Prev
Next

No sustainability without food security

John Cobb

by John Cobb

22 Jul 05:35am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

15

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

51

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

122

Filed under: Election 2010, Farming, Food, Population, Sustainability

28 comments

Since becoming Prime Minister, Gillard has been work-shopping the phrase ‘Sustainable Australia’. Like Kevin 07’s, ‘working families’ no-one really has a clue what it means, but the faces behind the PM on the six o’clock news all nod diligently whenever she mentions it. It is almost like they are too embarrassed to admit they have no idea what she is talking about.

Insecurity for our farmers is a bigger threat to sustainability. Photo: Getty Images

I bet that every one of those ALP candidates who nod eagerly whenever the word ‘sustainable Australia’ is mentioned would love it if the Prime Minister could explain what the difference is between a ‘sustainable’ Australia and a ‘big’ Australia if you don’t cut the current immigration rate, or increase the death rate or decrease the birth rate.

It is telling the only actual policy Ms Gillard has delivered in her first four weeks as Prime Minister was to change the Minister for Population’s title to the Minister for ‘Sustainable’ Population. Every other policy she has announced will be delivered sometime in the never never or - never, ever.

Surely it goes without saying that any future population would be sustainable. And just as surely the ability to feed Australia’s future generations would have to be one of the greatest considerations in any population policy.

Food producers are becoming increasingly angry that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for ‘Sustainable’ Population is ignoring the importance of food security in the population debate.

It has now reached the farcical point where the Minister is pulling out of all his engagements with state farming organisations. He was a no show at the Victoria Farmers Federation, pulling out the night before he was due to open the conference and now he has pulled out of the NSW Farmers Association Annual Conference as the key note speaker. He simply doesn’t care for agriculture, and his colleague the Minister for Water, Penny Wong has similarly snubbed communities reliant on water in the Murray Darling Basin by pulling out of commitments in places like Mildura at the last minute.

It is pointless having a “Sustainable” Population Minister who doesn’t even bother acknowledging the importance of food producers in the debate. Farmers need a seat at the table because no population is sustainable without a guaranteed food supply.

Australia’s food producers love producing food. Our food producers can, even during the worst drought in our lifetime, feed the nation and then some. I take my hat off to the rice producers in the Riverina.  They have earned the title ‘Masterproducers’, smashing world records and feeding millions.

The Australian reports that this year’s Riverina rice crop of 11 tonnes per hectare; ‘is a world record by a country mile, and it beats the previous world record which our own growers held of 10.2 tonnes a hectare in the 2003 harvest.’

‘According to the US Department of Agriculture, the average world rice yield last year was 3.8 tonnes a hectare, up from 1.7 tonnes a hectare in 1960.’

It is our farmers who hold the key to feeding the world and guaranteeing the true terror of famine is not visited upon our children and future generations.

Not only do our farmers feed and clothe millions of people every day, they are major global innovators right along the food production and distribution chain. Australians have the cleanest, greenest safest food in the world right at their doorsteps.

Our food producers set the benchmark for quality clean, green and disease free food and fibre, but this food quality comes at a price. And often they are getting priced out of business by imported food and fibre which is not produced under the same standards the Australian product is.

Many of our food and fibre producers are fatigued by both the drought and continued interference in their businesses by often well meaning, but ultimately useless, government meddling.

I believe we need a strong agriculture sector in this country. We are the best in the world at what we do and the world needs Australian agriculture.

Regional Australia can accommodate more people but it will take more than a slogan to see it come to fruition.

Towns such as Bourke have lost a third of their population in the last decade as a direct result of the drought and the Gillard Government’s water policies which have resulted in food producing power-houses like Toorale Station being turned into National Parks which has directly led to over 100 full-time and casual jobs being lost in the Bourke Shire alone.

Bourke already has the infrastructure to accommodate more people. The problem is we have a Labor Government in Sydney and another one in Canberra who think that NSW stands for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong and have completely ignored Regional Australia.

The greatest threat to food production is not climate change or population growth, but the policies governments put in place to deal with it. For example - there can be no food security without secure property rights.

