debt:GDP ratio. The goal of the revamp, to get Greek debt down from the 160% of GDP to 120.5% by 2020, is simply too optimistic: the depressed Greek economy won’t grow and generate the income and tax revenues needed in the eight years to sustain that fall. Greece could still face a debt burden of 160% of GDP in 2020, meaning the E130 billion of bailout money and other spending since May 2010, will have been wasted.

As one senior bond market figure observed, this is one big exercise in make-believe.

According to the Financial Times this morning, Greece has just nine days to implement or make a start on reforms from sacking dud tax collectors to passing legislation, opening up professions and privatisation.

Just what happens if Greece hasn't done what is being demanded of it by Friday week, remains to be seen. It's another of an increasing number of absurd deadlines imposed by an increasingly distrustful IMF, EU and others. And there are more stumbling blocks: the package has to be ratified by all 17 members of the eurozone. Watch for tough votes in Finland and Holland, which are very sceptical of bailing out Greece. The IMF also has to agree, and is demanding the EU expedite the establishment of a single bailout fund, a move opposed by the Germans.

Most of the money in the package will be used to finance the bond swap with the banks and other holders of Greek debt. About E30 billion will go to "sweeteners" to get the private-sector bond holders to sign up to the swap; E23 billion will go to recapitalise Greek banks. That will help ensure Greece's banking system remains stable, which is the only significant benefit from the deal so far as Greeks are concerned. They have been taking billions of euros out of the banks for more than a year, shipping it offshore or keeping it in cash somewhere.

A further E35 billion will allow Greece to finance the buying back of the bonds, and E5.7 billion will go to paying off the interest accrued on the bonds being traded in. While the latter reduces the future debt burden, it does mean the banks will get income on their bonds and won't have to write them down any more.

Apart from helping the country's banks, there's next to nothing from the package that will go directly to help the Greek economy. In other words, the banks and other bond holders get bailed out, ordinary Greeks will get unemployment, lower wages, lower pensions and years of near depression and penury for those who get left behind.

Moreover, the Greek government has had to accept an "enhanced and permanent" presence of EU bureaucrats to monitor its affairs to ensure compliance with austerity measures. Greece is now effectively a country under external administration. Funds will be placed in an escrow account, which Greece will ensure always holds three months' worth of debt payments. The escrow account will be replaced once the Greek government has passed into law a provision to give priority to debt service payments above all other public expenditure, including its inclusion in the Greek constitution as soon as possible.

So if Greece has a national disaster, say a huge earthquake, it has to give debt repayments precedence over any financing of the recovery from such a disaster. Let's see that one fly in Athens.

This deal keeps Greece afloat until March 20 when a E14.5 billion bond falls due for repayment. That will be avoided, meaning the prospects for a nasty default has been avoided as well. After that, it’s still anybody’s guess. Greek elections are planned for April (the Germans are saying they should not be held -- is it any wonder Germany is in such foul odour among Greeks?). The bailout's unpopularity can only deepen in Greece. One party leader has referred to the deal as a "terrorist assault" that is binding only on those who signed it, as they lack democratic legitimacy.

The landscape after the poll could be chaotic and very anti-German. There are still many Greeks who remember the German occupation 70 years ago and wonder what’s changed other than the accountants replacing soldiers.

The only benefit for the rest of us is that a Greek default has been staved off again. The longer it is delayed, the better for the European financial system. But it still seems like the delay is merely of the inevitable.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Nothing epitomises the challenges of Australia’s future energy needs as the state of the National Electricity Market itself. Since its inception in 1998, the NEM has been lauded by its supporters as one of the most efficient markets in the world – cost effective and reliable, just like an old Austen A4.

But should a grid be celebrated just for being cheap and cheerful? Or for its ability to act in the long-term interests of energy consumers? On this, the position of the NEM is hotly debated, and it quickly boils down to the same issues that characterise the debate around climate and clean energy policies on local, national and international levels: what’s good and cost effective now? And what’s good and cost effective for the future? It’s the eternal battle over the short and long-term benefits and, sadly, the two ambitions don’t easily intersect.

