text:
European Central Bank Official Discusses European Recovery, Yuan's International Role
By Wang Liwei and Zhang Qizhi
European Central Bank Executive Board member Benoit Coeure said the spike in bitcoin is "clearly a bubble," warning that despite its sharp rise in value, it is "a speculative investment" with "a risk of large capital losses." Photo: Visual China
Benoit Coeure, a member of the European Central Bank (ECB) Executive Board, and in charge of market operations, market infrastructure and payments, and international and European relations, sat down for an interview with Caixin on Dec. 17. He shared his opinions on a wide range of issues, including outlook for the international role of China's currency; the European economy's recovery; and the bitcoin bubble.
Below are excerpts from the dialogue:
Caixin: The ECB in June invested a small amount of foreign reserves in the renminbi (RMB). Why? Any plans ahead?
Coeure: The amount is equivalent to 500 million euros ($602 million), roughly 1% of the ECB's foreign currency reserves. We sold U.S. dollar reserves to do this. At the end of 2016, the ECB's reserves consisted of 83% U.S. dollars and 17% Japanese yen. We also have a 45 billion euros / 350 billion yuan bilateral currency swap agreement with the PBOC (People's Bank of China).
Both initiatives are an acknowledgment of the growing international role of the renminbi and a first step toward a better understanding of how the Chinese monetary and foreign exchange markets work.
I'm quite sure that there will be further steps in the future. But central banks are conservative by nature. This is a long-term process.
How do you see the prospect of RMB internationalization?
To understand the international monetary system, one needs to take a very long-term perspective, even if the rise of China on the global economic stage has been much faster than anything we've seen before.
It's quite evident to me that the renminbi will eventually become a major international currency, and I personally believe that a multipolar monetary system is good for the stability of the global economy. For the renminbi to achieve that status, further steps will need to be taken, including a further opening of the capital account, the pace and modalities of which are for the Chinese authorities to decide.
How does the global central banking community view the PBOC's role in recent years?
Over the last 10 years or so, there has been a clear evolution. The PBOC has been engaging more and more with the international community and its central bank counterparts in line with the changing role of China in the global economy.
From an ECB perspective, I can say that we now have a relationship with the PBOC that is as broad and deep as it is with a core group of other central banks. This includes discussions on financial markets, monetary policy and payment systems, to name just a few. The PBOC is part of that core group.
How is Europe's recovery progressing?
We don't see it as a recovery anymore, but as an expansion. The annual growth rate in the eurozone is the strongest in 10 years. We expect a GDP (gross domestic product) growth rate of 2.4% for 2017, and business and consumer confidence are at their highest levels in over 17 years, according to the November reading of the European Commission's Economic Sentiment Indicator. Seven million jobs have been created in the eurozone since mid-2013.
Growth today is not only very strong, but also very broad-based. The expansion is also more sustainable as it is driven by domestic demand and an improving labor market, and it is less reliant on credit.
We have definitely left the crisis behind us. Europe is back!
What are the risks to Europe's economy?
Risks are broadly balanced in our view, with positive risks coming from the eurozone and negative risks coming from outside. The latter include geopolitical risks and risks stemming from emerging market economies.
At a deeper level, we see risks to global growth resulting from the erosion of support for international trade and openness. Europe clearly remains committed to openness and international cooperation. We are open for business. We don't agree with those countries that want to curb international trade.
And let me add a more-political remark. In a world which is more uncertain and volatile than ever, Europe can project itself on the world stage and work jointly with China to provide stability.
While Europe needs to rebuild fiscal buffers now, as ECB President Mario Draghi recently mentioned, the United States is embarking on a major tax reform involving major tax cuts. How do Europeans see tasks on the fiscal side?
In Europe, there are two different discussions. One is on the level of the deficit, or "fiscal stance," the other on the composition, i.e. the quality of public finances.
In all countries, there is scope to make public finances friendlier to growth, in particular to reduce nonproductive public spending and cut distortionary taxes.
But not many countries have fiscal space because their public debt is too high. Their priority should be to use the current economic expansion to rebuild fiscal buffers so that when the next crisis hits, they can use fiscal policy to react to it. In the meantime, they can still improve the composition of their public finances.
So Europeans need to carry out their own fiscal agendas, and not follow the U.S.?
It's not for the ECB to comment, but I don't see a great appetite among European leaders to follow the U.S. example at the current juncture.
What do you think of bitcoin?
What we are witnessing today is clearly a bubble, made possible by scarcity and by an expected sequence of gains that investors believe will be sustained irrespective of the fundamentals. That is the definition of a bubble.
Bitcoin is not a currency. Investors should not believe that they will be able to use it as a means of payment. It is a speculative investment. There is a risk of large capital losses that investors should be aware of.
So the main concern related to bitcoin is not a monetary one but one that relates to investor protection, and possibly also to tax evasion, money-laundering and criminal finance.
With two American exchanges (the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) introducing bitcoin futures, how do you see the policy for it going forward?
The ECB is not a securities regulator. Regulators worldwide have recently warned investors repeatedly about possible losses. In Europe, the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, adopted by the European Council and the European Parliament last Friday (Dec. 15), requires exchange platforms and wallet providers to report suspicious transactions and identify owners of digital currencies. I'm quite sure that further steps will be taken to regulate this market.
Contact reporter Zhang Qizhi (qizhizhang@caixin.com)
China Clamps Down on Preferential Treatment for Bitcoin Mines
Regulators to take inventory of electricity prices, taxes and land use, discontinue incentives
Editorial: China's Monetary Policy Requires Delicate Balancing Act in Year Ahead
Priorities must be promoting real economy while maintaining a consistent policy with a focus on stability

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Cloversissy BluEyesAileen livejasmin. AnnaNKendra. BigHolesForU. Chinno.
yaiiracarolinafoxAngelinaHillCoupleGoalsxxx .LaraerosBrendaGwenalmadeangelxLesbianDollx .AliceDixonKrystalMadisonFuiokaYourInsomniaX .CuteGingerMarcDanielCuteLittleStarlightRysa1981 .RUBYMONSTERCOCKGiannaPopsalmadeangelYourInsomniaX .fetishgames1LimHotBigbeautyass4uCurvyDiamondD .NiceKatalinaMonicaScarletalmadeangelxLesbianDollx .NastyMilkyBGTitsAmyTransbabeNastyMilkyBGTitsYourInsomniaX .NastyMilkyBGTitsarianasexiBellaChopAnnaNKendra .wildkittyhotxHotFlorinBigHolesForUClaireSense .SexiOrliFuiokaVendyLoveTheSwitchOne .
GOLDTATYLaurieBBSweetthatsmygirlPatrickCub .Crazyamy69AliceDixonRUBYMONSTERCOCKidesiremore82 .Chloe666CoupleGoalsxxxNiceKatalinaStellaStoneNixon .BrendaGwenPatrickCubyourASIANprinceLimHot .NiceboybigasshotChrisTheKClaireSenseAryanaKey .PatrickCubarianasexiPatrickCubKandySpicy .xLesbianDollxYourInsomniaXKellySweetBabyfiorelinoblu .idesiremore82almadeangelBettyMilffBogBoyHot .ChinnoQueencumTSmalaysianbabeAryanaKey .AthenaRose1994yaiiraDesire5000PatrickCub .CuteAliyaMarselNaughtyfetishgames1QueenAsianAlexaX .


It's monsoon month here in Korea and my students have been arriving with all manner of different size / shape / color / cartoon character umbrellas but by far, the most interesting one was the 'I drew my own umbrella' umbrella from one of the girls in my last class on a Thursday.
As the girls insisted on being in the photo, I can only publish a section of the arty umbrella but what a fantastic idea for a rainy day…literally. Decorate your own umbrella, go play outside in the rain with it!! Perfect!
In honor of Rebecca's umbrella, I recalled wandering upon this smart art online. I've lost the source but if you know it, send me an email and I'll link it / credit it, no problem!
And of course, there's always more in The Index.