No-one knows the nation’s carrying capacity and issues surrounding food production and sustainability better than our farmers and by ignoring them any ‘population’ plan proposed by the Gillard Government will be half baked at best.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

28 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • DougB says:

      07:30am | 22/07/10

      It’s a good start John, but what are the solutions?  I agree with you totally.  Focus by governments, both state and federal, has been largely on the urban sprawls, due to their high population, or mining, due to the high $$.
      I read about the Chinese buying our farming properties, and worry, we only have a small amount of land suitable for agriculture etc, due to our coastal boundary and desert center.
      What motivation do young people, immigrants or unemployed people have to go rural and learn the skills of farming.  None that I can see, except for those who might have personal desires to be a farmer.
      We are at risk of crippling our future and having to rely on overseas countries to prop up our food needs in years to come.
      Give us answers not just statements of the obvious.

      Reply

    • michael says:

      09:56am | 23/07/10

      The Chinese Government is buying Australian farms to directly feed its population.
      The purchases are not monitored by the Foreign Investment Review Board, according to Senator Bill Heffernan who exposed this. Farm buy-ups are not referred to the FIRB unless they are worth more than $230 million! So, unless the farm property is under this amount, it just becomes “international” land! The highest bidder should be scrutinised.  Any agents for the Chinese government or nationals should be rejected.

    • alison says:

      12:20pm | 24/07/10

      @michael - why do you say “Any agents for the Chinese government or nationals should be rejected”

      I am genuinely interested in why you think the Chinese should be seperated out from any other nationality or sovereign wealth fund?

    • Jude says:

      07:57am | 22/07/10

      Best comments yet on what a “sustainable” Australia should be. if we can’t feed ourselves we aren’t sustainable at all. Eating is the thing we all have to do every day. Where I live on the Fleurieu Peninsula in SA we are seeing some of our best farming land disappear under housing estates. While acknowledging that people need somewhere to live you can’t eat a view. Food security isn’t even on the agenda in the state’s 30 year plan.

      Reply

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      08:03am | 22/07/10

      Growing more water efficient irrigated crops like pivot irrigated corn rather than flood irrigated rice along the Murray Darling Basin, would be a big step
      http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=maize
      http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=rice

      The argument that irrigators in the driest continent on earth “Australia” are helping world hunger by feeding 50 million rice eating people on probably the wettest continent and group of Islands on earth “Asia” does not realy hold water.

      Neither does growing a water intensive crop like rice

      The main reason why “Asia” is looking for other places like us to grow rice, is because they building factory’s and suburbs on their rice feilds.

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      09:23am | 22/07/10

      I agree, we need to grow more crops that suit the Australian climate.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      09:41am | 22/07/10

      @AliceC ..I think a good start to better irrigation water efficiency would be government dollars going towards phasing out flood irrigation (huge evaporation and seepage losses) and helping irrigators move to pivot, overhead, drip and even hydroponic crop water practices.
      We have a huge most often empty rice storage shed 5km south of Hay and the Murrumbidgee River, with 3 phase electric turbo blowers hooked up the sides of it.
      With the current off season tomato shortage it might not cost that much to put in some UV lighting, hydroponic tubs, pipe water to it and run the blowers ..and grow hydroponic off season tomatoes in it.
      Alternatively medicinal marijuana (it can be grown under lock and key) either way it is efficient water useage using an existing under used asset that would probably bring money and jobs into Hay’s economy
      We have to use our water smarter

    • MelG says:

      12:08pm | 22/07/10

      This is why I refuse to buy Australian rice and support an industry that should never been established in Australia and is ripping vast amounts of water from the Murray Darling system. As a resident in rural SA where the wine industry has been decimated from managed investment schemes and the like and has seen our local wine grape growers see a drop in farm gate income of 60% in the last year alone we need smarter thinking in this area. Our region is one of the most water efficient in the country with virtually all vineyards in the region being on drip irrigation. That being said we have plenty of infrastructure in the region with the ability to grow large scale fruit and vegetables, where they are currently grown largely on the outskirts of Adelaide these properties are being edged out for housing developments. Smart thinking would be developing our regional areas for sustainable food development, creating jobs where they are needed and a better population spread. Politicians on both sides need a degree in common sense.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      12:28pm | 22/07/10