The problem with the NEM is that it is fast losing the very quality of which it boasts – that of being cheap. Significant price rises have been blamed on anything from the carbon price to green energy incentives, but it’s mostly about updating networks to cope with ageing infrastructure and surging demands at a few peak times. The response to the latter has been to simply build bigger and broader, rather than smarter. And it’s led people to contemplate a bitter irony: if the NEM had not concentrated so hard on being lowest cost, it’s quite possible that it wouldn’t be as expensive as it is now, or that it soon promises to be.

The Institute of Sustainable Futures at UTS and the Total Environment Centre have analysed this issue in a study that is combined with a report on the performance of the NEM. The study notes that, when launched in 1998, the National Electricity Objective (NEO) was to serve the “long term interests” of the consumer. But two critical decisions – to remove environmental and social benefits from the list of considerations by the grid’s operator and regulator – have had a profound impact.

Not only has it failed to deliver an environmental and social outcome, it is now failing to deliver on its promise of cheap electricity – and the institute’s Chris Dunstan is sure these factors are linked. “There is solid evidence that focusing on technical issues, to the exclusion of social and environmental issues, has backfired both on environmental considerations and on price,” Dunstan said. “There is a case to be made that if we paid attention to environmental issues and costs, we may well have had less pressure price on consumer costs, because the wholesale electricity price has been flat or downward.”

The survey found that the NEM earns a “B” in categories such as reliability and “customer bills” (defined as cost as percentage of income), and a “C” on customer satisfaction and price, and security. Unsurprisingly, it fails on the criteria that were deliberately excluded from its KPIs – these include a “D” (or poor) for critical issues such as energy efficiency and demand management (which will go directly to the path of future costs), and an “F” (very poor) on environmental performance.

These ratings do not come as a surprise to the industry; they were highlighted in the draft energy white paper late last year. That paper recognised that the NEM had failed to deliver an environmental outcome, and highlighted the problems created by a regulatory structure that simply encouraged operators to build a bigger and broader network, rather than finding smarter, more economical means of managing changing energy patterns.

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson himself highlighted the problems created by the unchecked rush for air conditioning, which added $7,000 to network costs for each $1,500 unit installed in a house. And it recognised, too, that energy efficiency and demand management, two of the critical areas where the NEM is failing badly, provide the cheapest and easiest solutions to rampant peak demand.

In fact, the white paper suggested that measures such as energy efficiency regulation on appliances alone could save 19.5 million tonnes of Co2e at a negative cost to the community of $56/tonne (that is, it saves money). And it canvassed the need to incorporate distributed generation and direct load management, and to force networks to seek demand-side alternatives, rather than just erecting more poles and wires.

This, however, barely touches the surface. Currently, some $45 billion is being spent on grid upgrades across the country in the next five years, despite the fact that groups like the institute have produced reports suggesting that up to a third of this is not needed, if only they embraced and planned for new concepts such as distributed energy and demand management. Some industry experts – such as David Crane, the head of NRG, one of largest utilities in the US – suggest that the whole hub-and-spoke model that has supported the centralised generation system around large coal, gas or nuclear power stations, will be made redundant.

The TEC/ISF report makes some recommendations on how the NEM and the NEO might be reformed to better serve the long-term interests of consumers. It said it could start by collecting data and publishing them in an annual public performance review, and it should extend this reporting to the consumer side of the market, where the NEM effectively operates in a state of ignorance in the current regulatory environment. And, it says, the NEO should be amended to incorporate social and environmental criteria for the long-term interest of consumers, in addition to the existing technical and price criteria.

“The over-reliance on an ‘economic rationalist’ approach to developing and operating the NEM is something that demands greater attention and reconsideration,” the report notes. “The economic rationalist framework does not free policy designers and decision makers from the responsibility of taking the broader context of policy into account. Thus, while the focus on competition and efficiency may have been acceptable when the national regulatory framework was limited to economic functions, the same cannot be said for the current situation. As the national market has expanded to incorporate retail and non-economic distribution functions, the need to expand the definition of the NEO to reflect these significant changes warrants serious attention and consideration by all stakeholders.”

This piece was originally published at Renew Economy.

Send your tips to boss@crikey.com.au or submit them anonymously here.

Newspaper home delivery:

Stephen Browning, acting-director of communications at News Limited, writes: Re. "News Limited 'in crisis' on newspaper home delivery" (yesterday, item 16). Contrary to reports, there is not a crisis at News Limited on the future of home delivery of newspapers.

