Dear Sole Subscriber,

The experts agree: the ambition and scope of vision in the Gonski review, the first real attempt at a major overhaul of school funding in 40 years, is pretty breathtaking. Whether the government implements any of it is another matter, but this review has a clear and concise premise: look at the best-performing schools and use them as the basis for a per-student funding model applied across all sectors, load funding to reflect the needs of different schools (particularly around disabilities), then determine what’s fair for schools already receiving private contributions whether large or small, and the Commonwealth pays 30%.

As Bernard Keane writes today: "If, by some remote possibility, the Gonski funding formula or something like it ever gets up, the Gillard government would, in its brief life, have been responsible for two key reforms to the core of Commonwealth-state relations, on health and education funding."

The health funding model didn't go far enough, but it was a significant step toward a more coherent, logical and efficient funding mechanism across jurisdictional lines.

Tomorrow, our health writer and head of Croakey Melissa Sweet will detail the parallels between Gonski's findings regarding education and our current health system. Issues with quality, equity and lack of transparency are all echoed within the health system and yet, as Sweet puts it, the policy silos continue.

So too with education. Cost aside, the Gonski report faces major hurdles -- and a rather large wall -- getting the federal and state governments to agree to the new funding model.

The policy debate around both education and health should not be about rich versus poor. It should focus on the fact the most important elements of our public polity -- health and education -- are caught between two levels of government in a way that seems purpose-designed to create inefficiency. That’s the real problem -- not the public-private divide.

If, by some remote possibility, the Gonski funding formula or something like it ever gets up, the Gillard government would, in its brief life, have been responsible for two key reforms to the core of Commonwealth-state relations, on health and education funding.

The health funding model didn't go far enough, and won't until the Commonwealth takes over all health funding and establishes a single funding model, but it was a significant step toward a more coherent, logical and efficient funding mechanism across jurisdictional lines.

The funding proposal from David Gonski and his review panel is along similar lines, establishing funding per student based on the best-performing schools, applying it across all sectors, loading funding to reflect the needs of different schools (particularly around disabilities), determine what's fair for schools already receiving private contributions whether large or small, and the Commonwealth pays 30%.

The current model, as the review points out, is a schemozzle -- obscure, lacking in transparency, based on average costs rather than outcomes.

That's partly a legacy of the Howard government, which as it did on health via the private health insurance rebate, confused good policy with a vast exercise in social engineering. Its SES school funding model was based on John Howard's personal vision of a taxpayer-funded transformation of Australians  into his ideal of Liberal voters -- nuclear families, shareholders, privately schooled, using private health insurance. The conservative Catholic school system was a particular favourite, serving as a low-income distraction from the direction of extraordinary levels of funding to Australia's richest schools (and the rapid increase in that funding).

Eventually that vision morphed into a simpler mass vote-buying exercise, as Howard's social engineering gave way to pork-barrelling on an extraordinary scale that left it with a structural budget deficit and a profound sense of entitlement.

It's a funding model that continues to blight education policy to this day. This government has repeatedly promised that no school will lose any funding, terrified as it is of handing the opposition the sort of weapon they deployed against Mark Latham in 2004.

Fear of the label "class war" thus becomes a tool for entrenching class-based privilege, as usual.

It's a measure of the extent of the review's consultation process, and the intelligence of its approach, that private and independent school representatives are so far backing it. The report's failure to rip and tear at the Howard model -- which it was prevented from doing by its terms of reference -- has inevitably upset public education groups.

That hasn't stopped private education fundamentalists like the Centre for Independent Studies from coming out and attacking the review. And Christopher Pyne had the report for less than two hours before emerging yesterday to "welcome" the release of the report and then savage it as a "private school hit list".

On policy, the opposition is every bit as wretched and contemptible as Labor is on political tactics.

But the funding mechanism necessarily entails an overhaul of all school funding, which means the states must be locked in for this to even be seriously considered. While the government appears to be hastening slowly in sending the process off for yet more consultation, committees and COAG working groups, it's hard to see how else it could proceed to implement the sort of mechanism Gonski has in mind.

And, of course, no one has billions of dollars lying around -- the proposed mechanism would cost around $5 billion more, based on 2009 figures. The states would have to collectively find 70% of that, and Canberra 30%. In practice, Canberra would have to find the lot as a way of getting the states on board. And that assumes they'd be willing to give up control of school funding.

In the meantime, we're stuck with the detritus of John Howard's ideological fixations.

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

Labor's mining tax and the resources boom may have permanently and significantly changed the balance of political donations, with millions of dollars flowing from mining companies to the Coalition, Australian Electoral Commission data shows.

Mining companies began increasing their stake in the political process before the financial crisis, favouring the Coalition but also contributing to Labor. However, the mining tax saw an extraordinary increase in donations to the Coalition that has opened up a huge funding resource for the Liberals.

Mining company donations to state and federal Labor parties and the Coalition since 2004 show the extent to which Coalition benefited from the surge in mining company largesse after the Rudd government infuriated them with its RSPT proposal in May 2010.

But the largesse is predominantly from Western Australia. In Queensland, the ongoing support of Clive Palmer has been the primary mining contribution to the conservative cause, although monster donations of $500,000 to the LNP by Queensland Nickel, and $100,000 to the federal party by controversial miner New Hope -- the target yesterday of a protest led by Alan Jones and Bob Katter -- maintained the Queensland representation in 2010-11. Last year the Queensland government capped donations at $5000 to parties and $2000 to candidates).

Santos and Beach Petroleum each gave big donations to the SA Liberals in 2010-11 as well.

However in WA, mining company donations to the WA Liberal Party went from less than $100,000 in total in the mid-2000s to over $1.2 million in 2010 and 2011, forming around one dollar in five of the party’s revenue.

Previously, mining companies had tended to follow the pattern of many industries and give to both sides of politics. Indeed, the Gallop government attracted more mining industry donations in 2004 and 2006 than the WA Liberals. But WA Labor didn’t get a cent from miners in 2009-10 or 2010-11, presumably reflecting the party’s dispatch into opposition as well as the mining tax.

Federally, Labor’s take from miners slumped to a bare $50,000 worth of small donations and fund-raising dinner contributions, from $200,000 before the 2007 election.

The sheer scale of mining company generosity illustrates why Tony Abbott remains committed to repealing the carbon pricing package and the mining tax despite the difficulties he will face in securing Senate support. That should continue to lock in big mining company donations this year and next and establish the mining industry as a go-to source for big donations that Labor cannot access for years to come.

The donations are widespread across the WA industry, with 25 companies giving the party on average $95,000. The list doesn't include Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, who no longer donate or only provide small donations; given they can pick and choose prime ministers and dictate how much tax they pay, donations would appear to be of limited value for the big foreign miners.

The long-term problem for Labor is that the habit of giving to the Liberals becomes permanent for mining companies. That will erase the advantages that have accrued to Labor in recent decades, whereby business has significantly lifted its donations to Labor while unions have continued to pump funds into the party.

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

The latest story to feed this week's leadership speculation feast and add to the rising sense of momentum behind Kevin Rudd was splashed across The Sydney Morning Herald this morning, as the paper reported that loyal Kim Carr enforcer Senator Gavin Marshall had ratcheted up his support of Rudd, preparing a petition to corral the required 35 signatures needed to force a spill motion when federal parliament resumes next week.

But sources close to the federal Labor caucus have questioned the wisdom behind media reports claiming the "Victorian Left" has unanimously rounded behind Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, pointing instead to a fluid situation in which MPs are still wavering. Jagajaga's Jenny Macklin and Ballarat's Catherine King stand in the way of unanimous Left support for the Foreign Minister and the positions of others are not at all clear.

A source close to Families Minister Macklin said she "unequivocally" supported the leader owing to her position inside Cabinet, while King maintains her own regional fiefdom and notionally sits outside the Carr axis anyway owing to her past in the fringes of the Pledge Left (officially reunited with the Socialist Left in 2009).

That leaves Carr, Marshall, retiring numbers man Alan Griffin, Harry Jenkins, Laura Smyth and Maria Vamvakinou all notionally supporting Rudd from the Left south of the Murray. But a senior Victorian source told Crikey each MP had different motivations and should not be forced through a distorted factional lens.

"The position among the national Left caucus reflects the diversity that they have as a group. The idea that people are voting on strict factional lines doesn't reflect reality," the source said.

There are some historical reasons why the major poles of Left influence in Victoria -- comprising Rudd numbers man Alan Griffin and the humiliated Carr -- might support Gillard's rolling. Griffin's clique remembers Gillard's treachery in imposing herself on the Victorian branch and battling with Franz Timmerman, Lindsay Tanner and Gaye Yuille in the 1990s before cutting a preselection deal with the Right, while Carr is still smarting after his recent ejection from Cabinet (even though, in 2010, he organised numbers for Gillard).

In the current context, Rudd is preferred simply because he could elevate the party's primary vote to over 30%.

The confusion over caucus support was illustrated in The Weekend Australian, which published a graphic with members spread over three columns (Undecided/Gillard/Rudd). In Victoria Darren Cheeseman appeared in both the Gillard column only hours before calling on the Prime Minister to resign. Cheeseman was previously a strong Gillard acolyte but is also loyal backer of Carr's view of the world.

Of Rudd supporters on the broad Victorian Right, two SDA-aligned MPs, Chisholm's Anna Burke (consistently ignored in front bench promotion decisions) and Holt's Anthony Byrne (Rudd's former flatmate and parliamentary secretary) have unsurprisingly fallen in behind their friend, a move that also reflects both MPs' estrangement from Labor Unity circles dominated by Bill Shorten and Stephen Conroy.

