There’s an ad running at the moment by a green group that attempts to paint anyone who isn’t fully supportive of “urgent” attempts to fix climate change as a dinosaur.

T.Rex doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change

The so-called Climate “Institute” (cue images of scientists not activists) labels any Australian not fully behind clean energy as a scaly throwback to extinction.

“It’s time for these dinosaurs to evolve and support strong action on climate change,” the ad says.

“Some dinosaurs in Australian politics and business are blocking climate action that will grow the hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs we need now more than ever.”

The ads ran in the week where it was revealed that the German solar industry – once held by conventional wisdom to be stealing a march on the world on solar - is shedding vast numbers of jobs to Asia and losing money.

Remember the green lobby urging us not so long ago to be more like Germany?

“The young German solar industry faces an unprecedented wave of bankruptcies,” Financial Times Deutschland reported recently.

Germany is not alone.

In Spain, a University of Madrid study concluded that for every job created by renewable energy, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy. It found that it cost the country roughly $A 1 million for every wind industry job.

The dinosaur ads ran as Newspoll revealed a steep decline in the number of Australians who want to blaze ahead on our own with climate initiatives before seeing what the rest of the world does. Nearly half of Australian voters now fall into the Climate Institute’s dinosaur category by believing that, at very least, Canberra should delay its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

The results indicate that while Australians are supportive of efforts to fix the environment, if that’s possible, they are also becoming increasingly aware of other problematic issues associated with radical action.

Will climate “action” detrimentally affect Australia’s economy, for instance, while giving a leg up to international competitors who will continue to flagrantly pollute while stealing market share? Will domestic actions punish consumers through higher costs, while achieving little, or nothing, on global emissions?

And, as Germany and Spain are discovering at considerable cost, will taxper subsidies underwrite industries which will be undercut by countries with lower input costs? These significant questions are not indicative of a nation of dinosaurs, but people smart enough to think through the issues before being led down the garden path by feel-good activists and quasi-religious pressure groups.

A recent survey conducted by Woolcott Research for Queensland Energy Resources showed support for emissions targets dropping from 78 to 59 percent when people were asked if they would still support the target if it required fuel rationing.

We still rely on fossil fuels for the vast bulk of our essential services.

It may be possible at some point in the future to run electric cars, for example, but there is no Toyota Prius equivalent of a Mack Truck, no solar power jet airliner, no wind powered container ship.

People understand this and are becoming more acutely aware that changes will amount to cost in these areas.

In other words, survey results very much depend on the information provided to people and whether or not they are able to develop a stronger understanding and appreciation of the realities of what it may cost them, and society in general, to implement strong climate change action.

There’s no doubt, the anti-dinosaur brigade at the Climate Institute and backers of action on climate change no matter the cost will decry this survey as one performed by a vested interest, which it is.

They will argue that it’s imperative stick to extreme CPRS targets and lead the world because the costs of not doing so are too great. Who knows, despite more and more debate on the science of climate modelling, they might be right.

But it is apparent that as more information comes to hand, people’s opinions adapt and this is no bad thing. It’s indicative of a more sophisticated understanding of a maturing debate.

And it’s not as if it’s only the population which is changing its view.

The Climate Institute itself was recently accused of watering down its position to match the government’s greenhouse targets.

An anonymous green organization made sure the press received a document showing how the Institute had walked away from supporting a greenhouse target it itself had held out as a “key test” for government just six months earlier.

It was keen to ensure everyone knew that the institute had supported the government’s lower greenhouse target, even though the institute had accused the government of falling “deep into credibility deficit” when it had been announced.

“Has the Climate Institute lost its purity,” the document asked. “Is it now dancing the dance of the puppet?”

It’s interesting to note that the Climate Institute’s cause hopping activist CEO, John Connor, last had a job campaigning to lift third world aid as a percentage of GDP.

Given that every scenario for combating climate change will cut Australia’s GDP, Connor is now effectively pushing for a cut in overseas aid.