Click here to access the online version of the help file.
I hope the ToolPak has few bugs, but as with any software, I am certain that it has some. Please e-mail me at Armann.Ingolfsson@UAlberta.ca if you think you have found a bug, or if you have suggestions for improving the ToolPak. If you discover a new bug I will list it below and eventually I will also fix it, I hope! I might also offer to buy you a cup of coffee if we ever meet. Oh, and you also get a free copy of the ToolPak---but then you get that regardless of whether you find a bug or not.
Bugs found in QTP 4.0: None, so far.
The Template 2 June 2014.xlsx Excel workbook illustrates the use of the QTP 4.0 functions. QTP 4.0 must be loaded for the template to work. Tested with Excel 2010.
The vbaExample 2 June 2014.xlsm Excel workbook illustrates how QTP 4.0 functions can be called from VBA code. Tested with Excel 2010.
Tip for international users: The QTP help file assumes that arguments to an Excel function are separated by commas, for example, QTPMMS_L(A1,A2,A3), as is the case when US or Canadian settings are used in Excel. In other countries, a different argument separator might be used, for example a semicolon, as in QTPMMS_L(A1;A2;A3).
Graduate-level textbook on queueing theory: Gross, D., J. F. Shortle, J. M. Thompson, C. M. Harris. 2008. Fundamentals of Queueing Theory, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons.
Ingolfsson, A., L. Tang. 2012. Efficient and Reliable Computation of Birth-Death Process Performance Measures. INFORMS Journal on Computing 24(1): 29-41.
Describes some of the algorithms used for the MMS functions in QTP.
Whitt, W. 1993. Approximations for the GI/G/m Queue. Production and Operations Management 2(2): 114-161.
Equation 2.24 is used for QTPGGS_Wq. QTPGGS_W, QTPGGS_Lq, and QTPGGS_L are then determined from QTPGGS_W = QTPGGS_Wq + 1/(Service Rate), QTPGGS_Lq = (Arrival Rate) * QTPGGS_Wq, and QTPGGS_L = (Arrival Rate) * QTPGGS_W.
Whitt, W. 2004. A Diffusion Approximations for the G/GI/n/m Queue. Operations Research 52(6): 922-941.
Equations 1.1, 4.8, and 4.12 are used for QTPGGS_PrWait.
If you have developed teaching materials that use QTP 4.0 that you are willing to share or if you have tips on how to use it, then e-mail me at Armann.Ingolfsson@UAlberta.ca to have them listed here.


Following four (4) months of training, the Sports Division has selected the final team to represent Dominica at the Caribbean Netball Association's Jean Pierre U-16 Netball Tournament which is scheduled to take place in Barbados from April 1st – 10th 2016.
A squad of 30 players was initially called up for training which commenced on December 5, 2015.
This is the 16th edition of the Games and Dominica's 14th year of participation: last year, Dominica placed 2nd in the Tournament after placing 4th in 2014.
Three (3) officials will accompany the team: Miss Fiona Vidal – Manager, Miss Jennifer Nanton – Coach and Miss Curnia John – Assistant Coach.
The team left on March 30th and will return on April 10th.
The other countries participating are Antigua, Bermuda, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago.
Dominica comes up against St. Lucia in its opening game on Saturday, 2nd.
Barbados won last year's tournament.


Baloney is a kind of sausage that many Americans eat often. The word also has another meaning in English. It is used to describe something ? usually something someone says ? that is false or wrong or foolish.


text:
Fayose: Fayemi's Social Security Scheme a Deceit Taken Too Far
Posted by African Examiner Featured, Latest News, News, Politics Wednesday, June 18th, 2014
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Ekiti State, Mr. Ayo Fayose, has described the Social Security Scheme (SSS) of the Dr. Kayode Fayemi-led All Progressives Congress (APC) government in the state as "a deceit taken too far."
Fayose, in a statement issued by the Director General of (Ayo Fayose Campaign Organisation AFCO), Chief Dipo Anisulowo, promised to implement real social security scheme when he assumes office as governor.
According to him, "The best social security is the provision of gainful employments for the youths so as to be able to feed their aged parents, not a miserable N5,000 per month stipend."
Fayose promised to provide gainful employments for the youths, in addition to a more decent SSS to be provided by his government.
He said it was wrong for a government to have neglected the youths, while going about celebrating the payment of N5,000 monthly stipend to their aged parents.
"Our government won't be celebrating payment of N5,000 stipends to a few aged people and provision of N10,000 per month jobs for graduates. Rather, we will provided gainful employment for our youths such that they will be able to take care of their aged parents," Fayose said.
While describing Fayemi's government as anti-people, Fayose said: "All the wrongs done to the masses of the state by Fayemi's government will be corrected.
"We will put a permanent stop to capital flight, which has impoverished Ekiti people."
Also, the governorship candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Hon. Opeyemi Bamidele, yesterday urged voters in the state to disregard series of mobile text messages announcing his withdrawal from the election scheduled to hold on Saturday.
The politician said he was still in the race and that no amount of propaganda and smear campaign would make him withdraw by this time.
Bamidele in a statement signed by his media aide, Ahmed Salami and made available to journalsits yesterday, said the bulk text messages going around the state and entire South-west geopolitical zone are fictitious and wrongly timed.
He urged voters and his supporters around the state especially those of the LP to desist from listening to such wicked rumours capable of confusing them with just few days to the election.
Bamidele advised his political opponents that this round of propaganda coming again from them could have been properly timed to achieve any result, since similar ones in the past had equally failed.
While insisting that repeated propaganda against him had confirmed that he is a formidable threat in the race, the politician said with the level he had gone into the race in the last eight months, there was no thought of pulling out.
According to the statement, "This is to urge our teeming supporters and voters in the state to desist from text messages announcing the withdrawal of Michael Opeyemi Bamidele of LP from the June 21 governorship race.
"Since there is no iota of truth in it, we are of the opinion that those behind this may have felt threatened by our growing popularity thereby making them to look for an easy way to victory on June 21.
"The timing of this propaganda is very wrong if we had gone this far into the race in the last eight months without pulling out. Within this period, LP has built structures around the state, leading to its candidate emerging as one of the three frontlines and most favoured in various opinion polls. No doubt, we are still in the race and we can confirm that those afraid of us are behind this failed attempt.
"We urge all true sons and daughters of the state to stay committed to our collective struggle to bail the people out of the current socio-economic captivity occasioned by mal-administration of the incumbent government. To them, we say that nobody wins elections through malicious sms but through popular votes which will be cast on June 21."
Buhari Replies PDP Senators, Says No Partisanship In War Against Corruption
Two Catholic Priests Escape Death As Hoodlums Set Parish House on Fire
Obiano Suspends 12 Anambra Monarchs for One Year Over Abuja Visit
Court Sacks South Korean Female President Over Corruption
Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA. four × = thirty six