      @Mel G ..managed farm operations owned by investment companies rather than farmers have have some problems, notably recently I remember the Olive industry around Robinvale hitting the wall. And again that crops water efficiency was questionable

    • T.Chong says:

      08:20am | 22/07/10

      Very important topic. Farmers are naturally concerned about providing us townies and city folk food, ( God Bless them).
      Some farmers on the Liverpool plains were so concerned , that they actually fought for, and managed to stop destruction of good farming land.
      The bountiful Liverpool plains were to be dug up by MINERS.
      Now, that raises an interesting issue for the Nats and Lib Coalition.
      Abbott has promised to die in the ditches in order to defend the mining corps, yet Liverpool plains showed the farmers and Nats fighting against the miners. So….,
      John what is most important for the Nats- supporting your constituants (like at Gunnedah), or total support for all things mining, like Abbott ?
      If the LNP was to win, Miners will want a bang for the financing of the Liberal campaign,  farmers protecting their land will be legislated away.
      Who has the greater right ? farmers or miners?

      Reply

    • Rohan says:

      08:04pm | 22/07/10

      Yes Libs and Nationals are not the best when it comes to AG issues but they are representing Rural Australia not just farmers.  That includes Mins and the jobs that come with them.  The Coalition is the best option for farmers. Labour doesn’t really care because they don’t need the rural areas to win Office.  The greens have come to my attention with their Ag policies but they usually stuff it up by doing or saying something stupid. 
      But you are forgetting that it is the NSW Labour party who are approving these mines on prime agricultural land because it gives them hard currency.  Are you saying that NSW Labour Government does not share the blame for the Liverpool planes Mines? 
      Now there is more to agriculture then mining.  Now Labour has shown how much they are commented to Ag by appointing Tony Burke as Minister.  Tony Burke is useless.  My family and other farmers have sent letters, emails and faxes to Tony Burke about a whole lot of Ag related issues.  You usually get a reply that pretty much says the same thing.  Translating from political bull dust it say’s “I can’t be bothered with it.” It not even a lie like “i will look in to it”
      If you watch Landline, ABC country show, you will notice that even they will go to Senator Bill Heffernan more often than asking Tony Burk.  The left say he is crazy and make jokes about him but if you really listen to what he as to say about Agricultural Issues you will find he knows what he is talking about and sound far more capable then Tony Burke.  That is why I support them not labour.

    • Pop says:

      08:33am | 22/07/10

      Yes, this is an important issue but just because some Ministers had to pull out of meetings doesn’t mean they want nothing to do with you. You’re being overly sensitive. Ever thought that in the midst of a political campaign and everything else that they might have somethign else to do which is more pressing?

      Right now the ‘sustainable’ population campaign is focusing on those darn nasty illegal immigrants stealing our jobs - because that is what the “average Aussie battler from the suburbs with his plasma and McMansion is worried about”. And this person is who is going to determine the outcome of the election.

      They’ll focus on your very important issues when they can convince the surburbanites that it is a problem.

      In the meantime, it’s best you have some viable solutions ready to go when they ask for them.

      Reply

    • SaveTheFarmers says:

      09:40am | 22/07/10

      “What motivation do young people, immigrants or unemployed people have to go rural and learn the skills of farming.  None that I can see, except for those who might have personal desires to be a farmer.”

      DougB, you hit the nail right on the head.

      Farming is a vocation that cannot simply be taken up as one might join a gym. It takes decades to learn all the skills that are required - no wonder farming is often a family business with generation teaching generation.  I deplore the fact that the next generation of farmers - the x and y - are miniscule or simply not there in regional areas. Its no wonder really, with the lack of government understanding and support that now these younger generations are having to leave the farms to take up jobs in the cities - its a waste of skills, time, and knoweledge.

      PS:Pop, have you ever been to an agriculture rally where these ministers are supposed to show up? Its a blood fest, ministers are good at promising things, but sometimes not quite as good at following through. Unfortunatly for the ministers, farmers have long memories and aren’t afraid to speak out.
      No minister wants to look that bad on T.V during a political campaign. Plus, if they are minister for agriculture or water or whatever, tell me what would be more important that actually showing up and talking to the people that they are meant to be representing?

      Reply

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      07:41pm | 22/07/10

      While both sides of politics fail to recognise our food security deserves even possibly 5% of the investment $ they make in our Submarine military defence..then sadly Australia is heading towards an research “Black Hole” in Agriculture

    • The Badger says:

      11:51am | 22/07/10

      “no-one really has a clue what it means”
      Perhaps you don’t but most do.
      Sustainable population is more than food. Food is perhaps the last thing we should be worrying about. The Ord river irrigation scheme can provide enough food to meet the needs of many times our current poplulation.
      Sustainability is about infrastructure more than anything else. Can we live somewhere?, can we access public transport and roads? Do we have water to drink and supply industry? Do we have enough power generation capability. It’s pretty obvious that these are amongst the things that are inferred in sustainability.
      These are difficult issues as providing this infrastructure needs to keep up with the expanding population.
      Returning to your pet project - farmers
      From my perspective, the government has to abandon handing out $$ to farmers trying to farm in areas that are not suitable for farming.  If you must give them money, relocate these people to the Ord river scheme if they want to keep their “farming” livelihood.

      Reply

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      12:15pm | 22/07/10

      You might want to run your sweeping ideas about expanding development around the Ord past the Traditional owners, Dept Environment, Dept Agriculture (not all crops can be grown in tropical conditions) , etc..prior to just up ending Australia’s agriculture to there…by the way you might also want to have some kind of plan to deal with the cane toads already starting to invade that area.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:26pm | 22/07/10

      Water Efficiency, Soil erosion and salinity unsustainable farming practices all have to considered in sustainability and food security, but the big question that Australia has yet to answer is how much do we want the export dollar and how much is for domestic consumption. We also need to address the supermarket duopoly that flexes its purchasing power in low payments to the local farmer while passing a huge mark up to the consumer. Of course a farmer is going to grow rice if Asia pays top dollar for it and the Australian supermarket pays a low price for, say, potatoes.

      Reply

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      02:33pm | 22/07/10

      @Shane ... Australian agriculture and irrigation practices would likely advance a fair bit if the Feds & States in particular NSW properly funded their Agriculture departments..more feild staff & research where we grow the food..

    • wake up says:

      01:58pm | 22/07/10

      Labor is not interested in food security. Neither are the Greens.
      Both parties want the UN to charter Australia’s path including for food and water supplies? Why do you think Australia has not built any dams or coal power stations. Australia signed an agreement with the UN in 1992 effectively destroying our future.

      RESEARCH “UN AGENDA 21”

      The key word of UN Agenda 21 is “sustainable”: “sustainable development”, “sustainable agriculture”, “sustainable communities”.

      Dr Esther Charlesworth, from RMIT’s architecture and design department, says the term “sustainability” has been co-opted and subverted by Melbourne’s urban elite. “It’s been used and abused by various players in the corporate, public and government sectors to justify WHATEVER it is they happen to be doing.” (The New Times Survey, June, 2008).

      British author and architect Austin Williams argues that “sustainability is a dirty word, anathema to architecture and vibrant cities.”

      “To me sustainability is the first thing we have to get rid of before we can clearly have a vision of what the future could possibly be,” he tells The Age.

      “In the guise of looking to the future with ambition it kills ambition … it’s giving us a low-inspirational, miserable-ist, anti-human kind of response,” he says.