We have for some time been working on a plan to improve our distribution system, which delivers our newspapers to retail and homes. We have consulted newsagents and their associations throughout this process and welcomed feedback through meetings, focus groups and via a dedicated email address we set up. Using information newsagents have been helping us collect, we are doing the hard task of understanding the pros and cons of the current system and how best to improve it.

We want to get this right and so are working methodically and diligently. Newsagents may feel frustrated that this is a long process, but it is difficult one. It is taking longer than anticipated but the project has not been put on hold. We will be discussing our next steps with newsagents within the next month.

Gonski:

Marcus L'Estrange writes: Re. "Why Gonski is unlikely to ever be implemented" (yesterday, item 1). Many good points in Bernard Keane's analysis but the current debate on the Gonski Report has still missed some key points regarding many non select public schools.

The drift to private schools (rich, middle, poor ) is due to several factors. Yes the three points below are very important in parental choice:

• Parents want their child to go to ruling class schools, with some making great sacrifices to do so.
• Simple snobbery.
• For genuine religious reasons.

However sad to say, former Victorian Premier John Brumby summed up why many bypass many state schools when he said: ''Typically, the kids who are being failed by failing schools are Labor kids in Labor areas''.

Above all many of my state school teacher colleagues and parents prefer non-government schools because what they see is not better teachers or a different curriculum, but a peer group that values education.

Also, there is an absence of disaffected or disruptive students, who are allowed by state ministers, school management and AEU policies to spoil the environment of students who want to learn. The state governments and the AEU support mixed ability/motivation /behaviour classes in state schools. This is a disaster for those who want to learn.

Before we pour more money into disadvantaged schools and we clearly should it would be better for governments to fight for the removal of the educational left's control and philosophy over state schools (automatic or social promotion, no meaningful sanctions against bad behaviour, handing out passes for school-assessed work like confetti, and no intelligent streaming. Only then will good students will pour back into the once-great state system and any extra "Gonski" money will then be worth it.

Mick Peel writes: Re. "Richard Farmer's chunky bits" (yesterday, item 12). In relation to a snippet in Richard Farmer's column yesterday, specifically "Preparing to spend $5 billion a year extra on education", there is a major oversimplification and misconception arising from Ezra Klein's Washington Post article and expressed by Richard. His statement, as relating to MMT:

"Owls, you see, just love budget deficits; they are hooting the message that governments borrowing money is good. And not, like those middle of the road Keynesian deficit doves who reckon it’s all right when an economy is in recession, owls advocate deficit spending almost all of the time."

It is patently misleading, tending towards being outright false.

Chicago-based Tschaff Reisberg is part of an international working group on MMT (along with Kelton, Mosler and others mentioned in the WP article), and has posted a reply to Ezra Klein. On the matter that, "... owls advocate deficit spending almost all of the time." Reisberg states:

"Krugman convinced many in his large audience believe MMT states budget deficits don’t matter. This is a complete straw man, MMT states solvency isn’t an issue, but inflation is as you thankfully explained. The MMTers state one important function of taxes is to reduce demand in an overheating economy by decreasing people’s post-tax income. Spending cuts are another option to reduce demand-pull inflation. MMTers are keen on Abba Lerner’s (1943) Functional Finance, the central premise of which states spending and taxation policies should be judged on their ability to achieve societal goals, not hit some nonsensical debt/deficit figure."

Reisberg's full reply is available here.

Don Wormald writes: I find criticism of the Gonski report based upon the premise it would be a harbinger of an attack on private schools quite hilarious.

David Gonski was educated at Sydney Grammar School (class of 1971, along with myself) -- one of the oldest and most prestigious private schools in the country -- and went back to the school (as chairman of trustees). He is also chancellor of the University of NSW.

Hardly the background for someone representing the interests of DOGS (Defence of Government Schools). Perhaps his review is about fairness and equity? That would be a first!

Mining donations:

Crikey writes: Re. "The rise and rise of mining company donations" (yesterday, item 2). Bernard Keane’s story yesterday on mining donations stated Queensland Nickel -- which contributed $500,000 to the LNP -- was a company independent of Clive Palmer. The company is in fact owned by Palmer.

Voting:

Stilgherrian writes: There's been a bunch of discussion in Crikey over recent days about compulsory voting etc (yesterday, comments). Look, if there's 1.6 million people who don't want their votes, I'm happy to have them.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name — we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.