Of the non-Ruddites, Simon Crean has popped up to remind the public of his svelte leadership skills as a "faction of one", while Mark Dreyfus, Richard Marles, Rob Mitchell, Michael Danby all support Bill Shorten's official diktat issued last night on Q&A. Brendan O'Connor continues to support Gillard from the soft left, as does Nicola Roxon from a position of cabinet solidarity.

A curio surrounds Martin Ferguson's pro-Rudd position -- a supporter of Gillard in the late 1990s but over the last decade clashing over "personality issues" and suffering the indignity of having some of his energy programs moved to a new “independent” authority at the behest of the Greens.

One erroneous media figment that continues to crop up is the idea that Gillard somehow maintains an alliance with the "Victorian Left". Gillard was expelled from the SL in 1997 as she prepared to do a deal with the Right to snag preselection in Lalor. Every since, she has maintained an unofficial alliance with Michael O'Connor, and after the 2010 leadership spill emerged as the handmaiden of the NSW Right.

"It would be like Greg Williams claiming loyalty to Victoria after moving to the Swans," a senior Left source noted this morning, recalling the champion centerman's controversial $120,000 defection from Geelong to Sydney in 1985 to follow coach Tommy Hafey to Harbourside glory.

Also of interest was NSW general secretary Sam Dastyari's humorous pronouncements to "support the leader" given the NSW Right's notorious revolving door policy at state level. Dastyari is, in fact, unable to enforce solidarity in a fluid caucus.

Meanwhile, an "anyone but Rudd" alignment continues to gather pace as soundings growing louder for the inoffensive but uninspiring Stephen Smith.

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

Unlike Pakistan, Iran is not yet tacitly involved in attacks on Australian troops in Afghanistan. Not, at least, that we’ve so far heard. But it’s not beyond the realm.

Such a prospect is nothing to be alarmed about, in any event, for it would merely be but part of the wretched business of war. But it should perhaps be noted Australia’s and Iran’s spheres of influence in the war-torn country lie devilishly close to each other; indeed, side by side, if not in fact overlapping.

The Diggers’ area of operations rests in Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province. It’s a wild and woolly place. Always has been. Always will be.

Mountainous and formidable, Uruzgan forms part of the northern rim of south-western Afghanistan. A large chunk of the country that includes the provinces of Zabul, Helmand, Farah and Kandahar -- home to the country’s second capital, the birthplace of the Taliban, a city under virtual Taliban siege in recent years. It’s a chunk of Afghanistan that’s seen some of the most intense combat of the war and in which Iran perceives it has legitimate national security interests. Interests it actively pursues.

And fair enough. Before 9/11, Tehran had two enemies at its door. To the west was Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, with whom Iran had fought a bitter and bloody eight-year war in the 1980s. To its east, the theocracy had the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Hostile regimes on its two great borders. And, until just a few months ago, once both those regimes were removed it had massive American forces in their stead. To Iranian strategic thinking, theirs continued to be a hostile neighbourhood.

The US force to Iran’s west is now gone from Iraq but the other remains to its east, in Afghanistan. With our Diggers among them, serving a far more active combat role than they ever did in Iraq.

Tehran’s interest in Uruzgan itself, one would imagine, would be marginal. However, its interest in that region of Afghanistan, and in the outcome of the Western alliance’s mission overall, is considerable. And while we do our best to win Afghan hearts and minds in our military domain, so too does Iran across the same region.

I saw my first signs of Iranian influence around there in 2002, when I lived in Kandahar. Two men accused of being Iranian operatives had been detained and were being, rather unkindly, held in the compound of Kandahar’s chief of police. They were bound and blindfolded and squatting in the dirt facing a grimy concrete wall. A young boy stood guard over them, his AK-47 lazily nosing in their general direction. They’d been detained with a truck full of what I was told was Iranian humanitarian aid -- blankets, clothes, some feed -- underneath which the Afghan authorities claimed were bundles of cash and weapons.

The men and materiel, I was told, were found in Helmand province, bound for that province’s rugged northern strongholds, near the hamlet of Baghran. That’s an area touching upon the Aussie troops’ Uruzgan and is part of a well-worn rat -- or supply -- line linking the two provinces. Hours after I saw them, the men were gone from the police compound. I shudder to think what ever became of them.

Since then Tehran’s activities have stepped up in the region. Quite somewhat. Just outside the perimeter of the enormous American base at Kandahar airfield, in 2009 I sat in the neat and humble office of Brigadier General Shir Mohammed Zazai, commander of the Afghan army’s 205th Hero Corps. When I asked the stern-looking general about Iran, the silent American advisers flanking him visibly flinched. But the general did not.

"Unfortunately", the general began, "we’re finding many weapons with Iranian markings and many explosives with similar markings (in the hands of the Taliban)." However Iran’s covert operations had increased, he said, since the ad hoc discovery of weapons I had encountered seven years before. "Right now we have lots of evidence of people being educated in Iranian madrassah (religious schools) and given military instruction and then being sent here, with orders to conduct combat operations in this part of Afghanistan."

The US military has for a while now reported the deployment of a particular style of roadside bomb in this region of Afghanistan that is often a hallmark of Iran’s hand. Known as an EFP -- Explosively Formed Penetrator -- it is a stunningly simple yet brutal device that fires a ball of molten copper that easily punches through the heaviest American armour. It has been a signature of Iranian-backed militia in Iraq and of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Its appearance on the Afghan battlefield heralded a new declaration of Iranian intent in that conflict.

I asked the Australian Defence Force (ADF) about any evidence of the deployment of EFPs in the Uruzgan region and the ADF provided the following comment: "Defence has no record of an IED incorporating an Explosively Formed Penetrator being used or found in Uruzgan Province."

Traces of Iranian covert operations within the vicinity of our troops, however, is not the point. But our troops’ proximity to Iran’s active interests is.

So too our interests away from the battlefield, in Tehran itself. There, virtually unbeknownst to the Aussie punter, Australia plays a meaningful role in advancing Western interests.

Unlike the United States, Australia maintains an outpost of diplomacy in the Persian capital. Our embassy in Tehran, reasonably untroubled by pesky Australian tourists seeking consular services, is regarded by some in the West as a vital listening post. I know for a fact, for instance, that our well-regarded ambassador’s cables during the bloody unrest of Iran’s elections were read keenly and furtively by myriad foreign intelligence agencies with whom we share such things.

While France and Germany and other liberal democracies also have embassies, few are regarded by Washington to be the allies we are, certainly in a post-9/11 world. And unlike the Brits, with their imperial Shah-backing oil-sucking legacy (yes, I’m looking at you, BP) in Iran, our mission has not been recently attacked by regime-friendly protesters.

For mine, none of this bodes badly. Indeed these pinpricks of information only highlight why distant machinations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the increased militarisation of straits, and the ratcheting of sanctions should be followed with at least muted interest by a somnambulistic Australian public. Or, at least, offer some background to our Minister for Foreign Affairs’ seemingly feverish diplomacy over Iran of late.

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

Mark Textor is the most domineering, divisive pollster this country's ever seen -- and the most powerful. Even his Labor adversaries admit no one on their side of politics can match him.

"There are probably only two or three good political qualitative researchers in Australia at the moment," veteran ALP pollster Rod Cameron said in 2010. "The Liberals have got one [Textor]. Labor haven't got any."

Stockily built, with a David Brent-style goatee and a head that shines like a billiard ball, Textor has been a key player in the Liberal Party's last six federal election campaigns. He's also worked for corporate giants such as Qantas, Telstra, Wesfarmers, Woolworths, NAB and many of the country's most influential industry groups.

Textor -- a protege of Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's chief pollster and strategist -- is more than just a numbers man. He's a genius at transforming raw research into compelling communication -- someone who presses people's emotional buttons, identifies points of division, and boils complex issues down to their core.

It was he who, while quaffing on a glass of wine, came up with Tony Abbott's 2010 election mantra: "We will stop the boats, stop the big new taxes, end the waste and pay back the debt.'' It certainly left Julia Gillard's "moving forward" for dead.

With the Libs out of office in Canberra, Tex, as he's universally known, doesn't wield nearly as much clout as during the Howard era. And he's spending more and more time overseas (he's currently working on London mayor Boris Johnson's re-election bid). Still, he remains a force to be reckoned with.

He helped the mining industry quash the resources super profits tax in 2010 and is advising the oil industry on how to stem community opposition to coal seam gas exploration. Last year, the expert panel on indigenous constitutional recognition called him in for advice on how to achieve the (almost) impossible: convincing Australians to vote yes at a referendum.

When you're as brilliant as Textor, you don't need to be likeable -- which is lucky for him.

"A lot of people really dislike Tex," says a Liberal Party insider. "He's very assertive; he's rude to people who don't agree with him."

"You never know what'll come out of his mouth; he can say some quite shocking things," says a former Crosby/Textor colleague. "He's complex. When you expect him to be charming, he's prickly; when you expect him to be prickly, he's charming."

Luckily for The Power Index, Textor is in a convivial mood when we meet him in his Sydney office -- even granting us a tour of his collection of political memorabilia. His latest addition, bought at a fund-raiser for the National Disability Insurance Scheme campaign, hints at his ironic sense of humour: a framed "It's time" poster of Gough Whitlam.

We're also surprised to spy a copy of progressive culture warrior David Marr's new book Panic on his desk. "You've got to know what the mad Left is up to," he quips.

In fact, Textor's views on abortion, gay marriage and drug policy are closer to Marr's than, say, Miranda Devine's.

But he can't stomach Panic's central thesis: that Australians are easily whipped into fear by crusading shock jocks and manipulative politicians.

"There's a very poor view and very patronising view in the elite media that somehow what they call the punters ... can be fooled," he says. "The mad left's obsession with 'dog whistling' is absurd. They're essentially saying to people they're dogs when they're actually discriminating, discerning consumers and members of society."

Textor, the Darwin-raised son of a Northern Territory policeman, says he's learnt two important things from his 25 years tracking the nation's mood. Firstly, Australians are "collectively very smart and they'll spot a rat early". Secondly, polling should be used to help politicians sell a message -- not to create policy.

"John Howard, for example, was a reformist prime minister: the guns buyback, the introduction of the GST, two tranches of industrial relations reform. Our take is that successful prime ministers must have an agenda. A research and communications firm helps them ensure that agenda is communicated effectively."

*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.

Heartland Anonymous Donor revealed. Crikey yesterday reported The New York Times would today reveal the "anonymous donor" of the Heartland Institute -- an individual who has given over US$13 million since 2007. The Times didn't, but here's a hot tip: Chicago industrialist Barre Seid. You can read all about Seid, a highly conservative and but publicity shy man, in this Daily Kos article which speculates over whether he may be the donor. Several sources have told Crikey he is indeed the man -- The Times apparently didn't run it today because it's President's Day and therefore a public holiday.

In other interesting Heartland news, the person who leaked the Heartland Institute documents to media outlets has just outed themselves. Well-known climate scientist and Huffington Post blogger Peter H Gleick just admitted that "in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. 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."

HuffPo Oz coming soon (after India). Speaking of Arianna Huffington's online giant, now that The Huffington Post has launched in France insiders tell us an Australian beachhead is not too far away. India is expected to launch next, with an Australian site later in the year. The company was advertising for an Australian editor last year.

Battle on for Hulls' Victorian seat. The departure of former Victorian deputy premier Rob Hulls from the seat of Niddrie pits five candidates against each other for preselection, including solicitor Sebastian Agricola, long-time ALP hack Ben Carroll and more recent member (and Hulls staffer) Jaclyn Symes. An (clearly biased) insider reports on the preselection tussle: "Sebastian Agricola was streams ahead but as it is a right-wing seat he should have joined the Right months ago and would now be a sure thing. But Symes is the issue. Worked for Hulls for four years before then deciding to join the ALP less than two years ago. Hulls was a poor local member and she promises nothing better." Ouch.

Gloomy assessments of Wesfarmers business. Yesterday, Fairfax business reporter Adele Ferguson described retail conglomerate Wesfarmers' results delivered last week as "a disturbingly low return on invested capital". A couple of market watchers were whispering the same thing to us. "Too much self-belief," said one of Wesfarmers management, persisting with a model that "worked in a boom market from the mid-'90s until recently -- as with all other conglomerates, the model just does not work in gloom markets."

"Problem for Wesfarmers is they were naively arrogant enough to think they were different/better than the rest. As anyone who has met and/or had dealings with the Wesfarmers team will tell you, they have always been a very average bunch of people. The Coles takeover was a case in point -- when the WES team arrived, they knew nothing about Coles, but treated the incumbents as if they knew nothing about supermarket retailing. Pride comes before a fall."

Another watcher doubted the turnaround of Coles supermarkets and the expertise of imported directors:

"Truth be known, Coles is not running well and is nowhere near a successful turnaround. Wesfarmers are paying absolute top dollar for UK execs who do the same job as locals who were made redundant -- and they don't do it any better. Coles has not introduced one new initiative since WES took over. All that has happened is the new UK crew have just adopted the projects that the old Aussie Coles management team developed. When you pay too much for a business and then pay too much for people to run it who don't do a better job, you are bound to get into trouble."

Hundreds of staff go in VET cuts. An education insider reckons up to 1000 jobs were shed last year from the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector. Crikey is monitoring layoffs under its Sackwatch banner and has been told to take a closer look at TAFEs and private registered training organisations. They report:

"The TAFE  and private RTOs parts has shrunk because of reduced government funding and reduced demand. At the end of 2011 (I believe) Box Hill TAFE made 70 teachers redundant; Holmesglen made 50 redundant (but only 22 were teachers); William Angliss Institute made 30 redundant (20 volunteered); Victoria University TAFE made 30 redundant; Chisolm TAFE certainly made some redundant (I was on some interview panels) but I do not know how many.

"There is no reason to believe the others are different: South West Institute of TAFE, Kangan Batman, NMIT, RMIT (TAFE), BRIT (Bendigo), GOTAFE (Gippsland Ovens), Gordon (Geelong), Sunraysia, Ballarat University (TAFE), Gippsland TAFE and East Gippsland TAFE. My employer Swinburne (TAFE) did not make anyone redundant. They just did two things: did not renew 12-month contracts (the poor sods do not get a redundancy package) and reduced the number of sessional (casual staff). I suspect the private sector was far worse because many RTOs have just stopped trading. I suspect there has been little change with enterprise RTOs."

Has your company put off staff? Have you heard of other layoffs? Drop us a line or use the anonymous form.

Melbourne fliers lose in Qantas cuts. There's a sting in the tail regarding the recent Qantas' recent announcement it was ending a daily Auckland-to-Los Angeles service. "It means that Melbourne passengers drop from two to one daily flights to LA," our plane-watcher notes. "QF25, which went via Auckland to LA, will be no more from May 6. A search of Qantas schedules before May 6 shows two Melb-LA flights a day, after shows just one."

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

In the school of bat country crazy, this American "analyst" graduates with flying colours. Tune into her commentary -- replete with photographic evidence -- explaining that Barack Obama has been possessed by a reptilian alien. "This is our tax dollars at work. Implanting our president," she says.

View our Video of the Day gallery

One of the principal architects of Germany’s push into renewable energy technologies, Hans-Josef Fell, believes that the country could achieve 100% renewables in its electricity sector by 2030 -- and may do it quicker. The rest of the world could follow soon after.

Fell, a Greens politician and architect of the the feed-in-tariffs that have helped the country already produce 20% of its energy from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources, and pushed it to the forefront of clean energy technologies, says the growth of renewables will continue at an exponential rate. This is partly because of the growing cost of conventional fossil fuels, and partly because of their inability (apart from gas) to balance the intermittent nature of renewable energy generation.

In an interview with RenewEconomy, Fell says a 100% renewables electricity grid in Germany may be 40-50% wind, 30-40% solar, with the rest coming from other sources. Balancing this generation, however, would be the key challenge.

"This is not possible with baseload, because you cannot switch them on and off very fast," he said. "It was possible with gas-fired power stations, but peaking gas stations these were also emissions-intensive, and European countries such as Germany had to depend on gas imports from Russia. He said new smart grid technologies and storage, where costs would also rapidly decline, would provide the answer.

Fell is effectively echoing the scenarios painted by Australian researchers David Mills, and from Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston at UNSW -- along with preliminary work by the IEA, which suggests the concept of baseload and peaking power -- the current model for electricity grids worldwide -- will be replaced by a system of flexible and inflexible energy sources.

The ability to provide dispatchable, cost-competitive energy, will largely decide the fate of the 100% renewable goal, and of gas. Fell says there is clearly resistance from the conventional electricity energy, which sees its business model at risk, and which he says is fighting with "lies and misinformation."

The cost appears horrendous. Fell puts it at $US100 trillion over 20 years, if the world was to transform to an entirely 100% grid by 2030. It’s an academic number -- based around work done by Stanford and Davis universities in the US, but he says the world would be paying double that if it continued with conventional fuel sources. And he says while feed in tariffs might cause higher energy costs initially, these are quickly absorbed by the "merit order effect", and will deliver further benefit as the cost curves of falling renewable energy sources and rising conventional sources intersect, as they have already done with onshore wind and coal and gas in Europe.

Here are some edited highlights of the interview with Fell.

Q: How has the renewable energy debate evolved in Germany?

A: In Germany it began at local level, and after successful introductions in villages and towns it came to the national level with the introduction of the Renewable Energy Act into Parliament in 2000. I wrote the draft for that act, which was introduced by the Social Democrats and the Greens. We set a target for renewable to double shares from 6% to 12% by 2010. We were told this target was unrealistic and unachievable. But in 2011, we have already 20%. The feed-in-tariff has driven high investment and so much innovation -- in wind power and biogas and solar PV, that costs have dropped down very fast and solar PV is now as cheap as grid electricity.

Q: But there has been a lot of criticism about the FiT and its costs.

A: This comes from the conventional energy producers because they fear for their business models, and they make a lot of misinformation. In reality, in Germany the wholesale price of electricity is going down. When we have a lot of wind and sun, we can close down the most expensive electricity generation, and we get a price which is cheaper than without renewables. Now, new investment in wind power is cheaper than new coal-fired power station, and it will continue to fall. With oil and gas and coal and uranium, the prices will rise and rise and rise.

Q: So you say that the business model of the conventional producer is under threat?

A: There is a fight in Germany between the old economy with nuclear and coal-fired power stations, because they fear for their business, so they fight very hard. We had the discussion in Germany that when you phase out nuclear, then our need for cheap energy means we will have to buy cheap nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic. The reality is otherwise. We have had a big cold winter, and France did not have enough from nuclear, so they bought electricity from Germany. We have so much that we can export it to France and help them in a cold winter so they don’t get a blackout.

And we are not at the end of the innovation process. Look at the semiconductor and information technology industries, where prices have been dropping down very very fast in the past 20 years, like laptops, mobile phones, etc. PV is like semiconductors, the PV price will go down very fast in coming years. Solar will become the cheapest energy that we can have in the world.

Q: So how quickly do you think we can we move to 100% renewables?

A: In Germany, we could achieve 100% renewable by 2030 at existing rates. We have now 20% in 2010. In 2020 with increasing rates -- and these are exponential, we could have 50%, and in 2030 we could have 100%. It is possible but it must be supported by a good political framework, with reduced FiT tariffs, privileged grid access, and other regulatory changes.

Read the full story on our website

As the name suggests, coal seam gas is a type of natural gas extracted from coal seams.

Natural gas is a mixture of a number of different gases. At least 80% is methane, a colourless, odourless gas (at normal temperatures and pressures). Methane is the simplest possible hydrocarbon -- molecules made entirely of a combination of hydrogen and carbon. Depending on the source, natural gas will also contain varying amounts of other hydrocarbons such as propane (which is a major constitutent of the LPG used in cars), carbon dioxide, and other compounds like hydrogen sulphide ("rotten egg gas"). Some of these, such as the carbon dioxide, must be removed before the gas can be used.

Natural gas is extremely widely used. It is the piped gas most urban Australians use to heat their water and cook their food. It is also used to generate electricity, and is used industrially, both as a source of heat and a feedstock in important industrial processes. Ammonia, a key ingredient in fertilizer, is produced using natural gas. It can also be used as a transport fuel, such as the natural gas-powered buses becoming increasingly common in major cities. About 22% of the world’s energy is produced by burning natural gas.

Natural gas has a number of attractive properties as a fuel. It is the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels. Burning natural gas results in much less carbon dioxide for the same amount of energy as burning petrol, diesel, and especially coal. Furthermore, natural gas combustion releases far, far less of the other major combustion pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, particulates, ozone, and nitrogen oxides, than burning equivalent quantities of other fossil fuels. Globally, these pollutants kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Producing electricity from burning gas has other attractions. Gas-fired power stations can be built more cheaply than most other types, and can be started and stopped easily. Therefore, they are particularly useful for “peaking” power stations which are only operated as needed. As intermittent renewable energy sources like solar and wind produce a greater fraction of our electricity in the medium term, this property will be even more valuable.

The combination of natural gas’s attractive features, and the increase in world energy demand, has resulted in a substantial increase in natural gas consumption. This is expected to continue for some time to come.

Coal seam gas: where does it come from?

"Conventional" natural gas is found trapped in rock formations in a similar way to crude oil -- indeed, most gas wells produce a little oil and vice versa. Historically, Australia’s gas supply has come from these sources, from places such as the Bass Strait fields off Victoria’s coastline, and the North West Shelf fields off the far north-west coast of Western Australia. However, with the increase in global demand for natural gas, and the development of technology to liquefy and ship natural gas around the world, there has been much interest in alternative sources of natural gas.

Coal, like oil and gas, is a "fossil fuel" -- it is the fossilised remains of long-dead plants and animals from millions of years ago. While some coal, such as that found in parts of Victoria, may only be a few million years old, Queensland's black coal is far older, in most cases beginning to form 100 million or more years ago. It is the most abundant fossil fuel, both in Australia and globally. Australia has the world’s fourth-largest coal reserves. There are many known coal deposits that are uneconomic to mine directly.

In the chemical reactions that ultimately result in coal formation, natural gas is also formed. Much of it leaks into the atmosphere over those millions of years, but some ends up trapped within the structure of the coal, along with large quantities of water which helps trap the gas.

Coal seam gas is extracted by drilling wells into an underground "seam" of coal, then pumping some of the water out, allowing the natural gas present in the seam to escape and be collected.

When prospecting for CSG, a mining company will first drill an exploratory well, testing whether the area is a good source of CSG. If the test well is successful, multiple production wells will be drilled.

In many areas where CSG prospecting and production are currently occuring including the Surat Basin, companies drill through the aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin, which were formed between 65 and 250 million years ago. In addition, there are many alluvial or sub-artesian aquifers which lie closer to the surface. The GAB and alluvial aquifers are accessed on a widespread basis for agriculture, industry and human consumption on farms and in towns.

Read the full story on our website

The coal seam gas issue presents a wicked problem. Wicked problems are hard to define, have competing values and cannot be definitively solved. For wicked risks, perceptions are just as important as the risks themselves.

So when a wicked risk becomes a hot political issue how do you know whether you’re being reliably informed or being sold a pink surfboard? Recently, Ben Cubby reported in The Sydney Morning Herald on the public relations challenges discussed at an industry conference:

"A consultant, Daniel Tormey, recounted his experience with the development of oil drilling off California’s coast, and drew parallels with opposition to the coal seam gas industry in Australia.

"Environmental concerns were addressed, and the public had not logged any major objections, he said, but then the Hollywood actor Daryl Hannah was photographed carrying a pink surfboard and protesting about oil drilling. At that point, support for the industry collapsed, and he warned gas executives that the same thing could happen here. 'Once you see the pink surfboard you know you can’t win.'"

Advocates, both pro and con CSG, are trying to capture public opinion and create their own pink surfboard moment, while preventing their opposition from getting the upper hand.

The coal seam gas industry is seeking a social licence to operate. Part of that social licence is tacit, where the community recognises the benefits of an industry and accepts it is acting in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. Another part of that licence is exercised by government in permitting the activity and ensuring that a range of conditions are met on behalf of the community.

Here’s what the Australian coal industry says about its social licence:

"The Australian coal industry respects that its long-term future relies on its ‘social licence’ to operate. This means that the majority of the community remains supportive of Australia’s coal mining industry once aware of the economic and employment the industry provides; the essential products that it produces for domestic and overseas markets for energy, steelmaking and other industrial processes; and the impacts it can have on the environment and some local communities."

It also states:

"The Australian coal industry places premium value on maintaining its social licence to operate. In order to do so, the industry promotes the pro-active steps that it is taking to address impacts on the environment and some local communities, and works with those communities and governments to address concerns as they arise. The objective is to ensure the responsible, long-term development of Australia’s coal resources in a manner that is accepted and supported by the Australian community."

The industry's licence to operate is focused on maintaining a healthy coal industry. This is also relevant to other fossil fuel resources including coal seam gas. Continuation of the industry is a core part of their social LTO. Transforming the industry away from fossil fuel extraction to another form of energy resource is not on the table.

Other players would like to see this licence suspended or even cancelled because of the risks from fossil fuel emissions to groundwater and to agricultural productivity. So the stakes are high.

Three areas of risk are particularly relevant to negotiating wicked risks: calculated risk, perceived risk and political risk.

Calculated risk is the estimate of risk calculated by expert assessment. This combines science and values to estimate the likelihood of risk and assess the costs and benefits of various options for risk management. Aspects of calculated risk surrounding CSG include the identification of reserves, exploration and extraction, the interaction of CSG and groundwater, the greenhouse gas footprint of the production and consumption cycle, land-use and land planning, onsite environmental impacts and broader social and environmental outcomes.

Critical environmental issues include the extraction and injection of groundwater, the chemistry of the coal seam gas and groundwater, the chemical agents used to extract the gas, and the volumes  and quality of groundwater consumed in the process.

Perceived risk is how a risk and risk management options are seen by an observer. It includes how that person frames that risk via their personal values, but is also affected by a number of heuristics, or mental rules of thumb. For example, the short-term framing of economic gains from fossil fuel extraction is very different to long-term values attached to the sustainable use of groundwater. The value that a farmer puts on their livelihood is often very different to how a mining company will maximise shareholder return.

Read the full story on our website

Too late to call a showdown. A few weeks back I thought the best tactic for Julia Gillard to put an end to the speculation about leadership was to surprise her colleagues by declaring her job vacant and see what happened. My reasoning was that Kevin Rudd would resist the opportunity to avoid a humiliating defeat but in so doing would make it very hard for himself to mount a challenge any time in the near future no matter how dismal the opinion polls became.

That opportunity has now passed.

The Rudd supporters have had time to bolster their support to the point where a defeat for their man would allow him to retire to the backbench like a reincarnation of Paul Keating and wait for the time when MPs become really desperate about their chances of holding their seats and he can strike again.

The one thing going for Miss Gillard now is that Kevin Rudd obviously does love being Foreign Minister while ever he is denied being Prime Minister. He does not appear to fancy the prospect of sitting on the backbench for six months. If so he will not be goaded into challenging and the phoney war will continue unless, and until, the support for Labor gets to the point where a majority of MPs see him as their only chance of retaining their seats.

Preparing to spend $5 billion a year extra on education. Treasury had better start recruiting some deficit owls. The owls are a breed of economists at the opposite end of the spectrum to those deficit hawks with their message of austerity. Their help will be needed if Australian governments state and federal really are going to spend an extra $5 billion a year of the country’s schools.

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 alright when an economy is in recession, owls advocate deficit spending almost all of the time.

I was unaware of this breed until introduced to them this week by a piece on Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog in the Washington Post which featured the views of James K. "Jamie" Galbraith (the son of the really famous one.)

You should find the whole story interesting but this will give you some of the flavour:

… as the soaring federal budget deficit has sharpened political and economic differences in Washington, Galbraith is mostly concerned about the dangers of keeping it too small. He’s a key figure in a core debate among economists about whether deficits are important and in what way. The issue has divided the nation’s best-known economists and inspired pockets of passion in academic circles. Any embrace by policymakers of one view or the other could affect everything from employment to the price of goods to the tax code.

In contrast to "deficit hawks" who want spending cuts and revenue increases now in order to temper the deficit, and "deficit doves" who want to hold off on austerity measures until the economy has recovered, Galbraith is a deficit owl. Owls certainly don’t think we need to balance the budget soon. Indeed, they don’t concede we need to balance it at all. Owls see government spending that leads to deficits as integral to economic growth, even in good times.

The term isn’t Galbraith’s. It was coined by Stephanie Kelton, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, who with Galbraith is part of a small group of economists who have concluded that everyone -- members of Congress, think tank denizens, the entire mainstream of the economics profession -- has misunderstood how the government interacts with the economy. If their theory -- dubbed "Modern Monetary Theory" or MMT -- is right, then everything we thought we knew about the budget, taxes and the Federal Reserve is wrong.

Helping the bankers and financial speculators. Once more into the breach go governments to supposedly help Greece but actually to benefit those foolish and greedy enough to lend to it. So, as the German magazine Der Spiegel puts it "Stop the second bailout package -- EU Should Admit Greece is Bankrupt."

Greece is bankrupt and will need a 100 percent debt cut to get back on its feet. The bailout package about to be agreed by the euro finance ministers will help Greece's creditors more than the country itself. EU leaders should channel the aid into rebuilding the economy rather than rewarding financial speculators for their high-risk deals.

Getting ready for World War III. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the President of the World Chess Federation (FIDE), took a moment off from announcing details of the World Chess Championships this week to warn that a third world war could unfold in Syria.

One of the last men to speak to Muammar Gaddafi before his death when the played a final game of chess while the bombs rained down, Mr Ilyumzhinov told the Moscow Times that "what I saw in Libya is now repeating itself in Syria." If NATO began military action in Syria, "it would be the start of a third world war," Ilyumzhinov said. "Next would be Iran and other countries with oil and gas -- Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan."

As you consider the relevance of this warning, keep in mind that the FIDE President is perhaps best known is known for the alien abduction he said he experienced in 1997. Human-like creatures in yellow spacesuits visited him in his Moscow apartment and took him for a ride in their spaceship, he said last year.

And as for those World Chess Championships, in the absence of World War III they will take place in Moscow in May with the Soviet-educated Israeli citizen Boris Gelfand challenging world champion Viswanathan Anand for $2.55 million in prize money. *Relive Crikey's 2010 World Championship Chess coverage here.

And a Putin victory. And while on matters Russia, the latest weekly survey by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center shows a continuing increase in support for Vladimir Putin in the contest to be elected once again as the country’s president. Support of 49% at the beginning of the year has now reached 58.6% which would see him elected without the need for a runoff election.

Women do the work but it’s the men that get the money. Another example this morning of the inequality of the sexes. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that more women participate in cultural activities, but men are more likely to get paid for their involvement.

The ABS figures show that in 2010–11, over a quarter (27% or 4.7 million people) of Australians 15 years or older participated in a cultural activity – such as dancing, sculpting, painting, drawing or cartooning.

Women had a higher participation rate in cultural activities (31%) than men (23%), but when it came to being paid, 18% of men received a wage, salary or other payment for their participation in cultural activities compared with 12% of women receiving payment for their involvement.

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

When Tony Windsor was questioned yesterday over his allegiance in any ALP leadership swap, the independent MP declared Kevin Rudd wouldn't get his automatic support. "I would be going back to the start and deciding between two candidates, Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd," he said. "Or whether there should be a third option -- let the people make the decision."

Fellow independent Rob Oakeshott made similar remarks. Less than two years ago it was their dual support that secured Julia Gillard the prime ministership. Gillard cinched the votes of Windsor and Oakeshott with a deal for regional development, education and infrastructure worth millions.

So it seems appropriate that one of those hung parliament initiatives, a new think tank dedicated to regional issues, is set to launch next week. The Regional Australia Institute (RAI) will focus specifically on national debate that affects regional Australia, including mining, tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and transport.

"Compared to international jurisdictions, Australia doesn't have a good research base of regional development," Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, told Crikey. "So this is an opportunity to get greater co-ordination in regional thinking and regional policy development. That was the fundamental behind it."

Mal Peters, the new chairman of the RAI, spoke to Crikey about his aims and hopes for the institute. He thinks the RAI can help to raise the profile of regional issues in metro public spheres.

"The reality is because the majority of the populations are in the metropolitan centres, that tends to suck the oxygen out of the space that regional Australia can become involved [in]," said Peters. "Regional Australia has always lacked power in national debates because our advocates have lacked [the] sophisticated analysis and arguments [that can] influence governments. Our role will be to capture independent thinking from the best brains domestically and internationally, innovative solutions to some of these intractable problems that are in regional areas.

"We also need to assist those communities that are going through transition and find better ways of engaging the regional communities for delivering services. The benefits of that are to make sure the nation as a whole gains the benefits."

Peters says that this is the first national independent think tank devoted to regional issues.

"I see this institute’s role is to make sure that factual base is in the national debates. Equally, to make sure that the research that is out there and the research that we conduct will be the bridge between academia and policy makers. There’s an awful lot of research conducted that sits on university shelves and doesn’t go anywhere."

Oakeshott agrees there is plenty of work being done and says there is a distinct lack of co-ordination. He says a key to the success of the RAI will be as much a matter of co-ordination of existing research as in creating new research. As well as presenting governments with the results of research that can have an effect on policy making, the RAI will also engage with the media.

"I would hope metro media as much as anyone else wants to engage all Australians," said Oakeshott. "If there is some research that is newsworthy that makes people think about life outside metro areas a bit more, then Mal -- and others hopefully -- will be able to get that in front of as many people as possible. That’s not the reason behind the institute but if that’s one of the secondary benefits of its existence, then great."

One problem the RAI may turn its attention to is the issue of land use, where mining companies and farmers want to use the same bits of land for different purposes.

"The land-use conflict issues, the issues that are associated with fly-in-fly-out workers -- and that’s not only in the mining industry, that’s happening across a number of sectors at the moment -- that creates a lot of strains on rural communities," said Peters. "I don’t think it’s clearly understood what the impacts are, what the costs are, but more importantly what opportunities could be created perhaps if it could be done a different way."

Peters stressed the need for factual bases when discussing regional issues such as land use, foreign ownership of agricultural land, food security and food pricing: "We don’t want to lose opportunities because we get bogged in debates that are being run on emotional lines rather than factual lines."

Focusing on the facts could also lead to the RAI assuming an advocacy role for the regions.

"Regional Australia is quite often portrayed [in the metropolitan media] in times of adversity, in droughts and in situations like that," said Peters. "So the mental picture is painted of a poor-bugger-me-give-us-a-hand type mentality, rather than 'this is an exciting place, there’s dynamic things happening, we are significant contributors to national wealth, here’s our story'. We need to be selling positive messages about regional Australia to make sure that people can see what a dynamic and exciting opportunity it can be."

Peters notes that regional centres such as Wollongong, Port Hedland, the Gold Coast and Lake Macquarie are growing as fast or faster than capital cities. He also says that regional Australia contributes about 67% of the nation’s export income. "Population growth in some of these regional centres equals and even exceeds the 1.8% growth experienced by major cities," he said.

The RAI’s CEO has been selected but the name cannot yet be announced. The board that Peters chairs holds five other people: Ian Sinclair is a former leader of the National Party, professor Sandra Harding is the vice-chancellor of James Cook University, Dr Ngaire Brown was one of Australia’s first Aboriginal doctors, Grant Latta is a former chairman of Grains Research Development Corporation, and Christian Zahra is a former member of federal parliament from the Australian Labor Party. Peters himself is a former president of the NSW Farmers Association and runs a beef cattle farm in NSW.

He says the RAI will be "completely independent" of government. It has tax-free status, and is working with the Australian Tax Office so that donations made to it will be tax-deductible. It has seed funding of $8 million, enough to cover operations for an initial three years, but Peters says the RAI will be approaching other potential donors from time to time.

"We’ll be talking to state governments on a project-by-project basis and talking to corporations on a project-by-project basis. And making sure that we can leverage extensively those funds that we have as seed funding," he said.

The RAI will be launched at Parliament House on February 28. Simon Crean, the Minister for Regional Australia, will officiate alongside Peters.

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

Most of us leave behind an ever-growing digital trail that includes information that we publish about ourselves -- such as Facebook postings -- and information published about us. While the ability to share personal information can enhance our lives, there is a dark side. Embarrassing photos of us socialising, for example, can later be used against us for very different purposes, such as in the employment context.

As our personal lives become more visible, it may be that social attitudes will adjust, so we become more tolerant and forgiving of personal lapses or foibles. But one of the paradoxes of the digital age is that just as our lives have become more transparent, attitudes seem to have become more intolerant and less forgiving. In what is called the attention economy, not only public figures but ordinary people are subject to more scrutiny than ever.

The current default settings of the internet maximise openness and access. Once information is posted it becomes permanent and easily accessed, especially via search engines. Yet people’s interests in sensationalism, and the operation of search algorithms, means that the most accessible information about us is often the most embarrassing or hurtful.

Permanence, accessibility and searchability clearly benefit the business interests of some of the world’s largest companies. The business models of Google and Facebook, for example, are based on commercialising other people’s information. It is hardly surprising, then, that it is notoriously difficult to permanently delete your Facebook account.

The European Union is proposing to introduce new laws to update privacy protection to take into account changes in technology, including the growth of social networking. The proposed laws include a "right to be forgotten", meaning a right of users to ensure that some of the information held about them is erased. The proposal has generated a lot of commentary, much of it overwrought and alarmist.

There are two main criticisms of the proposed right: that it would result in unjustifiable censorship and that it is unworkable. These claims are based on a misreading of the European proposal, as well as a simplistic understanding of privacy and freedom of expression.

The proposed European law is a modest attempt to restore some balance in favour of individuals being able to control their own data. The proposed right to delete data is, in fact, highly qualified. For example, the right only arises once certain conditions are satisfied, such as that the data is no longer needed, or where data is collected or processed with a person’s consent and that consent is later withdrawn.

The proposed right is also subject to important exceptions. For example, it does not apply where it would conflict with the freedom of expression of journalists, or with freedom of artistic or literary expression. Claims that the proposal will stifle the press are therefore untrue -- there is an express exception for journalists. There is also an exception for individuals engaged in purely personal or household activities.

A couple of points should be made in response to claims that the proposed right is a form of censorship. First, privacy is not necessarily the opposite of freedom of expression -- if people feel assured they have some control over their information, they are more likely to share it. On the other hand, if people know that what they say and do online will be accessible to all, and for all time, they may be more likely to self-censor. The negative consequences of the current internet defaults could easily promote a culture of conformity.

Secondly, steps are already being taken by people to manage their digital trails. Especially in the United States, we have seen the emergence of reputation management services, which, often in return for a fee, offer to "sanitise" the internet of embarrassing or harmful information. These services can have some success; when approached, websites often simply take down information. But this raises the spectre of private censorship. And why should people pay to protect what is their own information?

Those who oppose the "right to be forgotten" are correct when they say that getting the balance between privacy and freedom of expression online is complex. As people are often unaware of the consequences of surrendering their information, however, some regulation is needed to ensure a level playing field between consumers and business. And it is preferable for this to be done through a law, which incorporates appropriate checks and balances, rather than being left to the vagaries of the unregulated market.

Regarding arguments that a right to delete information on the internet is unworkable, it is absolutely true that, due to the ease of copying information, it is difficult or impossible to ensure that information can ever be completely erased. It is also true that regulating the internet is challenging, and that it is important that laws do not unduly infringe freedoms or deter innovation.

Like many laws, however, the proposed "right to be forgotten" should not be seen as a cure-all. The most it can do is to restore some control to individuals, and provide a check on some of the most harmful online practices. Moreover, judicious laws are often needed to protect individual rights, as well as to ensure the effective operation of markets. It is ultimately more productive for debates to focus on the kind of laws and regulation that are desirable, rather than to resort to utopian fantasies of the internet as a regulation-free zone.

As we grapple with the challenges of technological change, public debate about whether and how to regulate is necessary. Reasonable people can disagree, but our understanding of these issues is not helped by a knee-jerk hostility to regulation, or by alarmist and ill-founded claims that any removal of material is a form of censorship. Australia could do worse than to consider following the European example.

*David Lindsay is an associate professor in the faculty of law, Monash University. Monash Law School will host a conference on Emerging Challenges in Privacy Law: Australian and EU Perspectives on February 23-24.

Jones, Katter, Greens unite to shut down mining. An unlikely alliance of protestors led by Bob Katter, Alan Jones and the Greens has upped its campaign against mining companies acquiring valuable farmland by blockading a coal-loading facility in Queensland.

Jones, a passionate opponent of coal seam gas expansion, teamed up yesterday with Katter and the Lock The Gate organiser and co-founder of the Australian Greens, Drew Hutton, to protest the expansion of New Hope Coal in Jondaryan west of Brisbane. Jones, who was No. 2 on our Media Megaphones power list and No. 8 on our Sydney list, said LNP opposition leader Campbell Newman had indicated to him that they would stop expansion in the area. -- The Power Index (read the full story here)

It’s a boys’ world after all, more so in Melbourne. Men still dominate board positions but according to Macquarie and Origin Energy chair Kevin McCann, the problem's worse in Melbourne where there's a strong tradition of male board members of ASX listed companies schooling and holidaying together.

''They went to the same schools, they went to the same universities, they married each other's sisters," McCann told a Centre for Economic Development of Australia forum yesterday, according to Fairfax reports. -- The Power Index (read the full story here)

Clive Palmer’s love of the game. When Westfield founder Frank Lowy started to remake the way soccer is run in Australia, one of the keys to ensuring the long-term viability of the national league was to get lots of rich blokes (and yes, they are all blokes) to own the various clubs dotted around the country. So when the Gold Cost entered the competition in 2009-10, Lowy had found the ultimate deep-pockets man in mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who has a fortune of somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion.

Clive enthusiastically backed the team at first, pouring money in, buying players, predicting premierships. But then the trouble started. -- James Thomson (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.

There is a crisis gripping News Limited on the future of newspaper home delivery in Australia. My understanding is that there is disagreement between circulation executives in some News Limited state offices and their bosses at Holt Street in Sydney on the future model of newspaper home delivery and whether newsagents are part of the model.

Dear former colleagues,

Occasionally, in the small hours, when I’ve reached the bottom of a third bottle of pinot and am preparing to curl up in one corner of the climate-controlled wine cellar until it's time for a tin of braised steak and onions and Surf Patrol, it occurs to me that retirement has robbed me of some of my sense of purpose.

I have also heard rumours that some of you in the newspaper division miss me so much that you have erected a shrine to me in the cupboard under the sink in the second floor tea room, where you leave offerings of fruit and fake Chinese money. As such, I have agreed to act occasionally in a consultancy role, as your new shitbird "CEO" settles in.

I did gently warn Rupert when he tendered my resignation that Williams has an MBA testamur where his nut sack should be.

Rupert is nothing if not headstrong, though. But he has recognised that Kim's background as a corporate greasy pole-smoker may mean that he has trouble communicating with the troops now and then.

As such I have agreed to translate his email of Thursday last for those in newspapers, who generally speak a version of English.

"Last week most of News Limited's senior leaders from across Australia gathered so I could brief them on the views I have been developing about the issues in our company and our future priorities."

You pricks make no money.

"At the session I outlined the direction and broad governing vision for the ongoing transformation program for News Limited. I have been developing this program with the Executive Team in order to respond in a connected, appropriate, fashion to the incredibly competitive, rapidly changing world in which we all live. Our mission is to see the company prosper and thrive in that environment and to ensure it does so through adopting fresh and relevant approaches that are relevant to the needs of consumers and advertisers."

You pricks need to start making money.

"Our divisional leaders have been briefing their senior teams this week and there will be a series of communications in the next few months which will describe that transformation journey and its priorities. In the meantime I thought you might appreciate some insight into the challenges I have set for the senior leadership team."

Arse-kickings are being administered gradually. They get worse as they go down. Those at the bottom may find themselves with nose bleeds.

"There is no doubt our business model is being reshaped by truly mighty forces affecting all processes of exchange and communication in society."

I have no f-cking idea how to make money either.

"This new world brings enormous opportunity -- if we are smart, and agile in our responses then we will flourish. We must relish the challenges we confront and drive ahead with confident responses built on close attention to consumers as our true north at all times."

We're f-cked.

"We start from a position of strength, with a stable of Australia’s strongest media brands and as the single largest seller of advertising by value in the country. No one can match our reach; for example, we touch over six million consumers each and every week with our magnificent Sunday network."

On the bright side we have a series of regional monopolies.

"The key to our ongoing success will be seen in ensuring every one of us puts customers at the heart of everything we do. For our editorial teams, this means our consumers. For our sales teams, our advertisers, and for support functions like HR and IT, it means for our own people."

Ramp up the t-ts and arse. I’ll have lunch with Gerry Harvey to keep him sweet.

"Similarly, we must be data and outcome-driven in our planning, aiming to satisfy customers in all our decisions. We must ensure we take the right actions in the secure knowledge of where our customers’ preferences and aspirations lie."

Did I mention that it would be helpful to sell some newspapers?

"There are two important corollaries to our customer commitment and focus on data and its reflection in our results-driven planning. First, that we will provide the best quality journalism and compelling content and second, that we will invest in engaging and developing the capabilities of our people. The importance of our journalistic quest for the best, and similarly to develop our people, is self evident to our future success."

Sorry I have no idea what that means.

Read the full story on our website

The Oz’s ALP leadership graph gaffe 2. Yesterday we reported the error-riddled Labor leadership graphic that ran in Saturday's Weekend Australian and the correction that followed in The Australian's Monday edition. ABC TV's Media Watch also picked up on the national broadsheet's howler in its program last night.

Well today, after a thorough look at The Oz's replacement graph in its edition yesterday, we discovered that the corrected graph was, in fact, incorrect. Steve Georganas is the Labor Member for Hindmarsh -- a South Australian electorate -- and is not from Western Australia ...

We look forward to The Oz getting it right next time round, third time lucky and all of that. -- Leigh Josey

Nine appoints Wick director of news and current affairs

"As expected, Nine Network Managing Director, Jeff Browne, has announced Darren Wick to the role of Director of News and Current Affairs." -- Media Spy

Fox Footy makes history in first weekend

"The new dedicated round-the-clock AFL channel, Fox Footy, has launched to record-breaking ratings for the opening weekend of the NAB Cup." -- TV Tonight

How Forbes stole a NY Times article and got all the traffic

"They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but how much is a title worth? If the story that proceeds is any indicator, a title is worth over 6700 words and months of research." -- Nick O'Neill

Tweeting a war: how one journo is using Twitter in Afghanistan

"Journalists are using Twitter more and more these days, even in an unlikely place: Afghanistan." -- Mashable

Sun on Sunday could singe its rivals

"For all the problems Murdoch and the Sun have faced in recent weeks, it is the rival Sunday tabloids that could be vulnerable to the newspaper's return." -- The Guardian

Azerbaijan arrests Iranian journo as tensions rise

"An Iranian journalist has been arrested and jailed in Azerbaijan as tensions rise between the two neighbors." -- The Washington Post

The Glenn Dyer breakdown: Seven's night, but Revenge shed 267,000 viewers from its debut a week ago of 2.067 million metro viewers. That's an acceptable loss, if it steadies around this level.

My Kitchen Rules again ruled the roost. Its audience rose to 2.525 million from 2.364 million, so there is still some momentum in this one.

Nine's Alcatraz: week two and it slipped under the million mark to 932,000. Not good.

Ten's The Biggest Loser at 7pm, 879,000, almost respectable and its best audience so far this season.

Tonight: Packed to the Rafters after My Kitchen Rules,

Nine's Two Broke Girls will be tested tonight. Nine also has a new series of Top Gear at 9.30pm: do we care?

The ABC has Foreign Correspondent at 8pm.

Ten has a fresh NCIS at 8.30pm.

SBS returns Insight at 8.30pm and then follows it with the returning Dateline at 9.30pm.

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

1. Revenge (Seven) -- 2.565 million
2. My Kitchen Rules (Seven) -- 2.525 million
3. The Big Bang Theory (Nine) -- 1.875 million
4. Seven News -- 1.856 million
5. Nine News -- 1.626 million
6. A Current Affair (Nine)  -- 1.545 million
7. Home and Away (seven) -- 1.481 million
8. Today Tonight (Seven) -- 1.460 million
9. ABC News -- 1.479 million
10. Alcatraz (Nine) -- 1.343 million

Metro Winners:

1. My Kitchen Rules (Seven) (7.30pm) -- 1.810 million
2. Revenge (Seven) (8.45pm) -- 1.8 million
3. The Big Bang Theory (Nine) (8pm) -- 1.374 million
4. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.312 million
5. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.167 million
6. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.099 million
7. The Big Bang Theory (Nine) (7.30pm) -- 1.067 million
8. Home and Away (Seven) (7pm) -- 1.037 million
9. A Current Affair (Nine) (6.30pm) -- 1.034 million
10. ABC News (7pm) -- 1.022 million

The Losers: Hawaii Five O on Ten at 9.30pm, 433,000. NCIS Los Angeles at 8.30pm, 489,000.

Metro News & CA: Nine News won 6pm in Sydney, Seven won the rest. A Current Affair won Sydney and Melbourne, Today Tonight won the rest. SBS News at 10.30pm, 46,000. If this keeps up they will be paying viewers to watch.

1. Seven News (6pm) -- 1.312 million
2. Today Tonight (Seven) (6.30pm) -- 1.167 million
3. Nine News (6pm) -- 1.099 million
4. A Current Affair (Nine) (6.30pm) -- 1.034 million
5. ABC News (7pm) -- 1.022 million
6. Ten News (5pm) -- 730,000
7. 7.30 (ABC) (7.30pm) -- 724,000
8. Q&A (ABC) (9.35pm) -- 666,000 (+70,000)
9. Media Watch (ABC) (9.20pm) -- 626,000
10. Australian Story (ABC) (8pm) -- 621,000
11. Four Corners (ABC) (8.30pm) -- 552,000
12. The Project (Ten) (6pm) -- 462,000
13. Lateline (ABC) (10.30pm) -- 287,000
14. SBS News (6.30pm) --  188,000
15. The Business (ABC) (11.05pm) -- 133,000
16. SBS News (10.30pm) -- 46,000

*On News 24 simulcast

In the morning:

1. Sunrise (Seven) (7am) -- 362,000
2. Today (Nine) (7am) -- 344,000
3. The Morning Show (Seven) (9am) -- 187,000
4. Mornings (Nine) (9am) -- 107,000
5. The Circle (Ten) (9am) -- 53,000

Metro FTA: Seven (3 channels) won with a share of 34.2%, from Nine (3 ) on 26.7%, Ten (3) was on 18.1%, the ABC (4) was on 16.9% and SBS (2) ended on 4.1%. Seven now leads the week on 31.0% from Nine on 29.2% and Ten with 18.8%. Main Channel: Seven won with a share of 28.0% from Nine on 20.8%, Ten was on 12.5%, equal with ABC 1, while SBS ONE finished with a share of 3.3%. Seven leads the week with 25.0% from Nine on 22.5% and Ten on 13.7%.

Metro Digital: 7TWO won narrowly with 3.6% from GO on 3.5%, Eleven and ABC 2 were on 3.0% each. ONE and 7mate finished with 2.6% each, Gem was on 2.4%, News 24 was on 0.9%, SBS TWO was on 0.7% and ABC 3 ended with 0.5%. The 10 digital channels had an FTA share of 21.8% last night. GO leads the week with 3.7% from 7TWO on 3.2% and Gem on 3.0%.

Pay TV: Seven (3 channels) won with a share of  28.7%, from Nine (3 ) on 22.4%, Ten (3) was on 15.2%, the ABC (4) was on 14.2%, Pay TV (200 plus channels) ended with 13.7% and SBS (2) ended on 43.4%. The 15 FTA channels had a viewing share last night of 86.3%, with the 10 digital channels on 19.2% and the five main channels with 67.1%.

The top five pay TV channels were:

1. Fox 8 (2.69%)
2. TV 1 (1.93%)
3. UK TV (1.82%)
4. Lifestyle (1.79%)
5. Fox Classics (1.67%)

The five most-watched programs on pay TV were:

1. The Simpsons (Fox 8) -- 90,900
2. Wife Swap Australia (Lifestyle You) -- 79,100
3. On The Couch (Fox Footy) -- 76,800
4. Coronation Street (UKTV ) -- 72,000
5. Futurama (Fox 8) -- 71,600

Regional: Prime/7Qld (3 channels) won with a share of 34.9% from WIN/NBN (3) on 26.8%, SC Ten (3) on 17.5%, the ABC (4) was on 16.8% and SBS (2) ended on 4.0%. Prime/7Qld won the main channels with 26.6% from WIN/NBN on 20.6%. 7TWO won the digitals with 4.9%, from GO on 3.6% and 7mate on 3.4%. The 10 digital channels had a total FTA share last night of 26.0%. Prime/7Qld now leads the week on 32.2% from WIN/NBN on 30.4%.

The five most-watched programs in regional markets were:

1. Revenge -- 765,000
2. My Kitchen Rules -- 717,000
3. Seven News -- 543,000
4. Nine News -- 527,000
5. A Current Affair -- 513,000

Major Markets: A clean sweep for Seven both overall and the main channel. It was closer in Sydney and Melbourne than in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth where Nine's offerings are now really on the nose with viewers. The ABC and ABC 1 were third overall and the main channels in Sydney as Ten sagged. ABC 1 was third in the main channels in Melbourne and shared third in Perth with Ten. GO won Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, 7TWO won the digitals in Adelaide and Perth. Nine leads in Sydney and Melbourne, Seven leads in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth and nationally.

(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

The government’s growing enthusiasm for industry handouts was on display yesterday when, with politics and the media dominated by the argy bargy over the prime ministership, Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese released for comment draft legislation to give the Australian shipping industry $62 million in generous annual tax benefits and concessions.

Under the proposed new laws, some of the world's biggest and richest shipping companies would register here and benefit by dipping into the pockets of Australian taxpayers -- groups such as Japan's Mitsui OSK, Singapore's Neptune Orient, Evergreen of Taiwan and the world's biggest container line in Maersk. Passenger vessels and groups such as Cunard, Carnival Cruises or P&O will be able to take advantage of improved depreciation value and a generous definition of shipping to include passengers as well as cargo.

Albanese spruiked the changes in The Australian:

"Our industry has declined from 55 ships in 1995 to just 22 today. This is despite the fact Australia accounts for 10% of the world's sea trade. But while 99% of our international trade is carried by ships, only 0.5% of that is carried by vessels displaying the Australian flag … With so few ships, an ageing fleet and a declining workforce, our industry is facing extinction. Such a collapse is not just an economic tragedy. There are security and environmental reasons an Australian shipping industry is essential."

Albanese, at least, didn't hide what the "reforms" on "our blue highway" were about:

"At the heart of the package is tax reform. We recognise foreign operators enjoy very competitive rates. We want not simply to catch up but to lead them. Thus the tax arrangement agreed to includes a proposed zero tax rate. In other words, Australian-based companies with vessels registered here, including those that will operate internationally, will pay no company tax. There are conditions: ships must be Australian-flagged, they must embark on training new mariners, once they elect into the exemption they must remain there for 10 years and there will be a 10-year lock-out period to curb tax avoidance."

It’s the oldest protectionist argument of all -- the foreigners are wasting money subsidising an industry, so we should too. The $62 million total isn't a lot in the scheme of things, but that’s how a lot of old-style protectionism started as well.

And nowhere does Albanese address the question that must always be asked: who will benefit?

An explanatory paper issued yesterday had the detail and its devils. Section 2 is the important one, detailing just what "shipping" will meet Australia's low bar:

• carrying the shipping cargo or shipping passengers on the vessel;
• crewing the vessel;
• carrying goods on board for the operation of the vessel (including for the enjoyment of shipping passengers);
• providing the containers that carry shipping cargo on the vessel; and
• loading shipping cargo onto, and unloading it from, the vessel.

But tugs and offshore vessels (working for oil companies, maintenance groups, explorers and services groups, especially in the busy waters off the northern WA coast) are explicitly omitted. It seems they don't do the same work on "our blue highway" that cargo and passenger vessels do for the country, even if their work is very necessary to generating national income.

But here’s why the legislation is a rort. Right now the global cargo industry is depressed because of oversupply of all sorts of ships, from giant tankers to huge iron ore, coal and grain carriers. Too many were built from 2008 onwards, too many remain to be built and delivered over the next three years. The only vessels not in oversupply are LNG tankers, which have been mopped up by Japan in the aftermath of Fukushima.

Global shipping rates as measured by the Baltic Dry Index have slumped to near-record lows, not because there is a downturn in demand (far from it, especially in iron ore, coal and grains and oil), but because of the expanding oversupply. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, Xstrata and other companies charter these ships on a short-term basis and don't worry where they are owned; all they are interested in is cost, safety levels and reliability. These ships are mostly already owned and operated from low-tax countries or countries offering flags of convenience.

And who else ultimately benefits from this? The Australian shipping industry, such as it is, mainly consists of the Maritime Union of Australia. The MUA will be the big winner from incentives for training and local crewing. As Albanese points out, the Australian seafaring workforce is declining and ageing. Taxpayers will be helping to revitalise the union’s membership.

Finally, the claim by Albanese that "cleaner, better maintained Australian ships" would be better for our "precious marine ecosystems" is a furphy. Clean, well-run ships are possible now, just better, tougher and more vigilant supervision is needed (and would be needed in the case of more Australian-owned-and-crewed vessels). The same applies to better security.

We don’t need an Australian fleet that’s not commercially viable; Australian ships are no automatic guarantee of more environmentally friendly operation or better security. It's how the regulation and oversight is carried out is the key to prevent or stop problems happening. That's the government's current and future responsibility at all times, not just through a nice tax fiddle.

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

The chances of Greece being bailed out in the true sense of the phrase are receding. Instead it looks increasingly likely that the country will need years of "life support" measures from the rest of Europe to survive without default. The country is fading from from recession to depression to become what is essentially a black hole, where the cost of keeping it alive and out of default may top the E240 billion  market (or close to $A290 billion).

The Financial Times reported late this morning that a third bailout for Greece is needed because the country is broke and faces few opportunities to climb out of its current hole for years to come.

As eurozone finance ministers met late in Monday night in Brussels to try and finalise the second E130 billion bailout, it has become increasingly apparent that the country's finances are in worse shape and there is every chance it will need one or two more bailouts between now and 2020. That means the world economy and financial markets face the possibility of years of sudden leaps and falls in confidence as Greece staggers from crisis to crisis.

That in turn will undermine whatever confidence is happening in Italy, Portugal and Spain. Credit rating downgrades as we have seen since late last year, could become more regular for European countries and their banks and the European Central Bank could be lending a trillion euros to the area's banks for years to keep countries and banks alive.

Greece would be reduced to a zombie state, sullen, dependant on the goodwill of Europe's giants such as Germany, or it could decide it's all to hard and default and to hell with it.

FT says that a "strictly confidential" report on Greece’s debt projections prepared for eurozone finance ministers reveals Athens’ rescue program is way off track and suggests the Greek government may need another bailout once a second rescue -- set to be agreed on Monday night -- runs out.

"The 10-page debt sustainability analysis, distributed to eurozone officials last week but obtained by the Financial Times on Monday night, found that even under the most optimistic scenario, the austerity measures being imposed on Athens risk a recession so deep that Greece will not be able to climb out of the debt hole over the course of a new three-year, E170 billion bailout."

Reading the FT report and earlier ones on the country's position, it's clear that three more years of recession/depression would mean the country has been in the red for eight years, with every chance that could continue closer towards 2020. So the talks in Brussels have to get some sort of agreement to provide more aid to Greece, otherwise it is likely to default when a E14.5 billion bond redemption comes due on March 20.

In fact the paper said there was every chance that Greece would need ongoing financial support, so weak was its economy and so poor had been its adherence to previously agreed austerity measures under the first E110 billion bailout.

The report said the total cost of bailing out Greece could reach E245 billion euros. That was after the FT reported a few hours earlier that the possible cost had jumped to E170 billion.

In fact, the news is just as bad for the rest of Europe, for global financial markets and for banks in Australia (and home borrowers, small business, politicians and the RBA). It means financial markets won't settle down, there could be periodic eruptions of volatility and blows to confidence, even as the global economy, led by the US, Germany and China, struggles back onto a growth path.

That will mean volatile funding rates for banks here and offshore and periods where we get rounds of complaints from banks about being under cost/revenue/profit pressures requiring higher interest rates.

The Financial Times said the report warns that "Forcing austerity on Greece could cause debt levels to rise by severely weakening the economy while its E200 billion debt restructuring could prevent Greece from ever returning to the financial markets by scaring off future private investors."

Greece has failed to do what it committed itself to doing in May 2010 year and late last year. The economy shrank 7% in the final quarter of last year compared to the last quarter of 2010. It shrank 5% in the September quarter from a year earlier, so the plunge towards depression is accelerating, not slowing.

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

The market is up 1. The SFE Futures were up 2 this morning.

US markets were closed for the President’s Day holiday. European markets were higher on hopes that Greece will finally secure a bailout and avoid default and on news of China easing monetary policy over the weekend. The gold price was higher on the Chinese news, up $9.60 to $1735.50. Metals were up on the LME. The Aussie dollar was down, now buying 107.57¢. The oil price up $1.68 to $104.92

Main points:

• Oil Search (OSH) released their FY results. Profit was up 9% to $235.7m beating an expected $228.4m. Final dividend was 2c as expected. The PNG LNG Project remains on track to generating significant revenues.
• Boart Longyear (BLY) released their FY results. Profit was up 89% to US$160m which beat an expected US$146.9m. Revenue was up 37% to $2.02bn.
• Downer EDI Limited (DOW) 1^stH profit up 19% to $85m exceeding expectations of $80.7m. Stronger than anticipated revenue $3.8bn vs consensus $3.4bn.
• Monadelphous Group (MND) released their 1st H results. Profit was $57.5m up 26.3% in line with a consensus $57.8m. Sales revenue was $879.5m up 25.6%. They will pay a fully franked dividend of 50c up from 40c.
• OneSteel Limited (OST) reported a first half net loss of $74m, down from last year's $116m profit. Was better than an expected $57m loss. Result included an impairment charge of $130m relating to the write down of LiteSteel Technologies businesses. Unfranked interim dividend of 3c maintained.
• Mirvac Group (MGR) released their HY results. Profit was up 1% to $176.6m better than an expected $167.3m. Total revenue down 16% to $805.6m. Quarter distribution was 2c.
• Flight Centre (FLT) released their interim results. Profit was $81.6 up 16% in line with a consensus $83.1m. EBITDA was $137.5m up 13.4%. A fully franked dividend of 41c was announced up from 36c.
• Sonic Healthcare (SHL) released their 1stH results. Profit up 6% to $143m below consensus of $149m. Revenue was $1.642bn up 9%. Strong Aussie dollar has softened results. SHL is on track to deliver FY2012 guidance of EBITDA growth 10-15%.
• Leighton Holdings (LEI) has won a $515m contract to build a luxury hotel complex in Dubai. It will become the largest integrated hotel complex in the Middle East
• Marcus Today has added a new trade to our Trading Section today. A mining services company with good results, good management, a strong outlook statement, a PE around 8x, Yield around 8%, dividend due, financially strong, has cash, a share  buyback and is recovering from a profit and share price dip. To read more sign up for a free trial at www.marcustoday.com.au.

For a five day FREE TRIAL of the MARCUS TODAY newsletter Click Here. You will receive our renowned and popular Daily email about the stockmarket with all the stuff you need to know ahead of the trading day including:

• Overnight developments, news, comments, rumours, broker recommendations and ideas from Marcus and his Team.
• Our Portfolio recommendations which is actively managed on behalf of subscribers … no “set & forget”. Everything you need to effortlessly
• managed your own long term investment portfolio.        
• Daily Technical Trading ideas and data, including daily scans of the ASX 300 for stocks changing trend.
• Stock Database — all the numbers with comments on the top 300 stocks and more.
• Educational section — Marcus’s Educational and Entertaining articles.

Subscribe to MARCUS TODAY. We are sure you will enjoy and profit from what we offer … we have one of the highest re subscription rates in the financial newsletter industry.

Gonski:

Gavin Moodie writes: Re. "Gonski: simple, sensible model for a terrified gov" (yesterday, Crikey website). Thanks to Bernard Keane and Crikey for the timely pieces, reporting and analysing the report of the Gonski school education funding review for those of us interested in the substantive policy issue of the day despite the cacophony on the faux federal Labor leadership challenge.

Gonski and his colleagues have presented a rational method for allocating Australian and state government funding to schools. I have an additional suggestion that would ameliorate the objections of those who oppose public payments to the rich while meeting the avowed aims of the proponents of private schools.

Part or preferably all of government funding for private schools should be changed from a grant to schools to an income contingent loan to parents, like HECS. Parents would be offered a government guaranteed and subsidised loan with no real rate of interest to pay fees for their children at private schools. Parents wouldn’t have to repay their loan until their income reached a threshold, which for HECS is a taxable income of $47,196 per annum.

This would make private schools accessible to all parents, greatly expanding private schools’ potential pupils and potentially reducing private schools’ current big class bias. It would also reduce government payments to the rich, depending on where the loan repayment threshold were set.

Gillard versus Rudd:

Mary Sinclair writes: Re. "Are Rudd and Gillard really that different?" (yesterday, item 1). What if the media called a leadership crisis but nobody listened to them! Get over it, you journalists. We have elections every three years when we get to say how we want to be governed. Since when has selling newspapers (and why does Crikey buy into this?) been a good reason to whip up a leadership debate?

I'm so sick of Australian journalism. Give us analysis and let us make our own decisions. We're old enough. Smart enough. Try us.

Maureen Ramsay writes: Why would I read, let alone subscribe, to Crikey when you report the same rubbish that all the mainstream press/media is sprouting?

How about some stories that inform me of what Labor has managed to achieve -- including your own opinion about the "in Canberra" stories regarding the economy?

Keep banging on about the leadership and I am off your readership list. I am fed up with this subject.

Voting:

Joe Boswell writes: Re. Sam McLean, national deputy director of GetUp! (yesterday, comments), who regurgitated a widespread myth: "No one is required by law to cast a vote. They are simply required to turn up to a polling station on election day."

This is, if I may use the legal terminology, bollocks. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is very clear. Subsection 245(1) of the act provides that: "it shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election."

Subsection 245(15) says "An elector is guilty of an offence if the elector fails to vote at an election."

Not voting is not voting, regardless of whether you do it a polling station or somewhere else. The only reason to do it at a polling station is to reduce your chance of being caught and penalised, but you commit the offence just the same.

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.