Perhaps he and his organization is just as reptilian as the people it depicts in its advertisements and just possibly has its own vested interests to consider.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Most commented

43 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • CDA says:

      07:34am | 28/08/09

      This is a great piece. I had no idea John Connor was a professional activist and not a climate change advocate. How can he be taken seriously when he’s merely a man is search of the latest cause in order to make a dollar?

    • Chris Grealy says:

      07:38am | 28/08/09

      Comparing climate change denialists and the Coalition to dinosaurs? That seems like a damn fine metaphor.

    • The Realist says:

      07:40am | 28/08/09

      When are we going to wake up to this green job myth? The world’s wind turbines and solar cells are made overseas (mainly in China). We can’t compete with economies that pay their workers much less than us and therefore can produce goods at a fraction of the cost in Australia. So what are these green jobs that John Connor and Sharan Burrow keep talking about? The ACTU says there’s a million of them out there - please show me where.

    • watty says:

      08:08am | 28/08/09

      The “Climate Institute” much like it’s fellow Left Wing “independent” think tank the Australia Institute is no more than another den for the real dinosaurs of Australia..

      California…self proclaimed “green State…billions of taxpayer subsidies to solar and windpower providers..over past 10 years.

      Result…..2008 California State website shows WIND and SOLAR produced less tha 1% yes ONE PERCENT of California’s ELECTRICAL POWER REQUIREMENTS.

      Return the “dinosars” of the Climate Institute to their pre-historic caves and ignore their delusional claims about “alternative energies” being the mainstay of Australia.

    • watto says:

      08:10am | 28/08/09

      David, you raise some interesting but brief insights into the machinary of carbon/energy politics. How about some description of the political landscape and figures rather than some breathless, poorly backed up slurs on people and organisations? Contribute to an important national debate on the issue. What is missing is an analysis of coal subsidies and the like, to balance your article. If the old smokestack energy companies are so recession proof and so embedded in our public pockets requiring such massive government welfare, are they more competitive than other sources? Round out your argument. Provide the information. Also David, given the emotive political tone of the piece, you need to declare whether you are working with ‘anti-green’ or fossil fuel industries. It would add some credibility to your viewpoint.

    • Rationalist says:

      08:17am | 28/08/09

      Too right, people want real jobs, not green jobs.

    • Adam Dennis says:

      08:18am | 28/08/09

      Mr Gazard, I tried desperately to read your entire post, but you distinguished yourself by writing something that even a hungry reader like me could not devour. Your negativity is boring. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that some constructive comments would lighten your piece. Your mention of the German solar industry is so sad. Why? Because the Liberals - your side of the fence - had ten years of brilliant opportunity to develop and support a solar industry in a large country with a helluva lot of sun ... and did buggerall. We have some world-leading solar tech development going on here (the companies that didn’t migrate during the previous Government’s tenure), and they’ve made it in spite of the dismal support. In a decade when generous support of R&D would have set us up as a smart green economy, the choice was made to do very little.

      Still, let’s not focus on the past. Let’s focus on the hilarious caption to the photo. “Describe this image” indeed! Is that a picture of John Howard?

    • Dude says:

      08:29am | 28/08/09

      The horse industry said the same thing about steam. The steam industry said the thing about diesel. The diesel industry said the same things about electricity. The only thing guaranteed is change itself. Capitilist societies need change to survive it’s called growth. The only thing that doesn’t change is human stupidity and it’s called rightardation: the art of conserving the wrong things.

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:31am | 28/08/09

      Puerile name calling by the Greens, again…

      It’s my considered opinion that if your argument relies on name-calling then you really haven’t got an argument at all.

    • iansand says:

      08:53am | 28/08/09

      Who is YOUR client, Mr Gazard?  You ARE a lobbyist, aren’t you?

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      08:54am | 28/08/09

      What, pray tell, is a green job?

      If the power stations in the Latrobe Valley were to shut today what mystical green jobs would these thousands of people do? Is a boilermaker employed at a power station ‘non-green’, but a boilermaker employed at a wind farm suddenly ‘green’?

      What ‘green’ jobs actually exist that are meaningful in Australia’s 21st century economy, aside from unicorn wrangler that is.

    • Dude says:

      09:03am | 28/08/09

      The first act needed in curing a disease is giving it a name.

    • Liz says:

      09:07am | 28/08/09

      Ever noticed how anything a Government of whatever colour wants to promote is going to create jobs?Who can you trust for the truth? It’s hard work and most people don’t have time to seek it out.

    • pc says:

      09:13am | 28/08/09

      Kurisu Sonsaku, “What ‘green’ jobs actually exist that are meaningful in Australia’s 21st century economy, aside from unicorn wrangler that is.” I assume Chris that was a question and Im not entirely sure that I understand it, particularly that bit about meaningful, I never knew there were unicorn wranglers but it sounds so good Im going to find out if I can do a grad dip in it? I know you like to repeat yourself too Chris, but its ok we’re not talking, its written down in front of me. I could just read it twice next time, if that made you feel more intelligent.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:39am | 28/08/09

      “...Your negativity is boring. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that some constructive comments would lighten your piece….”

      Pffft.  So you would prefer to be lied to whilst singing a lullaby?

      “Only give me good news; make it up if you have to”.

      I’m so glad you’re one of the 3%.

    • watto says:

      10:02am | 28/08/09

      @ian Good call. The other stranglely missing target in your piece, David, is the most recent & biggest green job scam, Labor’s 50,000 new ‘green’ jobs. Heavily subsidised like the coal industry. Which sounds alot like Labor recycling Howards Green Corp scheme. If it’s not a scam, then 50,000 green jobs will CREATED by green purists and your wild argument is defeated! Perhaps, you are talking tough until the point, that you get SCARED of power greenies and biting the gov hand that feeds you David? Omissions &deafening; silence speaks volumes.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      10:07am | 28/08/09

      Ha! Good old PC writing true to form, as usual. Nothing worthwhile or meaningful added to the debate - just insults. I reckon he/she/it could get a job writing parliamentary speeches for the Labour party!

    • DAve says:

      10:16am | 28/08/09

      Chris wrote “Comparing climate change denialists and the Coalition to dinosaurs? “. This is a good example of PC double speak. Denailists (as you call them) start from a foundation that the climate has and always will change. They are not cliamte change denialists. They hold the opposite view to that. The so called Green view is the view that the climate naturally never changes very much.
      I say so called Green because these people fail to understand their policies would divert a vast amount of resources away from environmental issues we could actually achieve outcomes for.

    • Peter Demonk says:

      10:18am | 28/08/09

      Funny how no-one wants to debate the issue. They just want to play the man.

      Show us the Green Jobs.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      11:05am | 28/08/09

      A picturesque setting where 50,000 green workers slave on their hands and knees pulling out weeds, would deliver a strong message to the mums and dads who think climate change is a productive enterprise and expose the real agendas foisted on the public by the greens and their twin, the Australian labor party,  What a cultural revolution to behold.

    • watto says:

      11:18am | 28/08/09

      @peter Note: A lobbyists job is not to promote debate - it’s to steer public opinion to David’s rich clients interests and rigid ‘brown’ political position. Nothing else. Rabid greenies and brownies resemble a fightclub not dialogue or debate.

    • Marcus says:

      11:19am | 28/08/09

      The appalling quality of your analysis never ceases to amaze David.  I assume this is an audition to get some lobbying work from the coal industry?

      I think you missed the fact that the reason that solar panels coming out of China are so cheap is because they are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government who want to dominate the market, foreseeing the likely dramatic increase in demand.  They are losing money now but squeezing the competition out for the long term gains. 

      So we have many jobs created (in China) due to distortional market subsidies.  Sounds a bit like what we do here with coal…

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:46am | 28/08/09

      My opinion is that only nuclear energy can satisfy current baseload power demands and still cut carbon emissions, but as long as the government doesn’t squander money on researching unproven technologies such as clean coal, hydrogen powered cars or cold fusion, I’m happy with a debate on the role of renewables

    • pc says:

      12:24pm | 28/08/09

      Dave, “Chris wrote “Comparing climate change denialists and the Coalition to dinosaurs? “. This is a good example of PC double speak.” Except I didnt say it Dave. But thats ok, Dave. I like you. You begin comments with “my opinion is”. Straightforward and clear prose.  Like the issue of climate change, many “rejectionists” (better ring to it than denialist eh), that are trying to outthink other comments, like they try to outthink the science on climate change. They do this because they decided before the science. So in tribute to Dave or How I feel about the rejectionists. Here it is. ,I feel like they are late for a party, and expect us to leave them some bundy. Oh and I couldnt get a job with the ALP. No talent you see.

    • Peter says:

      12:59pm | 28/08/09

      Presumably David Gazard’s job is ensure we pollute the earth as much as humanly possible. No doubt he offered this advice to John Howard and Peter Costello. What a shame they fell for it.

    • GM says:

      01:20pm | 28/08/09

      Okay, I am a novice, I sit in that position of neither camp… I want to know, I want a difference and I want action not jabbering but sadly that’s all I get jabbering. Our nation is sadly one of ‘he (or she) who can throw the greatest put down or insult as long as it embaresses those who oppose them. I have yet to see a viable alternative, I have yet to see action over talk, I have yet to see a Green person say ‘here is the alternatives and how we are going to achieve that’. So a challenge, lets stop talking and I ask you to get out there and in language that does not insult or put down tell me how it will be better for us and where are all these jobs going to come from?

    • Shelley says:

      01:48pm | 28/08/09

      I’m no denier.

      The climate it does change.

      And it has been from the beginning or we wouldn’t all be tapping furiously here on this site. Those dinosaurs the Greens have enlisted to give the kids nightmares would still walk among us and we’d be chewing on wooly mammoth instead of beef steak.

      I just don’t believe that the sacrifice of money , lifestyles, or livelihoods will sway the earth from being whatever temperature it darn well pleases.

      If that was the case the likes of Gore would power down and stay home.

      We don’t sacrifice goats and chooks to stop eclipses. Nor do we toss a swag of virgins to volcano’s to stop their eruption.

      How naive to think killing peoples livelihoods and tossing money will make the temperature of the earth be what we want rather that whatever it darn well pleases.

    • pc says:

      02:22pm | 28/08/09

      So what youre saying shelley, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the climate is changing and theres nothing we can do about it, because we are all too greedy and apathetic anyway? Are you sure that sacrificing goats wont work? Tossing virgins in to a volcano wont work either you say? Well that leaves pc pretty stumped shelly, I guess we could legislate a tax on carbon emissions and try and share the load as best we can in the hope that our grandchildren can look back and say our ancestors - they werent complete rightards

    • Tom says:

      02:28pm | 28/08/09

      I for one am very proud to be in the dinosaur camp - afterall the greatest survivor on the planet is a dinosaur - Go the crocodiles

      Good yarn - two thumbs up

    • Shinsengumi says:

      03:11pm | 28/08/09

      Erm, anyone who seriously thinks that setting up any kind of R&D in this country is feasible, think again.  The Australian govts (both sides) have systematically discouraged just about every world-leading industry we’ve had.  As someone who knows quite a few world-leading researchers in Medical, Technical, and Material Science fields, Australia really is an R&D backwater.

      However, that being said, a good point was made - China is producing horrendous toxic & environmental waste making so-called ‘green’ tech.  Solar panel production is toxic.  Wind turbine production is also energy intensive, and many wind turbines will not pay back their ‘carbon cost’ before they break down.  If Australia was serious about reducing their carbon emissions, or, not shunting the pollution to industry in another country, we would stop sending our uranium overseas and instead use it here.  Nuclear power today is incredibly advanced, safe, and by far the cleanest, most efficient technology around.  Australia needs to move to ridiculous amounts of cheap, abundant electricity, or otherwise, we’re not going to be ‘The Lucky Country’ for long.

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      05:38pm | 28/08/09

      @pc - Still not able to say what a green job is and channeling your inner heathen for the benefit of Shelly, you truly are a sad little critter.

      Tell you what, you go pay a tax on a nonmetallic solid and then you can share with us all your moral superiority, or, perhaps if you just disconnect yourself from the power grid and live on ‘alternative’ power souces we will acknowledge your towering intellectual grasp of this thread. Then again it’s what we expect from a Spring St loiterer.

    • Formersnag says:

      09:25pm | 28/08/09

      The labour/green coalition are the deniers, of jobs. The bonuses that wallstreet will make trading in carbon default swaps, derivative forestry futures, shares in timbercorp, great southern, etc. I am not sure whether these loony, left, child abuse, deniers, are stupid, or just plain evil?

    • pc says:

      11:42pm | 28/08/09

      Kurisu Sonsaku, Or should I say Chris, your reply, and I love the abuse, makes absolutely no sense. Kind of like the way you insist on calling yourself Kurisu when youre name is actually chris. Here is what you said, or as I should say, what you tried to say,
      “Tell you what, you go pay a tax on a nonmetallic solid and then you can share with us all your moral superiority, or, perhaps if you just disconnect yourself from the power grid and live on ‘alternative’ power souces we will acknowledge your towering intellectual grasp of this thread. Then again it’s what we expect from a Spring St loiterer.” 
      This is an excellent example of the same style of writing as youre hero anne coldcun*. Im not sure how to spell her name. Its incoherent, meaningless and without reply. I do believe that I’ve already told you what I think. “Lets share the burden so our grandchildren can look back and say, “Our Ancestors, they werent complete rightards.” Now Chris, because I have had a good day and you havent Im going to enjoy my present state of drunkeness and regale all my friends with stories of your rightardedness. In fact I’ll probably make a couple up. Ciao

    • iansand says:

      09:00am | 29/08/09

      If I open a mine I factor remediation (horrible word) into the calculation of viability, along with many other factors.  Remediation is mandated, so it is factored in.  In the olden days no one restored mine sites, but things changed.  No one bats an eye lid. 

      Carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, are by products of industry but cleaning up those products is not mandated, so it is not a factor in the calculation of viability or price.  Very few industries clean up their mess without being required to by regulation.  We are going through the sort of change in relation to emissions through which the mining industry went.  Why is making that change so controversial?

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      12:57pm | 29/08/09

      @pc

      You figured out what my name in english means, (wow, is there nothing google can’t do), still can’t address the subject matter. Poor attempt, epic fail on your part.

    • pc says:

      01:54pm | 29/08/09

      If you are interested in the actual facts about climate change, there are a number of sites, available, and without partisan bias. Nasa, the IMF and OECD. They all agree that carbon emissions are warming the earth. If your concerned about the economic impact of an ets you can visit either the federal govts - or if thats not too your taste, Im pretty sure the IMF have similar modelling examples. The problem with this debate on punch and in the broader public debate, has been the contributions to a “non debate”. That is the invention of “sceptical” or “undecided” posts that are, in fact, anything but sceptical or undecided. Steve Fielding is an excellent example of this. He said he needed to know all the facts, understand all the science before he could make a decision, then surprise surprise he rejected not just the science supporting climate change but all science. As they are losing the science argument, unsurprisingly, those against the ets are trying to immobile australians with fear over their jobs and paralyse them into inaction. Happily it wont work. Australians are too smart and a majority already support the ets. We will takle the problem of climate change with or without the shirkers. Then we’ll all get smashed on french champagne. Oh Kurisiu,or Chris, I almost forgot. Why not just do away with the whole name thing and call yourself Winnie the Pooh, or better but longer - The sheep in sheeps clothing.

    • davido says:

      07:13pm | 29/08/09

      The one reasonable point raised within this article is that China has gazumped the rest of us with renewable technology.

      We have had 25 years to get into solar as an industry and we as a nation have time and time passed up the opportunity.

      Now China has at least 3 ‘solar’ billionaires that I know of and is likely to get many more. As to the wage advantage as an argument. That is bascially rubbish. Japan pays it’s factory workers way more than we do in ox but they still manage to make and sell better and cheaper electronic goods than we do.

    • Greg James says:

      08:03am | 30/08/09

      Solar and windpower is a non-answer to a non-problem.

      Coal for the short term and nuclear for the long term is the way to go.

      AGW is a scam and a fraud and belief in it will not last another year or two.  The game is up, you AGW zealots.  Your religion is daily being exposed for the fraud that it is.

    • NH says:

      07:38pm | 30/08/09

      “AGW is a scam”?  On what basis do you say so Greg James? Have you reviewed the science and come to an informed position? How do you so confidently dismiss a whole body of science?  Because Andrew Bolt said so?

      Given that so few of us are actually climate scientists with the ability and knowledge to independently review the science, it really does come down to a decision of who to believe doesn’t it?

      On the one hand - the vast majority of climate scientists actually working in this area. (You’ll notice that most so-called sceptics or deniers are rarely climate scientists - more likely geologists).  The strength of that scientific consensus cannot be called into question - see for example the following review of the science in a reputable journal: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

      On the other hand - you could chose to believe those few (but overly amplified) outliers who ‘don’t believe in climate change’.  They are rarely scientists working in the specific field of climate science, and are often funded by the oil and gas industry or by conservative think tanks purely to inject uncertainty into the debate. (Let me know if you’d like some links to research on this area) To be fair to you and your fellow sceptics - there are reportedly still people who believe the earth is flat and that such a thing as abiotic oil exists?

      It is interesting that you invoke a religious metaphor in your comment - because looking at these two opposing camps it is quite clear to me which one relies on religious zeal and resorting to uninformed belief.

    • pc says:

      09:34pm | 30/08/09

      So lets get this straight everybody, Gregg James and those, that argue against climate change and the ets, believe that NASA and the IMF are institutions run by zealots. I am unsurpised that a person with two first names could believe this. (C’mon what is it really, Tammy Faye, Bobby Sue or Hill Billy?)

    • David Hewison says:

      04:38am | 20/09/09

      This is one of the best laughs Ive had all day!  is it a full moon? 

      NH, please inform us: What exactly IS a climate scientist?  Please also tell us, approximately, how much of what there is to know about climate, is known?  And finally, can you piont us to evidence which has been replicated multiple times by independent, multiple scientists that proves that the man made component of Co2 is whats causing the climate to change?

      I wonder too, if you know the difference between theory and evidence?

      I dont mean to pick on you alone, i mean there are really a lot of idiots posting on this site and most of them can only insult others as their best argument.. which makes them.. well, irrelivent..  yours was at least thought out.

      Anyone, regardless of which side they sit, is a fool if they state the debate is over.  Just at the moment, there isnt a single shred of evidence anywhere supporting the theory..  the IPCC themselves openly say that they cant find any other reason for the change. Other activists have admitted the alarmism is simply a ploy to get the media to report their mantra to get the public money behind them.

      Do we convict people without evidence?  no. 

      I wonder what outragious comments are to come…

    • www.thepunch.com.au says:

      08:30am | 16/05/11

      Job destroying green purists are deadlier than dinosaurs.. Nifty smile

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@nigelmcbain I don't see the nexus between gay marriage and gay sex education in schools. ACL does. Health issues should be taught whatever

Daniel Piotrowski

@jennijenni a few companies are known to do that - ask for story ideas from job applicants so they can steal them later

Malcolm Farr

: Bruce Springsteen: "I get roughed up crowdsurfing… people try to pull chunks out of me" http://t.co/jiHqt8agt9” it was him, @patricklion

Daniel Piotrowski

Ray Hadley fires back at Carlton. Great @candacesutton1 get: http://t.co/7fQzk4Xixh

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter