Author: Neville

Seabed gas extraction first of its kind: METI

Kyodo

Mar 13, 2013
PPRINT
↪SHARE

In a reported world first, Japan on Tuesday extracted natural gas from methane hydrate, considered a next-generation energy source, in the Pacific seabed off Aichi Prefecture, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said.

“We started production of a certain amount of methane gas from around 9:30 a.m.,” a ministry official said, noting that if the gas can be extracted without any problems for about two weeks in the ongoing trial, it will be a “major step” toward future commercial development of the resource.

Large concentrations of methane hydrate are believed to exist under the seabed around Japan. Last October, a research team from Meiji University discovered the substance under the seabed in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Sea of Japan off Akita, Yamagata and Niigata prefectures. There is also a high possibility that it also exists under the seabed off Shimane Prefecture.

Total deposits of methane hydrate around Japan are estimated to be sufficient to cover domestic consumption of natural gas for about 100 years.

In the trial production conducted about 80 km south of the Atsumi Peninsula, Aichi Prefecture, on Tuesday, methane hydrate located about 1.3 km below the ocean surface was dissolved into gas and water and the gas was collected through a well.

Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology used a method to decrease pressure of layers bearing methane hydrate to dissociate the solid substance.

The substance consists of a combination of methane and water molecules. The high-pressure, low-temperature environment under the seabed causes water molecules to encase methane, giving it a texture like sherbet.

Chunks of methane hydrate have been likened to burning ice cubes, which easily combust when exposed to flame.

Methane hydrate holds large amounts of combustible methane. When 1 cu. meter of methane hydrate decomposes, it releases about 160 cu. meters of gas that can be burned to generate power.

Methane hydrate can be only generated in a high-pressure, low-temperature environment. Since a temperature of about minus 80 degrees is needed for it to form, it is generally only found in permafrost or deep below the seabed.

Under the fiscal 2013 budget, METI has set aside funds to cover the costs of investigating how much methane hydrate might lie offshore. Regional governments near locations where the material has been discovered are also beginning to coordinate their policies to help promote development of the new energy source.

RailCorp can’t say how train wire broke

Date March 13, 2013 44 reading now

Read later

Saffron Howden

Rural and Indigenous Affairs Reporter

View more articles from Saffron Howden

Follow Saffron on TwitterEmail Saffron

inShare.
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

RailCorp is at a loss to explain how 300 metres of electrical wiring that helps power its trains fell on top of a Tangara train just before morning peak hour, delaying and inconveniencing thousands of passengers.

More than eight hours after the train stopped just short of Epping station en route to Strathfield at about 5.45am on Tuesday morning, the northern line reopened in time for the afternoon peak.

RailCorp operations director Tony Eid said an investigation had been launched into how the wiring came down, but an immediate explanation was unclear.

”Normally, wiring is one of the most reliable pieces of infrastructure,” he said. ”It very rarely fails. It’s an unusual situation.”

Advertisement

The train was carrying no passengers at that early hour and contained only the driver and a guard, Mr Eid said. ”The driver reported that he lost power.”

The wires, which supply electricity to power the train, fell and became entangled.

While 300 metres dropped, only 2.5 metres had to be replaced altogether, Mr Eid said. The remainder was re-tensioned.

Services were suspended on the line until 2.20pm, causing delays of up to one hour for morning commuters. Buses replaced trains on the northern line between Hornsby and Epping while other passengers were redirected onto the North Shore line.

State Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian apologised to the people affected. ”The safety of train customers is always a priority,” she said.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union said it was ”alarming” that the state government was going to cut 450 maintenance positions at RailCorp over the next few years as part of its rail shake-up.

”Incidents like these have become an all too common headache for NSW commuters,” the union’s national secretary, Bob Nanva, said. ”We deserve a safe and reliable rail network, but the current system is suffering from years of underinvestment in maintenance by governments of all political persuasion.”

Ms Berejiklian rejected renewed calls for a fare-free day following seven separate problems identified by the state opposition as causing major delays on the network since early February.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/railcorp-cant-say-how-train-wire-broke-20130312-2fyga.html#ixzz2NMvHoOsN

Peak oil apocalyptoids: eating crow yet?

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Mon, 03/11/2013 – 15:53Planet Watch
climate destabilization
control of oil
crisis of capitalism
petro-oligarchy

Remember the incessant squawking a few years back, when oil prices were spiralling, about how we were approaching “peak oil”? Been mighty quiet from that set recently, hasn’t it? Vince Beiser explains why in a piece called “The Deluge” in the Pacifc Standard, March 4:

The widely circulated fears of a few years ago that we were approaching “peak oil” have turned out to be completely wrong. From the Arctic to Africa, nanoengineered materials, underwater robots, side-scanning 3-D sonar, specially engineered lubricants, and myriad other advances are opening up titanic new supplies of fossil fuels, many of them in unexpected places—Brazil, Australia, and, perhaps most significantly, North America. “Contrary to what most people believe,” declares a recent study from the Harvard Kennedy School, “oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption.”

We’ve noted before that booming domestic production has the US on track to top Saudi Arabia as the planet’s biggest producer (even as Obama is green-baited for bottlenecking the industry, natch). And we’ve noted before that the emergence of Africa as a strategic producer was instrumental in the Pentagon’s decision to estbalish a command for that continent. And, apropos of a certain South American country much in the news now, the Orinoco Belt is boasted to contain reserves outstripping those of Saudi Arabia. More from Beiser:

Right now, the map of who sells and who buys oil and natural gas is being radically redrawn. Just a few years ago, imported oil made up nearly two-thirds of the United States’ annual consumption; now it’s less than half. Within a decade, the US is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to regain its title as the world’s top energy producer. Countries that have never had an energy industry worth mentioning are on the brink of becoming major players, while established fossil fuel powerhouses are facing challenges to their dominance. We are witnessing a shift that heralds major new opportunities—and dangers—for individual nations, international politics and economics, and the planet.

Um, yeah. The planet. But first one final trenchant observation from Beiser. He notes that we’ve always been running out of oil, if you go by the conventional wisdom:

[P]ractically since we started using the stuff, we have fretted that we were running out of it. In 1922, a federal commission predicted that “production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” In 1977, President Jimmy Carter declared that world oil production would peak by 1985. It turns out, though, that the problem has never been exactly about supply; it’s always been about our ability to profitably tap that supply. We human beings have consumed, over our entire history, about a trillion barrels of oil. The US Geological Survey estimates there is still seven to eight times that much left in the ground. The oil that’s left is just more difficult, and therefore more expensive, to get to. But that sets the invisible hand of the market into motion. Every time known reserves start looking tight, the price goes up, which incentivizes investment in research and development, which yields more sophisticated technologies, which unearth new supplies—often in places we’d scarcely even thought to look before.

One thing Beiser fails to note is that global consumption is growing precipitously, so the quantity that “we” have consumed “over our entire history” (which effectively means just the last century, the proverbial blink of an eye in the long view of the human species) isn’t as significant as it superficially seems. Nor is the process of price spikes bringing on new sources as spontaneous as the phrase “invisible hand” would imply. As we have argued before, sparking an oil shock to spur global production was probably an intentional aim of the Iraq war. But, intentional or not, the price spike that coincided with the worst years of the Iraq war had roots that were political, not geological—as we have demonstrated again and again and again and again and again.

In 2008 when prices started dropping, we asked if the peak-oil apocalyptoids were ready to eat crow. We ask again. Awful quiet, guys.

But don’t you Cornucopians gloat either. Your faith that science and capitalism will bring endless plenty is hardly vindicated. We had to call out smarmy New York Times columnist John Tierney on his 2005 bet with energy analyst Matthew Simmons that oil would not reach $200 a barrel by 2010. Technically, Tierney won. It got close, but never reached this point—the “Crude Oil Price History” at FedPrimeRate.com tells us the price peaked at $145 in 2008. But guess what happened that year that sent prices down again? Right, it wasn’t the genius of capitalism that saved us from $200 a barrel but the crisis of capitalism. And the very process of bringing new oil sources online requires periodic price spikes. So both the Peaksters and the Cornucopians just don’t get it.

Oil-Price.net tells us the current price is just shy of $92 per barrel—about 10 bucks lower than in November. Possibly because the petro-oligrachs had been inflating the price through various artifices to undermine Obama in the election.

The Peaksters have been reading the threat precisely backwards. The real danger is not an apocalypse brought on by running out of oil, but one brought on by not running out of oil! If the Geological Survey is right and there really is still that much oil in the Earth, that is very, very bad news—not good. On March 7, the New York Times reported:

Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.

Previous research had extended back roughly 1,500 years, and suggested that the rapid temperature spike of the past century, believed to be a consequence of human activity, exceeded any warming episode during those years. The new work confirms that result while suggesting the modern warming is unique over a longer period.

Even if the temperature increase from human activity that is projected for later this century comes out on the low end of estimates, scientists said, the planet will be at least as warm as it was during the warmest periods of the modern geological era, known as the Holocene, and probably warmer than that.

That epoch began about 12,000 years ago, after changes in incoming sunshine caused vast ice sheets to melt across the Northern Hemisphere. Scientists believe the moderate climate of the Holocene set the stage for the rise of human civilization roughly 8,000 years ago and continues to sustain it by, for example, permitting a high level of food production.

In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.

And the findings are more grim than this account portrays. The study covers 11,300 years and finds temperatures higher than they have been over 70 to 80 percent of that time, OSU said in a statement on March 7.

The real question is whether we can somehow achieve democratic, public control of the industrial apparatus as the prerequisite for any social direction, including dismantling (or dramatically down-scaling) it for the good of the planet. As we have stated:

What really and urgently needs to happen is still completely taboo to even mention in mainstream discourse: the public expropriation of the entire machinery of Detroit and the oil companies, and the redirection of their vast technological and financial resources into mass transit and the reshaping of our communities and workplaces to accommodate the human organism, and human-powered transport like bicycles, rather than the private automobile.

Thanks to WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show for juxtapositng these two stories—Beiser’s debunking of peak oil, and the ominous OSU findings. But of course Brian is constitutionally incapable of seeing his own implicit argument through to its inevitable conclusion…

March 12, 2013
2013 WA Election – Update Tuesday 12 March

Today has seen the number of undecided seats fall from five to four, and seen a flood of updates for the Legislative Council.

With 84.8% counted in Belmont, the Liberal Party’s Glenys Godfrey is now 318 votes ahead and certain of victory. Ms Godfrey wins the seat at her third attempt, gaining a seat that has never previously been won by the Liberal Party and had been held for more than two decades by former Labor Leader Eric Ripper.

Liberal Jaimee Motion continues to maintain a narrow lead in Collie-Preston, ending the day 84 votes ahead with 84.5% of the vote counted. It will be hard for sitting Labor MP Mick Murray to turn around that lead with not many votes left to count, but he did famously win by just 34 votes in 2001. Another day of counting may make the result clearer.

In Midland, Labor’s Michelle Roberts continues to lead, at the end of counting 88 votes ahead with 86.4% counted. Ms Roberts has maintained her lead with all categories of votes so far and would be favoured to maintain her lead.

The result in Eyre is still up for grabs. With 77.7% counted, Natonal Colin de Grussa leads by 55 votess over sittng Liberal MP Graham Jacobs.

In Kimberley, with four candidates lying between 18.1% and 27.4%, the Electoral Commission has been undertaking a preliminary distribution of preferences to try and determine who will be the final two candidates in the contest. At this state it looks to be between Labor and Liberal candidates, with Labor favoured to win on Green preferences. Details of the preference count will be released on Wednesday morning.

In the Legislative Counil, further counting has firmed up the prospect of National Colin Holt in his battle with Family First in South West Region. Today’s counting firmed the National Party vote, ensuring that Holt now stays well clear of Family First’s Bev Custer in the race for the final seat.

On current counting my Legislatve Council calculator predicts tht the Shooters and Fishers party will win a seat in Mining and Pastoral region at the expense of the Nationals. This has come about because the National total is now just short of two quotas, and the calculator assumes all votes are ticket votes with the fixed sequence of party preferences. However, once you allow for some ballot papers being below the line votes, it seems highly unlikely that the Shooters and Fishers can prevent the second National candidate being elected on a dift of below the line preferences. A Shooters and Fishers victory in Mining and Pastoral is unlikely, though the party now looks certain of winning a seat on Labor and Green preferences in Agricultural region.

The closest contest at the moment appears to be for the final seat in South Metropolitan Region. As I suggested would happen in my post on Sunday, the Labor vote has risen during the count, and for part of the day Labor won the final seat ahead of sitting Green MLC Lynn MacLaren. If Labor’s vote continues to nudge up, MacLaren’s could yet be elected on Liberal and Shooters and Fishers preferences, though equally Labor could be elected on Green preferences It now seems less likely MacLaren will win on Labor preferences

Posted by Antony Green on March 12, 2013 at 11:08 PM in Western Australia Elections and Politics | Permalink

Battle of wills looms over Obeid documents
PM
By Peter Lloyd

Updated 15 minutes ago
Eddie Obeid arrives to give evidence at the ICAC inquiry. Photo: The ICAC has been investigating a scandal surrounding former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid (AAP: Paul Miller)
Related Story: Obeid tax evasion claims unlikely to stick: expert
Related Story: Senior Labor figures point fingers over Obeid
Related Story: Minister says concerns over fourth loader will be addressed
Related Story: Mining magnate takes action against ICAC
Map: NSW

The New South Wales Government appears to be bracing for a direct confrontation with its own corruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

The ICAC has been investigating whether key documents relating to the Eddie Obeid scandal were withheld from Parliament in an attempted cover-up that dates back to 2009.

The investigation cannot advance to a full public inquiry without the cooperation of MPs, which seems to be in doubt.

In November 2009, the then Opposition Upper House MP Duncan Gay sniffed something very wrong about Mr Obeid buying land in the Bylong Valley over which a coal exploration licence had been granted by his friend, mining minister Ian Macdonald.

Mr Gay took action under what is called Standing Order 52, a rarely used but powerful tool that allows MPs to command the bureaucracy to hand over documents.

In this case it was a call for papers from all government departments about what Mr Macdonald and Mr Obeid were doing.

The Premier at the time was Nathan Rees. A week after the call for papers, Mr Rees sacked Mr Macdonald.

On November 26, the public service replied that it had complied with the call, supplying Parliament two boxes of papers.

Those documents have been held in storage at Macquarie Street ever since.

It is not clear what assessment Mr Gay made about the papers he demanded to see; he will not talk about it.

It was only recently that questions were raised when Upper House MP for The Greens, Jeremy Buckingham, compared the files to what was becoming public at the ICAC inquiry into Mr Macdonald and Mr Obeid.

“I was very surprised that there were so few documents – maybe a few dozen documents,” Mr Buckingham said.

“That’s what concerned me: how few documents were provided, and then I watched the ICAC investigations unfold, and obviously, there’s just a wealth of information spilling out of that and it’s of enormous concern to everyone.”
Unprecedented
Audio: NSW ICAC investigation requires co-operation from MPs to advance (PM)

Mr Buckingham says it would be unprecedented for documents not to be provided by the public service to Parliament.

“This is a very serious matter. It’s one of the key weapons in the arsenal of Parliament to get to the bottom of issues, to discover how things have occurred.

“The Standing Order 52, the call for papers, is one of the real strengths of Parliament.

“If it was not being complied with, well it would be a grave matter, and I think it would be something that both the Parliament and ICAC should investigate.”

Mr Buckingham appears to be in a strange minority on that score.

MPs could waive parliamentary privilege – the O’Farrell Government did just that as recently as October when it allowed ICAC to delve into the register of financial interests of MPs.

But on Tuesday it foreshadowed another response altogether that could stifle inquiry, and possibly shut it down altogether.

Mr Gay revealed that should the ICAC come calling, it will not get the boxes.

Instead, the request will be put before the Privileges Committee to inquire and report.

“It is ultimately for the House itself to determine whether its order for papers has been complied with,” he said.
Called to account

No-one on the Labor benches uttered a word of protest at the announcement.

A referral to committee is a process that could set back ICAC’s ability to investigate by years.

Mr Gay declined to explain why that is in the public interest.

Mr Buckingham says its urgent ICAC be given the documents to assess for itself why papers were withheld, and by whom.

He says senior public servants still serving government must be called to account:

“All the directors-general of all the departments sign off saying that, to the best of their knowledge, these are all the documents, and it concerns me that some of the state’s most senior bureaucrats, that the Premier’s Department, could look at so few documents and think that that is all that existed,” he said.

“So at the very best, it may be negligence; at worst, it could be part of what is a very, very serious cover-up.”

Topics: corruption, law-crime-and-justice, states-and-territories, government-and-politics, courts-and-trials, nsw, australia

First posted 31 minutes ago

Published on: March 12, 2013

TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. MALCOLM TURNBULL MP

DOORSTOP INTEVIEW

CANBERRA

Subjects: Labor’s Proposed Media Reforms; MPs’ Use of Twitter

……………………………………………………………………………

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Today’s announcement by Stephen Conroy is a characteristically chaotic, half-baked series of thought bubbles. This Minister really should try to finish something before he kicks off a new idea. It’s worth bearing in mind that he announced a deal on anti-siphoning nearly two and a half years ago and this is the most, arguable one of the most important elements in broadcasting regulation and has been unable to turn that agreement into a piece of legislation. So we still haven’t seen a bill. It may be that we’ll get to the election without any legislation on anti-siphoning.

Now as far as this package is concerned what Stephen Conroy is doing is responding to his outrage that the newspapers, particularly the News Limited newspapers that have seen fit to criticise the Government and indeed him. And he’s been venting his spleen for some time and he’s come up with this idea of a public interest test to be overseen by some public interest media advocate, a new government official, a government appointed official to oversee the media.

He says this is in order to ensure a diversity of voices and yet we’ve never had such a diversity of voices as we’ve had today in the news media. The Internet as the super-platform, the hyper-platform has allowed Australians to have access to more sources of news, opinion, fantasy indeed often sometimes masquerading as news and opinion, but all of that material is now available online in a way it never was before. The barriers to competing with newspapers have never been lower as the newspapers are discovering to their chagrin.

We also of course have the ACCC, the competition regulator which is there to ensure that there are no mergers which are anti-competitive so it vetoed Channel Seven’s attempt to buy into Fox Sports. So what on earth is this public interest media advocate going to do? What on earth is this public interest test going to be? What are the criteria to determine public interest? Oh I’m sorry, Stephen Conroy hasn’t seen fit to tell us that. Those are details that we may or not be told sometime before the end of next week which is the due date by which this legislation has to be passed. I don’t know why he’s in such a hurry, perhaps that’s about as long as he thinks Julia Gillard has got left. Perhaps he thinks that’s about how long he’s got left as communications minister.

But you know these issues are very important. The work that you do as journalists is just as important as any of the work that we do as legislators. And any attempt by the government to regulate or further circumscribe the media has got to be viewed with the greatest of suspicion, particularly a government that seems determined to cower the media, to bully the media into not criticising it. Now you would think that proposals of this kind when they were floated by a minister would be floated with some detail presented with some detail and precision, but they’re not. We’ve got a one and a half page press release which is obscure enough and not rendered anymore coherent by the Minister’s press conference. And then we’re told we’ve got to pass it in less than two weeks with a sort of gun held to the Parliament’s head for whatever reason. These are all important issues, freedom is at stake, liberty is at stake, democracy is at stake. And they deserve proper due process and consideration by the Parliament and certainly not to be presented in this take it or leave it we won’t negotiate arrogant bullying manner of Stephen Conroy.

JOURNALIST:

But some of these concepts are going to a bipartisan committee so those aspects that do go to this committee you’re side of politics will have a say in.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well that’s the reach rule is going to a committee I’m sure that’s worth, that’ll be worth looking at. But the hot ticket, the big issue there before I come to that, the big issue really here is the regulation of the media. That is at the core of this. I mean should the Government be setting, defining what press standards should be, what media standards should be? He says he’s only going to codify what the existing standards are but does that mean they can’t be changed without the Government’s consent? I mean if self-regulation means anything and if that’s what we’re committed to and we certainly are, then the media should be able to form their own views about their ethical standards and compete in the market place.

JOURNALIST:

Are you questioning the timing of this announcement in this election cycle, given that it’s years after the Finkelstein and Convergence Review and so are you saying now you’re seeing this as more of a political interest test rather than a public interest test?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well of course it is. Every single person will have a different view about what is in the public interest. Everyone’s got a different view. Having media mergers dependent on such a subjective, highly political view is really bad law, it’s bad practice and when it’s produced by this Government who’s commitment to media freedom is very very questionable to say the least, it obviously has to be seen for what it is. It is an attempt to regulate the media because they don’t like what you’ve been saying and writing about them.

JOURNALIST:

Is this a basic philosophical issue for you Mr Turnbull and does that mean that if this does get through in the next fortnight that a Coalition government would repeal it?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I have no doubt that we would seek to repeal any sort of public interest test on media takeovers. I think this is a bad idea at every level. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of freedom of speech. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of keeping governments out of regulating the media. We want the media to be as free as possible and I can say as a former lawyer who used to practice in the area of broadcasting law these sort of generally worded tests, whether you call it public interest or fit and proper person, are impossible to define. And all they do is end up creating very handsome incomes for the legal profession. So it doesn’t tick any box and it is a classic Stephen Conroy thought bubble.

JOURNALIST:

Does that include the press regulation, if this advocate is to oversee the Australian Press Council in some way is that something that breaches a basic principal and should be repealed?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well it certainly does. I do not see why there should be a government official, a public official, a bureaucrat no doubt, overseeing the Australian media. We have a portion of the Australian media, the licenced electronic media because it has a degree of regulation because it is using a public property spectrum and so forth but the press, and of course the press now writ large courtesy of the Internet, has always been free subject to the laws of defamation and contempt of court and so forth. And it should remain free. We should be enjoying more freedom not less. This is a government that wants to tell you what is good for you. We believe government’s job is to enable people to do their best, not tell them what is best and that is a philosophical difference between us and the Labor Party.

JOURNALIST:

[INAUDIBLE]

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Are you asking about the 75%?

JOURNALIST:

The 75% yeah and the sixth channel.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well we’ll just deal with the 75%, the 75% reach rule that’s going to be discussed at a committee. I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that the 75% reach rule is no longer if you like, is no longer relevant in today’s converged media world. I mean the point the fact that several of the regional broadcasters, by which I mean Southern Cross and Prime and WIN, have been actively arguing for that limit to be lifted, I think is a powerful testimony for that. As far as the sixth channel is concerned, there is a provision an existing provision for a statutory review of how that sixth channel should be used. And that review should proceed. There’s no need to rush this. Why is there this sudden urgency? Is it because of the pending election? Is it because of the pending party room ballot with Julia Gillard? What is it? I don’t know. I don’t know where the urgency lies. These are very important issues. They go to the foundations of our democracy. And they should be dealt with, with precision and care.

JOURNALIST:

Do you think Australians are entitled to a fourth commercial network?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I’m not sure whether they’re entitled to it. I’m not sure a fourth network would be commercially viable. And I have to say that spectrum is a scarce resource and there are plenty of claimants on that spectrum which is why there should be a statutory review.

JOURNALIST:

Who else?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

It’s a long list. There are many parties and interests who would be seeking to use it. You know, all wireless spectrum, all spectrum, is very fiercely contested because in many respects – as we all know from our various smart phones and smart tablets and so forth – we are increasingly living in a wireless world. So the statutory review should go ahead. And of course as you move to a more ubiquitous IPTV world where every television is as connected to the Internet as your smart phone or your tablet is, we’re in a world where really there are no barriers to content being delivered. So it raises the – I don’t think Australians are likely to be short of diversity of content or of choice. The whole world has changed. The Internet has transformed the whole world of media and communications – as you guys understand better than me.

JOURNALIST:

What about local content provisions in this digital age – does that need changing as well?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well local content is a separate issue and it’s something that with the licensed broadcasters has to be respected and maintained. It always has to be subject to a commerciality test – there’s no point imposing on broadcasters obligations that they cannot comply with a survive commercially. At the end of the day you have to keep the doors open. But I would just say that again there is a distinction – local content is different to ownership. You could have the most limited views – the most restrictive laws – on television reach but still have every television station streaming the same content out of Sydney or Melbourne. Alternatively, you could have one television station having 100 per cent reach but with clear commitments and undertakings obliging them to provide separate content. So they are separate issues.

And at the core of all this is the viability of these business models. You know, newspapers have been feeling the chill wind of economic change probably the most, but it does impact on all the media including free to air and I think in particular in time subscription television.

JOURNALIST:

What do you think of the suggestion to modernise the ABC charter to include online content. Do you agree with that?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well the ABC – there’s a powerful argument for saying the ABC’s charter should reflect the reality of what it’s doing. The ABC’s got a big online presence. I know there’s been some criticism from the newspaper groups about some of the ABC’s online material – I think in particular of the Drum website, which is not repurposed radio programs or transcripts of TV or radio programs but is of comment pieces written specifically as text pieces. I have to say however that I don’t think the travails of the newspaper industry can be laid at the door of the Drum website.

JOURNALIST:

Malcolm it’s pretty clear from Senator Conroy’s comments today that he hasn’t really had any dialogue with the networks. He hasn’t even told them about the changes – the first they would have heard about it was the press conference today. Have they had a conversation with you given that he hasn’t had a conversation with Gyngell or any of the other guys?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well yes, I talk to the networks all the time. I talk to all of the – I hate the word – the ‘stakeholders’ in the communications and media world. I talk to them all the time – that’s my job, I’m the shadow minister so I’ve got to stay in touch with them all of the time.

JOURNALIST:

Can you tell us about these conversations?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well there’s nothing really to add. I think their public positions are pretty clear. Look can I say this: I’ve been associated with media proprietors for a very long time – for well over 30 years. Well over 30 years. Can I just say they all make a powerful case for their own commercial self interest. They all claim to speak for the public interest. And some times their commercial interest and the public interest coincide. Sometimes they don’t. And it’s the job of this place, and Governments and legislators to stay in touch with everybody, take everybody’s point of view on board and then make decisions based on the interests of the public.

JOURNALIST:

Mr Turnbull, on the issue of this media advocate. Can you not see a role for someone like that in your dispute with Mr Ross, my colleague at the ABC?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

[Laughs] Well I don’t think we need – look, what we need is

JOURNALIST:

Jonathan Holmes?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

You need free debate. You know I’m quite happy to debate just about any issue with everyone. I’m a starter for any debate.

JOURNALIST:

Have you been bullying journalists?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well you can’t –

JOURNALIST:

And what did you think of media watch last night?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I thought it was kind of interesting. I missed it actually and I watched it on iView later on that night. Look I think – journalists can only be bullied if they want to be bullied. I’m not in the business of bullying. I used to be a journalist. Journalists are very contrasuggestible. I think if you try to bully journalists, invariably it’s not going to be successful. So I always express my view and frankly thanks to the Internet, social media, the web, my blog, I’m in a position where I’m able to get my views out there. I don’t have to grovel to a producer or an editor to get my stuff into the mainstream media. And that’s one of the ways in which the Internet has revolutionised communications, including political communications.

JOURNALIST:

Mr Turnbull, speaking of political communications, what do you think of MPs tweeting in Parliament. Should there be a complete ban there or should there be some sort of –

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

No look I’m a libertarian. I’m not in favour of banning things. I’m not in favour of – if people want to tweet, let them tweet. I don’t think that’s probably the most important part of a politicians’ work. But you know you have to be very careful on twitter, because if you’re not too careful you can go very quickly from being a tweep to a twit. And on that note I should –

JOURNALIST:

Should politicians be forced to withdraw a tweet if they – as happened today? Would you say they should be withdrawn if they –

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Well I haven’t seen the – look, I said I’m prepared to debate anything. But I’m not prepared to comment on a tweet I haven’t read. So on that note, I’m going to bid you all farewell.

JOURNALIST:

Just quickly on Darren Chester’s comments today –

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Oh okay.

JOURNALIST:

On the standard of political debate.

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

How could I bully journalists? I’m putty in your hands.

JOURNALIST:

Well thankyou very much for staying. He’s expressed concern that the Prime Minister is being exposed to very personal and vicious attacks. From your point of view, is that a worry in current politics? Is there someone to blame in particular?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:

Oh look, I don’t want to point the finger at anyone. But I just want to say that abuse, vicious personal attacks from – generally in public discourse – generally are very undesirable. I think they are all also, invariably counterproductive. All those negative emotions are very bad for you. If you’re a hater, your hatred does more damage to you than it does to the person you’re hating. If you’re a bully, it does more damage to your character than to the people you’re bullying. So these people that want to get into these vicious attacks – and you do see a lot of it in social media – I think it is counter-productive, it doesn’t persuade anybody and it just, it just saps away, it gnaws away at, it corrodes the character of the people who practice it. So on that uplifting note, I really must go. Farewell.

ENDS.