      RESEARCH “UN AGENDA 21”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      02:29pm | 22/07/10

      It doesn’t have to happen tomorrow, but for Australia’s future, something that has to happen is the Bradfield Scheme. Both Liberal and Labor don’t mention and don’t exclude the fact that one day Australia’s population will be 420 million people. When we get to that figure, we will want to have built it, and to have many more dams than we currently do. Otherwise, our future is not sustainable. The Greens have a policy on this issue. They want to eliminate most of the world’s population .. possibly naturally.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      09:37pm | 22/07/10

      Just wondering: in how many centuries is Australia’s population expected to hit 420 million?

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      05:52pm | 22/07/10

      Jude is quite right. In Brisbane we have (had) a GREEN BELT around the city. Rochedale in the south has very rich soil and abundant beautiful underground water. For years this area has provided generous volumes of fruit an vegetables for Brisbane and to export. This area was protected with minimum ten acre lots.

      Now hallulya the greedy conscience void developers have come in and soon these farms will be turned into ‘wonderful’ residential housing blocks.

      No matter how much we love Australia we must conceed that a very large percentage of our country is unsuitable for growing vegies or fruit. Fly from Sydney or Brisbane to Singapore and of the six hours over Australia once you get ten minutes past the Great Divide it’s almost barren for the rest.

      Even only a couple of Km. from Rochedale the ground if poor shale. But the vultures see a dollar and that’s it. Never mind freshness; stuff carbon footprints. Find the produce elsewhere (China?) and haul it in.

      I wonder how many paper bags changed to get this rezoning past.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      03:15am | 23/07/10

      Well, is Julia doing her bit with sustaining her moving forward mantra! - nah!
      And that’s about all it’ll ever be until governments get serious about encouraging decentralisation and prohibiting growth in our waterway basins where not only are rich alluvial soils being built over but massive flooding or preventive works occur.
      There have been various MPs who have made comments at times about moving agriculture to our northern regions but they have probably never tried their hand at too much tropical farming.
      Sure you can grow tropical fruit and limited vegetable crops at the right time of the year for up there but that is a relatively short time of the year.
      It is about time they get serious about planning an east coast water grid, one that can harness Gulf tropical rains, flooding that occurs and with a Snowy Mountains scope hydro scheme channel water via our southern flowing rivers with extra storages along the way[ design them as deep chasms to minimise evaporation ] to where it is needed in more temperate climates.
      And then something needs to happen with pricing for there are many farm gate prices dictated by international conglomerates and dairy farmers for instance are finding production costs above what is being offered for it.
      Decentralisation and better water supplies should also allow food to be produced closer to population centres and that will also become crucial for major city dwellers as fuel and transport expense soars.
      You might even see less in the way of desalination plants being needed and not the high power consumption they have, something for the greens to consider, every time they want to oppose a new dam.
      I remember Senator Wrong Wong being interviewed on one occasion and asked about where food could be produced when announcing one of her water buy backs - her answer > eyes downcast ” we’ll have to have a look at that ” and wasn’t long after that I found “fresh” bunches of asparagus in a shop, all the way from Peru!
      As for the Ord river irrigation scheme, they’ve virtually decided its too damm hot up there that there’s more money to be made from Sandalwood and exporting that to India!, and again food transport costs will be astronomical.
      Yes, Australia can be a lot more sustainable as long as plan is developed that is a bit more than changing a Ministers title and relying on seeing what local Mayors reckon because they will just have parochial blinkers on when we need a broad vision.

      Reply

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      08:46am | 23/07/10

      It’s wrong that fresh fruit and veg are cheaper in cities than in rural areas where most is grown. I would put a transport tax on all fresh produce including taxing imports from country of origin to source. Then offset rural areas tax against the fresh produce they grow locally.
      Indigenous communities would have special zone exclusions or if they have access to water set up kitchen-garden (Stephanie Alexander) type set ups in those communities

    • Gregg says:

      02:20pm | 23/07/10

      There was an article I read not long back Peter that detailed the transport movements of some produce and with the wharehousing/distribution involved it does seem ridiculous that a lot of produce finds its way to city wharehouses only then to have the likes of the major supermarket chains distributing it back interstate and on to regional/rural areas where a lot of it came from in the first place.
      I travel over 200 km. once a fortnight for plasma donation and fortunately can offset my cost by buying up farmer fresh produce by shopping at market and farmers sheds. 
      But given the distances we have in this country, the distance from market to mouths and the irregularity of water supply, why we have had decades of governments refusing to adequately address decentralisation is beyond me.
      It was only about the beginning of the 20th century, yes 1900 that the Murray was a series of billabongs and I think it is in the NSW state library where there is a picture of buggies on theriver bed, similar to the one shown for 1915 in http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1228170972_document_marohasy_hoskin_facts-murrayriver.pdf
      An interesting report that and though some of the conclusive statements can be debated, on thing that comes through loud and clear is that there will always only be so much water to go around.
      As greater population means more food for more mouths, we certainly need to consider what best to grow and/or what means there may be to harness more rainfall.
      A great opportunity for a political party to show its mettle.
      Would a water grid project not also offer great opportunity for inland solar power trials and even give opportunities for more indigenous people?
      Put people and jobs together rather than or as well as infrastructure development dreaming.

    • michael says:

      08:53am | 23/07/10

      Excellent article…Let’s assume for one minute that the population debate is solely about economic growth. In the last seven quarters, while we have had record immigration,  overall GDP per capita has fallen . A Productivity Commission report showed that there was no demonstrable link between increases in immigration and per capita economic growth. The need to keep growing population is a myth perpetuated by big business to keep labour costs down and increase their consumer base. It is supported by property speculators ( including governments) that need constant population growth to keep property prices rising.

      Reply

    • Freddy says:

      04:54am | 01/08/10

      Like so many here, I think that growing rice in Australia is so wrong.  Perhaps we need to turn to Israel to improve our water efficiency or something, but in reality we haven’t planned living on this continent very well.

      There is something in what WAKEUP says about the UN and Agenda 21.  The greenies seem to be nothing but foot soldiers smoothing the way (through the infiltration of local councils and bureaucracies) for the most of the reforms.

      Even the term sustainability is right from the sheet as is water control, herding rural populations into big cities, and “rewinding”, farmland.

      Why do you suppose farmers aren’t allowed to cut down trees without permission? Why aren’t they allowed to harvest water on their properties without permission?

      Why had fuel load been allowed to build up (under the guidance of many a local green bureaucrat) along road sides and in public areas? 

      Seems to me that the most sustainable thing Australia can do, is pull out of the UN.

      Reply

    • Max Rawnsley says:

      11:44am | 11/06/11

      Allowing the agriculture sector to be destroyed by sale to overseas interests is happening at a rate that would stun most of us.  The economic rationalist s have influenced weak minded politicians to the point its being nearly irreversible. 

      The loss of added value for our wool started when the woollen mills of the cities and some country towns were allowed to close as long ago as the 60’s. Those jobs and skills have gone . The woolen mills in the Marrickville Petersham Enmore area in Sydney produced the wool that enable our clothing to be manufactured in Australia. 

      We do need to export and import to fill gaps in demand but we have gone overboard, our idea of production is to import repackage and sell. The recent move by Heinz to transfer production to NZ, why?  There are exceptional examples of Australian’s developing export markets but we do not control our destiny with dependency on a China sneeze; an accelerating decline in agriculture control and the virtual disappearance of manufacturing leaving the economy very exposed. No doubt a learned economist or representative of an international corporation can explain why this is not true, however my view commences with wanting the best for Australians and I do not see that in the present situation, or as its likely to be, if allowed to go further towards a service economy.

      Politicians need to understand the end game is that the living standard they foster will become unaffordable and the democracy we cherish untenable, not unlike Greece etc. This is already apparent with the tax grab policies and a sneaking realisation amongst many Australians that personal debt is a problem; that’s why they aren’t spending and reducing debt.

      My point? We are under a false impression fostered by politicians of the kind we now have that all is well. There a major structural defects in our economy that are the result of pretending that 21m people on the edge of Asia matter in the world economy and that we can continue to pretend it doesn’t matter that we do not minimise external control our economic destiny.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

7

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

2

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

by Mark Kenny

8

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed