Thursday, January 28, 2010


WITHOUT a single sod being turned, $270 million has already been spent on a "metro rail" project the NSW State Government is on the verge of scrapping. See here.

Premier Kristina Keneally has just announced that the spending will stop as they now pause to decide whether or not to go ahead with this city metro rail project.

WHAT THE? ....Sorry Premier but YOUR government, in which you were a Minister for Planning, has now decided a year out from the State Election, to listen to the people and stop this madness that has already cost us, the NSW taxpayer, hundreds of millions of dollars because you think this project may not be viable? It's too little too late!!!

My disbelief is only counterpoint to my surprise that this arrogant and irresponsible ALP State Government has not deemed once to learn a damn thing from the last two public/private projects, the failed Cross City and Lane Cove Tunnels which have gone from the "800 pound Gorillas" in the corner to becoming some of the most expensive "White Elephants" in our State's history.

Gorillas and Elephants? Well I guess if the voters of NSW wanted a zoo when they re-elected this rabble the last time, then they shouldn't be surprised or disappointed.

Meanwhile the Kings' Dean School for special needs children goes unfunded and will certainly close down because of these "necessary" cutbacks. Necessary indeed, more like: "We spent all of our money and now we are broke". And it is because of this government's inability to listen carefully and evaluate the priority needs of its people, its inert greed, anarchical bureaucracy and downright inability to run a state treasury.

To think we actually have to wait for an election in 2011 to remove these money wasting fools, is just another travesty.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Knowledge is Power‏

I suspect this cartoon may soon end up on a few dart boards throughout the many teachers' staff rooms in the state of N.S.W. ...boy!, I hope so. I don't say that flippantly either, because I am very concerned about the standards of teachers and teaching methods and curriculum in all of our schools. I have a few friends who are teachers. In fact one of my best friends is a teacher in a western Sydney Public High School and I am sure he will pull his hair out and curse me when he sees this, as he and I have very different ideological views about the state of our Public and Private education systems. Nevertheless, he is a friend and we can always agree to disagree.

With that said, I will pose this question. Can we, as a responsible society, that has for so long taken for granted our very hard-fought and won freedom, allow that freedom to be eroded over time by radical socialist movements? You see, freedom cannot exist when information (not of a national security nature) is being withheld from the public by the government, information that would simply provide the public, in this case parents or guardians with school age children, the choices that they need to make in order to secure the best possible education outcome for their children.

Bur we see here that teachers are resisting that. They don't want parents to be able to evaluate schools on the basis of their exam results.

Some use the independent system (like me) and the transparency of performances is obviously clear when you are shopping around for a school that has a high academic result for its students. This information is actually available on a state to state public school level of academic achievement yet to my knowledge you still cannot tell if the particular school, classes or even the teacher are performing a a satisfactory level and thus can be trusted to EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN!

I have heard the argument from the other side of this debate and I can not see any legitimate concern other than there are teachers who feel that they are above performance rating. Naturally this is the reason for the current NAPLAN boycott. Just about every workplace has some kind of testing and assessing criteria that sorts out the wheat from the chaff. Here too and especially with the important role that educators have in the lives of children and young adults, there must be a form of accountability and I would also say reward for genuine excellence.

The current system of "education revolution" is continuing to turn so far to the left that it will not be long when have mandatory carrying of Mao's Little Red Book.....or is that already happening?

This is a state issue really and the NSW Teachers Federation Union is actually taking on Julia Gillard (Federal Minister for Education and everything else). It seems it may be payback time for this union, considering the enormous amount of support that it provided the Federal ALP during the 2007 Federal election.

I would say that Gillard would be leaning to support her traditional comrades but it is very close to the next election and this is a Labor Heartland issue. If she is sniffing the political wind correctly, as I believe she is, then she will certainly be between and rock and a hard place.

Trust ends at the door folks. I trust my Mum and certainly family members and close friends, everyone else needs to prove their worth or worthlessness, otherwise I don't want to know you or put my children's lives in your hands.

Monday, January 18, 2010


Looks and personality preferred to competence?

See this one yesterday? NSW Labor Party leader preferred to Liberal Party leader in poll

Yes folks, breaking news from Camp Fairfax. Keneally is the preferred Premier in NSW!!!

Now if they had polled us all and asked the same question, I would have bet a million dollars that the answer would have been very different. Maybe it would look like it currently does if they had asked if we preferred Premier Kristina Keneally to say, Bob Carr or Morris Iemma or Nathan Rees or even Al Capone? Sure, then I would say that she is much more likable a person than those options but who out of these people polled, actually know enough about the current Premier of the Opposition Leader, Barry Ofarrell, to truly say that they are likable people?

I for one have met Mr O'Farrell and found from that meeting that he was a likable man. I am sure from TV and Photo Ops that I have seen from our very NEW Premier, that she probably is too. That brings me to my point,....SO WHAT !!!!

Who really cares how likable a leader is!?! Have the great leaders in history all been likable and good-looking folk? of course not. Most were not that good-looking at all and as to their likability, well that's a matter of further historical examination and always a matter of personal preference.

Isn't there a question that the "useful idiots" in the left bias mainstream media, are not asking us? Shouldn't that question simply be "Who is capable of turning over 14 years of the HARD LABOR that New South Wales has had to endure, voluntarily, I might add, and returning the state into the Jewel in the Crown that it once was?" No they won't say it, because it's all about personality and Charisma now,supporting the ideology and nothing to do with policy reform.

I will shoot the next person who confidently says, "But the Libs have no policy"... Moron, go to their website, it is chocka block with policy. There is just no point selling policy out loud, so far out from the next election. Like the empty suit sellout once sang "Short memories must have a".

We are so conditioned to everything being a competition or a bloody reality show that our political leaders and the media play on this brain drain to the point now that such a poll actually holds importance to many people. People actually vote for who they think looks or sounds the best. So keep sitting in front the idiot box folks and pretty soon you may think that I am beautiful enough to be our next PM!

Wednesday, January 13, 2010


"VICTORY IS MINE"! Can't you just hear our pompous PM Rudd, shouting that out loud from whatever airport lounge he his in today, when he heard today that one of Australia's most desperate and deserving men, Peter Spencer, had decided today to end his 52 day hunger strike. Obviously Peter Spencer has decided through much convincing from his family, friends and supporters, that it was better to go on living and to continue the fight against this outrageous Native Vegetation Act, that is literally stealing peoples property than to be a martyr for the cause.

Already Peter's near death protest has brought more attention, both here and internationally, to this issue that any amount of court hearings and appeals could ever have done. If you are not aware of this mans fight for the right that we have always taken for granted in this country then you probably vote Kevin Rudd back in 2007 and will do so in 2010.

I am sure that many who did vote for this socialist criminal will however be adding his complete and utter inaction along with Premier Kenneally's lack of intervention to their now long lists of just why they should actually think hard about where this country is going and who they should trust with our future, come the next federal and state elections.

Bravo Peter Spencer, you are a hero of the people and full kudos goes to your and your family and the army of supporters. Your dedication and bravery has awoken the ever apathetic nation that Australia has become, thanks to decades of social engineering by the Marxists and useful idiots of the left.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Peter and Kevin are having a whale of a time

Day 47, and protesting NSW farmer, Peter Spencer, continues to slowly die up a pole on his property that the ALP Government has STOLEN from him and still not a sign of Penny Wong ALP MP, Peter Garrett ALP MP, Kristina Keneally ALP NSW PREMIER and most importantly, the man of the moment, the man who could actually get peter down and save his life, ALP PM Kevin Rudd. See here

Yet whilst this great Australian dies for his and all of our rights as free property owners, Peter Garrett is waxing lyrical about his up and coming on stage Sydney Festival gig ....

..... All this while doing nothing but spouting platitudes of just how much he has done to save our Southern Ocean Whales, that are being fished in OUR waters by the Japanese. In three consecutive hunting seasons, Garrett and Rudd haven't saved one single whale from ending up on the dinning tables of Tokyo. To the contrary, they have assisted the Japanese hunters by allowing Japanese aircraft to provide surveillance support for the hunting fleet, by being able to fly from and land on Australian soil !!!!

Even the mad Greenies, who have been bed buddies with the ALP for many years, are now calling Rudd and Garrett "Spineless". I never thought I would agree with Senator Bob Brown about anything.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010


(Kevin Rudd writes a book for children)

John Howard wisely said just before he was stabbed in the back by an ungrateful nation in 2007, "If you change the government, then you change the country". So what do you think, has the country changed and in that same question, has it changed for the better?


It is now internationally considered that our borders are made of fairy floss and good intention, that we are an easy touch, Rudd's ALP.

It is now much easier to get the dole and to stay on it, Rudd's ALP.

It is now clear that this PM hasn't kept his word on one pre-election policy, except to apologise for and symbolise and twist the historical facts that the colonial occupation and settlement of this country and the assimilation of the natives was some barbarous invasion and forced depravity on the survivors, Rudd's ALP.

It is now true that our public health systems are a global disgrace and getting worse everyday due to inept State Labour Governments, Rudd's ALP.

It is now true that this country is hundreds of billions of dollars in debt rather than having the surplus it use to be in during the Howard regime, Rudd's ALP

... and that Japan calls the shots in Australia as an Australian vessel is deliberately rammed and sunk, whilst people were on-board, doing the government's job and trying to stop the illegal fishing of whales in our waters, Rudd's ALP

and nothing is done, rather the federal government allows Japanese aircraft to launch from Australian soil in order to look out for the protest vessels.

An Australian farmer sits high above his stolen land and is starving to death to make his point heard and to convince Kevin Rudd to just talk to him and look into having a Royal Commission on the unfair Native Vegetation Act, Rudd's ALP.

How can we forget the signing of the Kyoto agreement which now lines us up for more senseless taxation based on a scientific lie that man is heating the earth and that this tax money will stop that from happening, Rudd's ALP. Too his newest tax and a tax that this country has always done well without .... DEATH DUTY!, Rudd's ALP

I hear people all day on the radio spouting venom and pain and constantly asking the question WHY?


Our PM is too interested in overseas trips and feathering his nest for his end goal, a seat at the big United Nations One World Government Table. In meantime, he wants us all to think that he a really decent bloke because he wrote a children's book. What more can I say?

We have a national IQ test this year. here's an idea, let's change the country back to a better time and a better place, hmmmmm!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010


Plus: A letter sent from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
1 January 2010

His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,

Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.

Climate change: proposed personal briefing

Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.

You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.

The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –

ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –

Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°

– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°

= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.

Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.

However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.

My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

Yours faithfully,



December 2009

The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –

1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister
2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water
3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.
4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister
5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.
6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept.
7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office
16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept.
17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office\
18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office
19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet
20. Stephan Rudzki
21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police
23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police
24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police
25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations
27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg.
42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany
60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus.
69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.
70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury
75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships
76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.
79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.
80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.
84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier
85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford
86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt.
87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.
88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd.
90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Ass.
91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
98. Belinda Lee Adams
99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office