text:
Leader of the Opposition
All House debates on 20 Sep 2007 « Previous debate Next debate »
Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition detailing to the House his smear allegation against the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the Government.
Is it accepted?
Opposition Members:
Not accepted. I then move:
I have moved to suspend the standing and sessional orders so that the Leader of the Opposition can come to this dispatch box now and, with his own mouth, make the allegations that he is putting through the member for Jagajaga and through the member for Grayndler, which he does not have the decency to put himself.
You cannot come into this place and sit there and pretend you have nothing to do with what is going on. You cannot come into this place and turn your back and studiously write nothing on a piece of paper and pretend that those who are getting up around you have nothing to do with you. I have an unfortunate fact for the Leader of the Opposition: these are your team. These are your people; they work on your instructions. As anybody who has been around this place long enough knows, nobody can come to the dispatch box on the opposition side and ask a question unless the Leader of the Opposition authorises them to do so. It is absolutely inconceivable that the member for Jagajaga could have walked to this dispatch box, could have put a slur on the Prime Minister, could have put a slur on the government, could have put a slur on the Liberal Party, except that she was authorised to do so by Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition.
As for this saintly persona, that he is some kind of pale imitation of Dietrich Bonhoeffer—that just makes the fraud worse, frankly. To hide behind this saintly image, when you are prepared to have other people go out and do your dirty work for you, actually makes the fraud worse.
So what are the allegations that are now being put by Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, against the Prime Minister? The first insinuation and allegation that has been put is that somehow the Prime Minister, the government or the Liberal Party put out a story in relation to his health. Aside from wishing him a long life, which I am sure we all do, nobody on this side of the parliament has any interest at all in his medical conditions. I have no more interest in his medical conditions, or any of his frontbenchers' medical conditions, than I hope they have interest in my medical conditions.
Opposition members interjecting—
Oh? You do have great interest, do you? I would have thought that was a smear, was it not? Perhaps you could go and talk to people about it. But we find out, do we not, on the Channel 7 news today—and Channel 7 would know about this—that Smith, who I believe to be Stephen Smith, was out there quoted today, according to the news report, saying:
There was no need to dig dirt. Kevin Rudd revealed he had a transplant three and a half years ago on Seven Sunrise.
All right, it wasn't this Smith—it was another Smith. I take it back; it must have been a reporter—it was a Smith, certainly, because I have the transcript—who said:
So, far from this being a great secret, who in fact had revealed this piece of information? None other than the Leader of the Opposition himself! And when it becomes public, who does he try and frame up and fit up with the allegation? None other than the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the government. To think that the government would bother itself with a medical condition that occurred many years ago. He is on political life support; he is not on medical life support.
Here we were yesterday when he showed himself to be an ignoramus on tax policy. He cannot name a single rate; he cannot name a single threshold. He has been humiliated in the House of Representatives. And so what would be the logical thing for the government to do? Try and knock that story off the evening news bulletins with an old story about a heart condition? Who in their right mind would think about doing this? Who in their right mind might have the motivation to knock that story off the evening news? I was very surprised myself to see that this story came up last night and knocked the tax story down the batting order on Channel 9. We had the Leader of the Opposition sitting there giving one of his serious exclusives to Laurie Oakes in relation to the medical condition. All right, the medical condition came out last night—but to say that the government would have spiked its own story by putting that out yesterday beggars belief. Let us ask: what possible motivation would there have been? If you don't want to look at motivation, let me say what the facts are: the government had nothing to do with that, the Liberal Party had nothing to do with that and the Prime Minister had nothing to do with that. To come in here and put up the member for Jagajaga to try and make that insinuation is low, base politics and it tells us something about the low, base nature of the Leader of the Opposition.
Just in case you thought this was not a planned tactic today, we then had the old member for Grayndler, old Mr Dirty Tricks himself, come to the dispatch box. He comes out with this article that was in the Australian some time ago—June, I think it was. Was he so concerned about it in June that he got up and asked a question when it was in the Australian? He has been asking about it every day since June, has he? Did he ask about it on Tuesday? Did he ask about it on Wednesday? So concerned about that article in June, he was, that he just happens to get up in a coordinated way, with the member for Jagajaga, and he says, 'Poor old Kevin'—poor old Kevin has been subject to a bit of search and scrutiny in relation to his private affairs. I can tell you: I have been in public life for 17 years, I have been the Treasurer for 11 years, and it is not a new thing to have scrutiny of your personal life—it is not a new thing.
Mr Speaker, if you think somebody looking at your financials is a new thing, I do not think you were in this House when Gareth Evans got up and attacked my wife for owning shares. I do not think you were in the House when that happened. I do not think you were in the House when Alexander Downer's wife was attacked. I do not think you were in the House when Paul Keating attacked Sir Alexander Downer as being some kind of war coward, although he had been a POW in Changi during the Second World War. Oh, boy, we have seen some attacks in this House over the years! We have seen some personal attacks. The Leader of the Opposition, far from having personal attacks, has probably had the easiest run from the media as a Leader of the Opposition in a very long period of time.
It has been an easy run but, at the first sign, he shows himself to be extremely fragile and extremely touchy. He is willing to try to impeach the reputation of other people in order to make a political point. This is not the character nor the behaviour of somebody who is ready to take tough decisions if he ever gets into a position of responsibility in this country. This is not the position of someone who wants to talk about policy. This is the last question time—
It could well be the last question time before the election—and, as far as you are concerned, you would want it to be the last question time. But do we hear about policy? Do we hear about plans? Do we hear about any of those things? No, we hear an attempt to smear and we hear an attempt to divert. He ought to get on his feet and he ought to explain.
Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Ripoll interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Oxley will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Oxley then left the chamber.
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "this House repudiates the consistent, negative, year-long campaign by the Government against the Opposition, rather than advancing its own positive plans for Australia's future"
Just now we have been witness to arrogance unleashed by the Treasurer, the would-be Prime Minister of this country, who has lacked courage year in and year out—month in, month out—and the ticker to do anything about his heartfelt aspirations and ambition to eliminate this man.
It does not take a lot of courage to wander around each restaurant in this town and badmouth the Prime Minister. It does not take a lot of courage to wander around the press gallery and badmouth the Prime Minister. It does not take a lot of courage in Melbourne, Treasurer, to wander around your favourite eating haunts and badmouth the Prime Minister. But it does take courage, conviction and commitment to stand up for your principles and stand for something. It takes courage and conviction to summon forth the courage and conviction to put your hand up and challenge this man for the leadership of the Liberal Party—courage and conviction which you have lacked all year. Now you have to be defended by—
Government Members:
Government members interjecting—
Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have not called the Leader of the Opposition.
Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call!
You called him the Leader of the Opposition.
Order! I have called the Leader of the House. I cannot hear him, and nor I think can anyone else. The Leader of the House has the call and he will be heard.
Mr Speaker, this is a point of order on relevance. This motion is about the opposition leader substantiating his smear. He has to substantiate his smear. He can pass all the character—
Order! The Leader of the House is raising a point of order, and I am having great difficulty hearing a single word.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can cast all the reflections that he likes on the Treasurer's character, but he is required by the motion to substantiate the smear. You should require him to substantiate the smear and debate the motion.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Treasurer has moved a motion to suspend standing orders and the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment. I call the Leader of the Opposition—and, in calling him, I would ask all members to show a little bit more courtesy.
When it comes to the behaviour of this Treasurer, the gap between courage and performance, the gap between a person who consistently and routinely badmouths the Prime Minister yet who stands up at the 'bully pulpit' of the ministerial dispatch box and then proclaims to the country at large that he is a person of strong heart and strong courage, underlines the deep hypocrisy which resides in your breast.
When it comes to the whole question of negative smear tactics, why are these matters raised in the parliament? In the last 24 hours, we have had the extraordinary spectacle of the chief of staff of the Special Minister of State engaging in a campaign of personal smear and innuendo against the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, Colonel Mike Kelly. His curriculum vitae describes what he has done, including being deployed to Somalia with Operation Restore Hope, and Legal Adviser, First Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment Battalion Group. Yet what we have, Prime Minister, is your chief of staff in the office of that minister going out and describing Mike Kelly as a representative of the Belsen guards.
Mr Speaker, this is a relevance point of order. He makes serious—
The Leader of the Opposition is in order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
On the question of the engagement by the chief of staff of the Special Minister of State, we see a pattern of behaviour on behalf of this government and the Leader of the House sitting there sanctimoniously believing that he is not aware of the negative campaigns being run against various members of the opposition over time. Frankly, it flies in the face of the facts. When it comes to the activities most recently engaged in—
Honourable Members:
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has accused me of complicity in a smear campaign. What is his evidence? How can he substantiate his claims?
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, will you take action against the Leader of the House?
The Manager of Opposition Business will not reflect on the chair. The Leader of the Opposition is in order. The Leader of the House has an opportunity to debate this matter further if he wishes to.
The purpose of the parliament is for the opposition to pose questions to the executive and the purpose of the parliament is to get answers from the executive. When, therefore, we have a report in the nation's newspaper, in an article by Hedley Thomas, which says, 'Liberal Party figures in Queensland including a forensic accountant had been examining the purchase of links between the vendors and the Labor Party's investment companies for several months,' I would have thought that a forum for asking whether or not that is true is the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. What we know for a fact is that, whenever asked beyond this place as to the truth of these things, the actual pressure placed on ministers to answer truthfully is much less than that which applies in this place.
Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Fran Bailey interjecting
The Minister for Small Business and Tourism is warned!
The second question is this. We then had an article most recently by Jason Koutsoukis in the Sunday Age, which began:
THE phone rang one evening last week—
this is on 9 September—
and a familiar voice at the other end said: "I've got something for you. It's hot." So hot, I thought I could hear it sizzling. Come down for a "chat", the man suggested. All very hush-hush and strictly on the QT.
Walking through the corridors of power to meet my trusted source, dreaming of Watergate, I half wished we were meeting in a dingy car park and not the plush ministerial suite where I was headed.
Into the meeting room I waltzed and there was my source beaming behind two glasses of red and a fat manila folder with the most misunderstood noun in the Coalition lexicon scrawled across the front: Gillard.
That is only two weeks old. The sensitivity on the part of the Leader of the House, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—
Order! Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition has the right to be heard.
When these uncomfortable questions are asked of the government, they wish to engage in all sorts of feigned outrage as if these things have never happened, that Mr Koutsoukis made all that up, that Hedley Thomas made all that up. The bare minimum level of accountability is to have, in fact, an answer to these questions.
Order! Members on my right!
On the question that you raised in relation to medical documents—
Mr Abbott interjecting
Order! The Leader of the House is warned!
there has been reference some years ago to my being the recipient of an organ transplant but never a representation of any cardiac procedure. That is the first time that has been put into the public debate and those opposite know it. Treasurer, you aspire to be the Prime Minister of this country. You have moved this motion in the House. You lack the courage to ever be Prime Minister of this country. (Time expired)
Is the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded?
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I second the amendment.
Does the Deputy Leader wish to speak?
I am more than happy to, Mr Speaker. Over there we have them carrying on as if offended by the allegation that they put together dirt files, as if offended by the allegation that they go after members of this parliament personally, when the evidence is there for all to see. Let us listen to the evidence. We have spent this week hearing about how a government staff member, a chief of staff to a minister, made one of the most repulsive allegations you can make against another human being—that is, to compare them to a Nazi, to someone who administered a concentration camp where thousands of people died. When we first raised that in this parliament, what action or what answer did we get from the Howard government? Not an answer about immediate action, not an answer about revulsion, not an answer about how they were disgusted by that remark—no. On the first occasion the minister walked to the dispatch box, he squirmed and said absolutely nothing.
Then, on the second occasion he walked to the dispatch box, he obviously thought better of it and sought to distance himself—ever so softly—from the remark. Of course, his chief of staff had been out that morning basically carrying on and justifying himself. It took absolutely hours for this matter to finally end up in an apology from the staff member involved and still, of course, no Howard government minister—not one of them—has taken any meaningful action about this matter.
Then on the matter that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, which dealt with me, what we know, on the public record, is that a journalist, Jason Koutsoukis, was invited down to a meeting in a ministerial suite for the purpose of being supplied with a file with my name on it which had been trawled through the press gallery as a dirt file. I am not saying, when we look at this, that we should be talking about the contents—I do not know what the contents are; the dirt file has not been supplied to me—but the suggestion—
Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It's never been used!
It has been used, Foreign Minister, because someone in this government sat in a ministerial suite and gave it to a journalist.
Mr Downer interjecting
The Minister for Foreign Affairs!
The Minister for Foreign Affairs is warned!
For the members of this government to suggest that somehow they are mortally offended by the suggestion that they peddle dirt—how does anyone explain that? Whose office was it? Do we have an answer to that? Whose office was it, Prime Minister? You are so concerned about the reputation of your government, are you going to make inquiries about that? Are you going to make sure you find out the truth about that? That is all right, is it? Your little moral outrage only goes so far and under the moral outrage on the surface there is all of this unseemly conduct going on underneath that you avert your eyes from but you know is occurring—you must know is occurring. So do not come into this parliament with a holier-than-thou attitude when, beneath this modicum of moral outrage on the surface, underneath we have the trawling, the dirt and the carry-on.
We come to question time in this parliament and we ask questions for the purpose of getting answers. What do we routinely see from ministers in this government? We see evasion and we see personal attacks. Indeed, the only thing some government ministers do in this place during question time is make personal attacks—the only thing they do. When they are asked questions by their own backbench about government policy, they are lucky if there are two or three words about government policy and the rest of it is personal attack. This is the ordinary stock-in-trade of this government when it comes to the prosecution of its politics, and we know that this is just the start and that there are weeks and weeks of this to come in the future. It has been talked about. It has been rumoured.
Government members interjectingRumoured!
Rumoured by this government and its members who have put out little teasers to the press about what is to come. We know that this is what they peddle under the surface. The truth is that you members of the government frontbench know it. Members of the backbench know it as well. So let us not fall for this overacting, absurd display. (Time expired)
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable debate continuing until 3.34 pm—
A point of order, Mr Speaker.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call and I will hear what—
Point of order, Mr Speaker!
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
I am moving a point of order, Mr Speaker.
You cannot move a point of order.
Yes, I can.
Not while I am in the middle of moving a motion.
The Leader of the House has the call and I will hear the Leader of the House. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
The time for debate has expired.
It has not. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable debate continuing until 3.34 pm and the Prime Minister being called to speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—
Point of order, Mr Speaker.
The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, the time allocated for a suspension of standing orders is 25 minutes. It has expired.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
The Leader of the House—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat or I will deal with him! The Leader of the House was called before the expiration of the time and the Leader of the House has now moved an extension of the time.
The Manager of Opposition Business!
Point of order, Mr Speaker! Ten, plus 10, plus five equals 25, Mr Speaker—
I warn the Manager of Opposition Business!
and time had expired.
I name the Manager of Opposition Business!
Time had expired, Mr Speaker.
The Leader of the House.
You are an embarrassment!
That the member for Grayndler be suspended from the service of the House.
Question put.
Order! The member for Grayndler is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, as my motion has not been stated to the House, I therefore withdraw it and move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister speaking without interruption for 10 minutes on the question that the words proposed to be omitted by the Leader of the Opposition stand part of the question.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 67, may I request that you, Mr Speaker, state the question that is before you at the moment.
The question that is before the House is a new motion just put by the Leader of the House. He has withdrawn his earlier motion. I will read the motion for the benefit of the House.
Mr Speaker, on a further point of order before you do that—
Mr McGauran interjecting
Just listen, Ginger. Mr Speaker, you have not stated that question. The Leader of the House may have moved it, but you have not stated it. It is not the business before the House.
The Speaker has not stated it. He does that at the end of the mover's debate.
I thank the member for Scullin and I will respond to him. The Leader of the House had the call and then we had, shall we say, a diversion where there was some disciplinary action taken. Therefore, the call that had been given to the Leader of the House was restated. The Leader of the House has now put a motion. I will read the motion. He has moved:
Mr Speaker, I intend to move an amendment to the motion you have just read. This will provide the House with an opportunity, on what the Treasurer has indicated is its last day, for the Prime Minister to put to the Australian people his plan for Australia's future. The Treasurer has said often that he wishes to be Prime Minister—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
That the question be now put.
I now put the question on the motion moved by the Leader of the House.
Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The House has just resolved that the motion be put.
I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am entitled to raise a point of order. The point of order is: I would ask you to rule on the meaning of the term 'without interruption' in the motion. Does this mean that the Prime Minister is able to make any accusation, any claim, without the right of a member to make a point of order or to demand a withdrawal? Is that the meaning of the term 'without interruption' in this motion—to protect him from the kind of the treatment that the Leader of the House put out to the Leader of the Opposition while he was speaking?
The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I say to the member for Melbourne: until the motion has actually been put and agreed to, that is a hypothetical question.
Mr Tanner interjecting
Member for Melbourne, I have a motion before the chair; I have to deal with it.
I have taken note of the member for Melbourne. The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The question is that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister speaking without interruption for 10 minutes on the question that the words proposed to be omitted by the Leader of the Opposition stand part of the question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to rule as to the meaning of the phrase 'without interruption' that has just been passed by the House, as to whether that means that if the Prime Minister makes any accusation against a member that member is unable to respond and if the Prime Minister makes any claim nobody can raise a point of order. Is that your interpretation?
The member for Melbourne will resume his seat, and I will respond to his question. My interpretation is that 'without interruption' means no points of order. If another member wishes to move a further motion—
The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. If another member wishes to move another motion in response to anything that may be raised during this debate then of course there are procedures of the House. I call the Prime Minister.
I have called the Prime Minister, and the member for Melbourne will resume his seat.
The member for Melbourne will resume his seat or I will deal with him.
John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I know it seems quite a long time ago but this issue started when the member for Jagajaga asked me a question, which we all know was more an accusation than a question. What in effect the member for Jagajaga was doing, presumably with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition, was alleging that either I or, with my knowledge, members of the government had raised issues about the physical health of the Leader of the Opposition. That is how it started. By any measure, by any use of the English language, an accusation of that kind in the absence of evidence supporting it represents about the basest possible smear that can be made in this place. That is why we decided to move a motion inviting the true author of that base accusation to substantiate to the parliament why he believed that I or members of my government were responsible for smearing him in relation to his health.
Can I say this, through you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition: as an individual I bear him no malice. I do not wish him well politically but I wish him no harm on a personal basis, nor do I wish him other than a long and healthy and happy life as an individual. I would suggest that any Australians in the gallery that may be listening to this debate are, frankly, if I can put it bluntly, more interested in the health of their nation than they are in the health of either the Leader of the Opposition or me.
Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Owens interjecting
Order! The member for Parramatta is warned!
It passes strange that a few moments ago the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue—'Oh, the Prime Minister and I should be debating our respective future plans for the government of the country.' Not a bad point! I might say rhetorically in reply: why on earth therefore did the Leader of the Opposition waste a question through the mouth of the member for Jagajaga about a smear instead of asking me a question about the policy of the government?
Ms Gillard interjecting
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
Let me state it very simply to those who sit opposite. The allegation made by the member for Jagajaga is baseless. The allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition is baseless.
Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr McMullan interjecting
Order! The member for Fraser!
We have not been spreading smears about the Leader of the Opposition's health.
Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Macklin interjecting
Order! The member for Jagajaga is warned!
I am a great believer in the doctrine of coincidence in politics. What is coincidental? Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition by any measure had a very bad day.
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!
He had a very bad day: he couldn't answer the most simple question about taxation. Then we have questions raised in the parliament about that issue and then we go on to the evening news bulletins and out of the blue—
Order! The member for Fraser is warned!
I have to say I was totally surprised to turn on the Channel 9 news. I was expecting Laurie Oakes to have a concoction of the Rudd gaffe on tax and some of the byplay and exchange in relation to the remarks made by the chief of staff of the Special Minister of State. I thought that would be the Oakes package, and I thought to myself, 'Well, I hope there's more of Rudd's mistake'—I'll be honest about it—'than there is about the other issue,' and I think you would understand why I would say that. Then quite out of the blue we have this astonishing thing, this reference to the Leader of the Opposition's health. Isn't that interesting?
Mr Costello interjecting
Yes, with an exclusive. But isn't that coincidental? As the Treasurer rightly said, why on earth would we spike our own story? If I were a suspicious person—and I am not; I think charitably towards the Leader of the Opposition in relation to these matters—I would say to myself, 'Well, I don't think that story has come from our side of politics; I think that story may have come from another side of politics.' I am not normally a suspicious person but I may well have thought that.
But let me take this opportunity of saying we are not interested in smearing the Leader of the Opposition as an individual; we never have been. What the Labor Party has endeavoured to do all of this year is to construct in the minds of the Australian people the belief that any attack on the Leader of the Opposition is a personal smear of the Leader of the Opposition, that you are not allowed to criticise the Leader of the Opposition, that he is the one political leader in Australian history who we are not entitled to question or we are not entitled to attack.
Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Roxon interjecting
Order! The member for Gellibrand!
He keeps coming out in the press and he says there is going to be a mother of all fear campaigns. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that we will be telling the Australian people, when the election campaign starts, of the danger of electing a union dominated government. We will be telling the Australian people of the danger to good government in this country of having a Labor government federally as well as a Labor government in power in each of the states and the territories.
Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Swan interjecting
Order! The member for Lilley is warned!
We will be telling the Australian people that it is not a good thing to place the management of the Australian economy in the hands of inexperienced people who do not, for example, understand our taxation system at a time when international storm clouds are threatening the stability of the international economy. This, more that at any time over the last five years, is a time for the Australian economy to be in strong, experienced hands, in the hands of people who understand how to withstand the ravages of international economic buffeting.
The Leader of the Opposition would say to the Australian people: 'Oh, they can't say that about me. It's a smear.' Could I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he has only been in politics since 1998 and a number of us have been in politics for a long time. If he imagines that what has been said about his lack of experience, what has been said about his knowledge deficit in relation to taxation and what has been said about his glass jaw represent a personal attack and a personal smear, can I say to the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr Speaker: you haven't been born.
Order! The member for Melbourne is on very thin ice.
I remember the day my predecessor pointed at Alexander Downer—I have never forgotten it—and accused his father of being part of the appeasement brigade in the late 1930s and called into question the courage of a man who spent four years as a prisoner of war of the Japanese on the Burma-Thailand railway.
Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned!
And yet the Labor Party sat there and they were perfectly happy to have that. I can remember the Leader of the Opposition jumping up when his predecessor but one—Mark Latham—used one of the most vulgar expressions I have ever heard used in this parliament about a female journalist, and we all know what I am referring to. I remember the deafening silence of the Leader of the Opposition. I remember the deafening silence of all the female members of the Australian Labor Party—not one of them got up to condemn that foul insinuation about Janet Albrechtsen.
I also remember the deafening silence of the Leader of the Opposition when Mark Latham referred to Tony Staley's physical disability, occasioned by a motor car accident that almost claimed his life. Tony's life hung in the balance for 12 months, and to this day he is walking with the benefit only of crutches.
Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Garrett interjecting
The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!
The Leader of the Opposition thinks he has been smeared because people dare to criticise his policies. He has not been born in Australian politics to understand that. I regard the attempt by the Labor Party to implicate us in this smear as a base diversion. The Leader of the Opposition has utterly failed to produce any evidence to support his claim. What is more, he was too gutless to ask the question himself. He should have got up at the first instance. He did not have the courage to do that and he stands condemned as a result. (Time expired)
The time for the extension of the debate has now expired. The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The question now is that the motion for suspension of standing orders moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.
One of the interesting things about the debate in the chamber this afternoon is that the Prime Minister has just required a prime ministerial protection order from interventions. If this is a serious debate about matters before the House and matters before the nation, why is that particular procedural device necessary to protect the Prime Minister from the indignity of points of order? I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the House would seek to protect the Prime Minister in such a fashion rather than allow the Prime Minister to fend for himself, as other members of this chamber are required to do.
The motion before us asks why these questions have been put to the parliament today. The answer is that the function of the parliament is to provide the executive with the opportunity to answer questions put to it by the opposition. These are matters which therefore demand answers. What we have had from those opposite today is a sense of continued feigned indignation, as if any negative smear campaign has been mysteriously pulled out of space, with which those opposite have had nothing whatsoever to do—no awareness whatsoever on the part of the Prime Minister or on the part of anybody else. But look carefully at the Prime Minister's response to the questions which were asked: 'I, the Prime Minister, have no awareness of any such activity. I am not responsible for it and I am not aware of others in the Liberal Party and the government.' We have heard that through 'children overboard'; we have heard that through the 'wheat for weapons' scandal; we have heard it time in and time out as you have sought to avoid accountability in this parliament.
Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Gellibrand has been warned!
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The motion that the House has passed requires the Leader of the Opposition to detail to the House his smear allegations against the Prime Minister. He needs to speak to the motion.
There is no point of order. I warn members that a number have been warned and I will not give them another warning.
I find it interesting also that, apart from the prime ministerial protection order issued by the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister has cut and run from the chamber altogether on these matters. I find it remarkable that a government of courage and a Prime Minister of courage have to hide behind such procedural devices to avoid accountability.
There is a big problem with the argument advanced by the Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister's conspiracy theory runs along these lines: after a press conference I conducted at Queanbeyan yesterday, I came back into this chamber and organised through my office an exclusive interview with Laurie Oakes. That is the proposition; the Prime Minister just put that. There is a little problem with that conspiracy theory, because Laurie Oakes came and saw me yesterday morning before I went anywhere near Queanbeyan. Laurie Oakes came to my office to put these particular matters which had been put to him. So the prime ministerial conspiracy theory is that we have a press conference out at Queanbeyan—
also put by this man, who lacks the courage ever to become Prime Minister—only courage enough to whisper innuendo about his Prime Minister when the Prime Minister is not here. What we have here is the Prime Minister advancing a conspiracy theory which collapses in a heap. The journalist in question, Laurie Oakes, one of the most respected figures in the gallery, came to me yesterday morning before we went anywhere near Queanbeyan and put to me the specific propositions. The conspiracy theory collapses in a heap.
The second point is that other media outlets later in the day also contacted by my office confirmed that the same story was being shopped around—a remarkable coincidence, it seems. And again we have the Leader of the House refusing—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is he saying that Laurie Oakes said the government said this?
What is the point of order? I could not hear it. If the members would be quiet, I might hear it.
Mr Speaker, the point of order is relevance to the motion. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that Laurie Oakes claimed the government gave him this evidence?
That is not a point of order.
Two other media outlets confirmed subsequently that this story had been shopped to them in recent days. Furthermore, we are advised that this story had come forward from a source hostile to the Labor Party. Furthermore, the contents of the story ran along these lines: it contained the date of the medical procedure which I had, it had also the details of the doctor who supposedly performed the procedure, though the name of the doctor was not given to me, and, furthermore, there was a further view put that the source had said that the durability of the aortic valve used in the replacement surgery had a finite duration, it would last 10 years, and therefore my health was in some peril. This was not put to one media outlet; it was put to, we have at least confirmed, three media outlets.
Prime Minister, you were absent from this: the approach from Laurie Oakes came before I went anywhere near Queanbeyan yesterday. Your entire conspiracy theory collapsed in a heap while you were absent from the chamber.
Years ago—and this matter has been raised, I think, by someone opposite—in an interview, I think on Channel 7, we were asked about organ donations. I said I supported organ donations because I had been the beneficiary of one. Furthermore, in private conversations with cardiac patients at various times who have sought some counsel and support I have provided whatever counsel and support that I could.
On top of that can I say this: the three sets of information which these journalists put to me yesterday have never, ever been put into the public domain. We were therefore put in a position where I had to respond to the matters which had been put. The reason why the question was put in this House today is that the job of the parliament is to get an answer back from the executive as to whether these things are true. But it does not stop there. The question is asked, particularly by the Leader of the House, as to why we could possibly suspect that the government may be involved in anything untoward. Here we have, in the Sunday Telegraph from 29 August 2007, 'Dig round and you'll soon find a dirt unit', an article by Simon Benson. It involves an interview involving a radio host, Bill Shorten and Tony Abbott. Bill Shorten says:
"Tony, are you saying you don't have a dirt unit and it doesn't have people trying to scour up the backgrounds of Labor candidates?"
The answer from Tony Abbott:
"Of course ...
I am reading a transcript.
TONY ABBOTT: "Of course. Obviously you want to look at the files and all that kind of stuff."
That is the question which was put to him by Bill Shorten in that interview, and that was the response of the Leader of the House. That is the transcript. So you ask with this feigned innocence and indignation why we in the opposition might dare suspect that you guys might be up to no good. I think there is a reasonable basis for looking at that.
Furthermore, when you look at the other matters which have been put into the public debate on all of this, the other matter which was canvassed today in a question goes to the report by Hedley Thomas in the Australian. The report by Hedley Thomas is quite explicit:
Liberal Party figures in Queensland, including a forensic accountant, have been examining the purchase, and the links between the vendors—
referring to the purchase of a house by my wife and me—
and the Labor Party's investment companies, for several months.
If that is in the public record and it is there from Hedley Thomas, who is a longstanding journalist with News Ltd, it is equally legitimate to put this matter for the government to seek a response to. But, on top of that, is the government saying that Jason Koutsoukis lies through his teeth—this is the term of art used by those opposite? Jason Koutsoukis, only a couple of weeks ago or less, details precisely his visit to a ministerial suite to be handed a file which has 'Gillard' on the top and deals explicitly with a whole series of allegations concerning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. And you sit there opposite believing you are purer than the driven snow. It is remarkable—the feigned indignation about these questions, including from Captain Courageous over there, the would-be Prime Minister without any intestinal fortitude whatsoever to ever stand up to the plate and say: 'I would like to be Prime Minister. I would like to have the guts to challenge the Prime Minister. But—oops!—I'll step back from the plate again.' Always privately lacking courage and lacking conviction, always whispering behind people's backs but never with the fortitude, the conviction, to stand up to the plate and actually challenge the government's leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, for his job.
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
Then we have the question that concerns the activities of those in the government dirt unit, which we have already referred to in detail concerning Dr Phelps, the chief of staff of the Special Minister of State. The truth of these propositions—and I have only been through three of them: the Koutsoukos article, the Hedley Thomas article, the confession by Tony Abbott in the Sunday Telegraph, as well as all these related matters—points to the fact that these matters should be answered by the Leader of the House or the government itself.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know this is a debate but he is not entitled to misrepresent me like that. It is a blatant, deliberate misrepresentation and Dietrich Bonhoeffer should not do that.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
In terms of misrepresentation about the existence of a dirt unit, it is extraordinary that the Leader of the House could stand in the chamber and say that it does not exist when, out of his own mouth, he says that it does. The question put to him by Bill Shorten was:
The answer was then:
What has happened here is, of course, that the Leader of the House has been hoist with his own petard, hung out by the words that have proceeded from his own mouth, confirming, less than a month ago—on Melbourne radio, I presume—that in fact this dirt unit does exist and engages in that sort of activity.
The feigned indignation becomes much wider than that. Let us remember a certain individual called Senator Heffernan. The Prime Minister has made reference to all these indignations in the past. Prime Minister, you have a responsibility when it comes to either backing or overturning remarks by Senator Heffernan. What did Senator Heffernan have to say about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? And what did you say in response to that immediately? 'But look, I'm not telling people what they should apologise for or not; I'm just stating my own view.' In other words, when that foul language was used by Senator Heffernan in relation to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, what the Prime Minister sought to do was quickly step to one side—'Nothing to do with me; it's old Bill there, running off the tracks. I don't have anything to do with that.' Then what happens? The heat gets too much, the political reaction around the country gets too solid and suddenly the Prime Minister has to change his tune later on. The reason we moved an amendment earlier on, which the government was not prepared to take, was that all these questions go to the absolute heart of the integrity of the operations of this government.
Mr Howard interjecting
Oh yes it does, Prime Minister! It goes to the whole question of a government grown arrogant, grown out of touch after 11 long years in office, a government that has now sought to use all the instruments available to it in terms of the public servants who work for it, in terms of its own ministerial staff, in terms of the rort and abuse of taxpayer funded advertising—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing and sessional orders have been suspended to allow the Leader of the Opposition to detail to the House his smear allegations against the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the government. I would ask you to bring him back to detail the smear allegations that he makes against the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and the government.
The Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, heard that point of order. I ask him to come back to the debate.
On the question of the glass jaw of the Treasurer, and his inability to respond to the matters which have been raised, it stands for the entire chamber to hear. We have been through, point by point, each of the matters which have required answers by the government opposite. Why is there this feigned indignation from those opposite? Because they do not want to answer the questions. They do not want to answer whose ministerial suite it was where someone provided a dirt file in relation to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Whose was it? Have you bothered to check that out? Who is the forensic accountant referred to over here in the other article? Have you bothered to check that out? Has the government also bothered to ascertain precisely what has happened with Tony Abbott's admission—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing and sessional orders have been suspended to allow the Leader of the Opposition to detail the smear allegations to the House. I would ask that you bring him back to detailing those allegations.
The point of order raised by the Treasurer is a valid point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has been asked to provide evidence and the Leader of the Opposition will come back to the motion.
On the question of the Laurie Oakes matter—and you were out of the chamber for this, Prime Minister—let me put it before you pure and simple: your contention here in this place was that a conspiracy had been engaged in by me with a journalist to do an exclusive interview subsequent to a press conference at Queanbeyan yesterday, and your conspiracy collapsed into a heap. Do you know why, Prime Minister? Because Laurie Oakes came to see me before I went anywhere near Queanbeyan. Three journalists came to us with the pieces of information that I referred to before, and we were also informed that the sources came from those hostile to the Labor Party.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to the wording of the motion. We ask the Leader of the Opposition to give us just once piece of evidence—just one piece.
As I hear it, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is in order. Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I would ask him to desist from using the words 'you' and 'your'.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Each of those reports to us by the media caused us to conclude, given the nature of the information, that legitimate questions needed to be posed. What is remarkable here is the feigned indignation from those opposite about where this material came from. It would have been very simple and straightforward for an unequivocal statement to be made about these matters, and it was not.
I will warn other members if they continue to interject like that.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Did Laurie Oakes say that the government gave him the information?
I say to the Leader of the House that the Leader of the Opposition is in order and he has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I notice that once again the Leader of the House does not seek to extend the same sort of procedural protection to the likes of me as he sought to extend to the Prime Minister, and did so successfully. Once again, there is a series of interruptions as the response provided by me is delivered. Prime Minister, the country wants to have a debate about plans for the future. Do you know something, Prime Minister: you were extended that opportunity in the parliament today and you declined. The nation wants to know what your plans are for the future of the education system, because there is nothing there.
Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Michael Ferguson interjecting
The member for Bass is warned!
They want to know what your plans are for the future of 750 public hospitals in the country, and they are not there. They want to know what your plans are for the future of broadband, and they are not there.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing and sessional orders have been suspended to allow the Leader of the Opposition to detail his smear allegation against the government. I ask that you bring him back to that.
The Treasurer has raised a valid point of order. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if that point of order is alluded to again he will have to resume his seat.
On the question of our allegation against this government, I conclude with this: this government stands condemned for having lost touch. It is a government that has no positive plans for the future but is instead determined to wage an unrelenting negative smear campaign against the opposition from here until election day—an election day which Captain Arrogance over there has already announced on behalf of his Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.


text:
Q: Multitask/multioutput GPy Coregionalized Regression with non-Gaussian Likelihood and Laplace inference function I want to perform coregionalized regression in GPy, however I am using a Bernoulli likelihood and then to estimate that as a Gaussian, I use Laplace inference. The code below shows how I would usually run a single-output GP with this set up (with my custom PjkRbf kernel):
likelihood  = GPy.likelihoods.Bernoulli()
laplace_inf = GPy.inference.latent_function_inference.Laplace()
kernel      = GPy.kern.PjkRbf(X.shape[1])
m = GPy.core.GP(X, Y, kernel=kernel, likelihood=likelihood, inference_method=laplace_inf)

Now I am trying to run the same set up but as multi-output. This is something I have not been able to do.
I have tried using the GPCoregionalizedRegression class with an ICM kernel, as shown in the code below:
likelihood1  = GPy.likelihoods.Bernoulli()
likelihood2 = GPy.likelihoods.Bernoulli()
laplace_inf = GPy.inference.latent_function_inference.Laplace()
K = GPy.kern.PjkRbf(X.shape[1])
icm = GPy.util.multioutput.ICM(input_dim=2,num_outputs=2,kernel=K)
m = GPy.models.GPCoregionalizedRegression([X,X],[Y1,Y2],
                                          kernel=icm,
                                          likelihoods_list=[likelihood1, likelihood2])

Running this code throws an AssertionError, with a long stack-trace, but the last section shows the following. The likelihood cannot be asserted as a Gaussian.
~\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\GPy\likelihoods\mixed_noise.py in gaussian_variance(self, Y_metadata)
     22
     23     def gaussian_variance(self, Y_metadata):
---> 24         assert all([isinstance(l, Gaussian) for l in self.likelihoods_list])
     25         ind = Y_metadata['output_index'].flatten()
     26         variance = np.zeros(ind.size)

AssertionError:

This is because I am not able to pass the Laplace inference to the GPCoregionalizedRegression model.
Can anyone offer advice on how I can resolve this, or if there is a different model I can use to perform multioutput regression with a Bernoulli likelihood and Laplace inference method?

A: The problem is not that you must not pass Laplace inference to GPCoregionalizedRegression, but that your list of GPy.likelihoods.Bernoulli likelihoods isn't supported.
In the documentation it reads

Most likelihood classes inherit directly from GPy.likelihoods.likelihood, although an intermediary class GPy.likelihoods.mixed_noise.MixedNoise is used by GPy.likelihoods.multioutput_likelihood.

Since you set up a multi-output problem, the underlying likelihood is a GPy.likelihoods.mixed_noise.MixedNoise object, which does in GPy only support lists of GPy.likelihoods.Gaussian objects.
Compare here in the source code
class MixedNoise(Likelihood):
def __init__(self, likelihoods_list, name='mixed_noise'):
    #NOTE at the moment this likelihood only works for using a list of gaussians
    super(Likelihood, self).__init__(name=name)

Therefor the assert statement in \GPy\likelihoods\mixed_noise.py, which checks the likelihood_list items to be Gaussian fails as indicated by the stacktrace you posted.
As of now, this is still not implemented. I believe the development on GPy is considered of lower priority with respect to its successor GPflow. There  (according to the code used in this example), it seems to me there are no restrictions on the type of likelihoods in the corresponding functions (even if the example again uses only Gaussian likelihoods)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Does a Completion Handler end the function? Perhaps I do not understand the concept of a completion handler, but I have a function like so;
func someFunction(completion: @escaping (Bool, LoginError?) -> Void) {
    self.checkDevice() { allowed, error in
       if let e = error {
          completion(false, e)
       }
        completion(true, nil)
    }
}

While being light on what checkDevice() does, the basic premise is that it performs an asynchronous network call, and returns either true with no error (nil), or returns false with an error.
When I run this code, I am finding that the completion handler is being called twice.  It sends a completion as a tuple (as false, error) and also as (true, nil).  I've done some debugging and there seems to be no manner in which someFunction() is called twice.
I was of the belief that once a completion is sent, the function would end.  In my test case, I am forcing an error from checkDevice(), which should result in me sending the completion as (false, error), but I am seeing both (false, error) and (true, nil).  Does a completion not immediately end the function?

A:
I was of the belief that once a completion is sent, the function would end.

No, why would that be? When you call this function it's like calling any other function. The name has no magic power.
Rewrite it like this:
func someFunction(completion: @escaping (Bool, LoginError?) -> Void) {
    self.checkDevice() { allowed, error in
        if let e = error {
            completion(false, e)
            return // *
        }
        completion(true, nil)
    }
}

Actually, I should mention that this is a poor way to write your completion handler. Instead of taking two parameters, a Bool and an Optional LoginError to be used only if the Bool is false, it should take one parameter — a Result, which carries both whether we succeeded or failed and, if we failed, what the error was:
func someFunction(completion: @escaping (Result<Void, Error>) -> Void) {
    self.checkDevice() { allowed, error in
        completion( Result {
            if let e = error { throw e }
        })
    }
}

As you can see, using a Result as your parameter allows you to respond much more elegantly to what happened.
Indeed, checkDevice itself could pass a Result into its completion handler, and then things would be even more elegant (and simpler).

A: A completion handler does not end a function. The typical way to end a function is to insert a return.
See comment re: your specific case

A: Consider including parameter names (for reference). And the completion should only be called once. You can do that using return or by using a full if-else conditional.
func someFunction(completion: @escaping (_ done: Bool, _ error: LoginError?) -> Void) {

    checkDevice() { (allowed, error) in

        if let e = error {
            completion(false, e)
        } else {
            completion(true, nil)
        }

    }

}

func someFunction(completion: @escaping (_ done: Bool, _ error: LoginError?) -> Void) {

    checkDevice() { (allowed, error) in

        if let e = error {

            completion(false, e)
            return

        }

        completion(true, nil)

    }

}

By giving parameters names, when calling the function, you can now reference the signature to denote the meanings of its parameters:
someFunction { (done, error) in

    if let error = error {
        ...
    } else if done {
        ...
    }

}


A 20 percent chance of showers after 4am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 6. South southwest wind 8 to 13 km/h becoming light and variable after midnight.
A 40 percent chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 14. East northeast wind 5 to 13 km/h.
Showers likely, mainly after 1am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 4. East northeast wind 13 to 16 km/h. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New precipitation amounts between 5 and 7.5 mm possible.
Showers. High near 9. Northeast wind 11 to 14 km/h. Chance of precipitation is 80%.
Showers likely, mainly before 1am. Cloudy, with a low around 2. Northeast wind 14 to 16 km/h. Chance of precipitation is 60%.
Mostly cloudy, then gradually becoming sunny, with a high near 12.
Mostly clear, with a low around -2.
Sunny, with a high near 16.
A chance of showers after 1am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 6.
A chance of showers before 1pm. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 15.
Sunny, with a high near 13.
Mostly cloudy, with a low around 1.
A chance of rain and snow showers. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 11.


text:
James Tesar
"Amazing reading entertainment about a global disaster that's only a manmade mistake away from actually occurring."
"Tesar blends scientific fact with fictional form."
Medical Doctor, Biologist, Imaginative Writer
From the corn fields of Wisconsin as a youth, James Tesar worked his way to earning a medical degree. After receiving his undergraduate degree in Biology and Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin—La Crosse, he headed south to St. Louis University, where he completed a Nuclear Medicine Technology program.
That, as a stepping stone, led him into a Master's Degree program at Purdue University, where he became a Boilermaker and received his Master's Degree in Bionuclear Physics.
From there, it was back west to the University of Wisconsin—Madison. As a Badger, Doctor Tesar worked on his Ph.D. in Membrane Physiology, following radioactive chloride atoms around the tubular system of kidneys. To James, it was phenomenal research, but not as self-satisfying as clinical medicine, so he continued on to medical school and received his M.D. degree.
Getting an M.D. degree was not the end, but rather just the beginning. Not being able to practice clinical medicine without an Internship and Residency, Dr. Tesar headed south to Pensacola, Florida where he completed a Surgical Internship.
Still not quit done, he headed north to New York/New Jersey where he completed a residency in Emergency Medicine in one of Columbia University's affiliated programs.
By this time, he was thirty-six years old and had never really had a real job. So, it was time to actually get one.
At the time, Orlando Regional Medical Center, in Orlando, Florida, was starting a residency program in Emergency Medicine, and they were looking for clinical instructors. Doctor Tesar has lived and worked there ever since.
Sneak a Peek Inside The Book!
Want to "try before you buy"? Read some of it here for free! Just click the button below:
Preorder The Book!
Make sure you get a copy of the first print run by preordering now. Simply click the button below:
(c) 2016 James Tesar - All Rights Reserved. Website / Blog - Web Design by Writer Services, LLC


text:
Pinned 102 days ago
Uploaded by user
<> Embed @ Email Report
Future of Artificial Intelligence for 2020
M. Al. Nabeel / 27 Mar 2019
Speaking of Millennials and the next rising generation — what differentiates us from our predecessors is the inventions. Humans have now created and add further constructions to almost everything that we can touch in our virtual lives. The only thing common between us, our predecessors and the next generation will be our brains.
What is really changing in the world is how we look at things — and how we communicate.
There is a change in the demeanor of the Millennial — and those who care to keep up with them, who are older. The mode of communication is changing — and how the Millennial looks at things.
Artificial Intelligence, most commonly known as AI was a prediction for decades but was initially associated with robots only. However, AI is incorporated in almost everything we use today — and we call it "smart."
AI is something where software acts as humans and shows human-like behavior. It has always been seen, witnessed and predicted as something with great potential. It is becoming significant enough to make us sit at a comfortable level relaxing — while some of our chores are taken care of better than we could do them. AI is saving our time and consuming less of our energies and efforts to get things done.
Programming introduces us to a new world where we can do different things we never thought we could do. AI, basically, connects us and serves as a transition between all discrete actions. That means AI lets us engage in multiple things at one time — such as translating from one language to another instantly — or ordering salt from that table.
Ever since computers came into existence, we have been using a set of rules for handling our actions. Every app allows us to customize its operations for us from their settings page. Incorporating technology into AI involves the absence of such rules — and training the algorithm of the computer — to link it up with the correct actions.
Predictions for 2019
AI now gives us more variables to work with and helps us to process all the variables in a programmatic way which is much simpler and offers a transparent level of confidence. It may come off as controversial to some — guessing what is going to happen.
However, if the predictions for the coming future are pretty much accurate — AI will perform within the scientific realm of statistics. From the very beginning — Prepare For AI Automation, the New Revolution in 2019 — computers were known for managing math's equations well.
We have now slated with the responsibility of handling all the related mathematical tasks.
Calculating the statistical significance of AI will not always be easy — but these calculations are the foundation of machine learning. When it comes to predicting and checking weather patterns, diagnosing diseases, knowing the product amounts in supply-chain-management or playing chess — for AI to do its duty — the programmers will have had to do theirs.
We will always be moving forward towards increases in data and how to use the data sets effectively and building the processing power that will make these AI computers more suitable for the future.
Nowadays, companies make their production predictions depending mainly on the data obtained from management information systems. This is because that information directly originates from the operations of their company — making it significant enough to make the hard number decisions. This data also tells them the margin of error or when to make or break the rules.
Merging AI and decision management systems have become capable enough to take decision-making to different heights.
AI proficiency also benefits these decision management systems when it comes to interpreting customer data into predictive models of critical trends. This new sensation has already facilitated other departments like marketing and consumer advocacy and CRM — modifying efforts, per crucial demographic.
We can safely call AI a more mature technology now — because it has been utilized so extensively in its relatively young life for a range of enterprise applications.
AI has been performing automated decision-making for some time. Advanced Systems Concepts, Informatica, Maana, Pegasystems, UiPath — are great instances for decision management through management information systems.
AI reveals new horizons of interface methods with the least amount of effort, and as such, there is no undiscovered insubstantial method to interact with computers. With the advent of mouse and keyboards in our lives, we are using computers more progressively and more conveniently both now and into the future.
For communicating digitally, we learned how to write programming and coding so we can achieve some exclusive outcomes. As coding is being processed into human sentences and can interrupt input from cameras and sensors — this interaction can be done as smoothly and naturally as if it's being done in person.
Impact and benefits to humans.
According to some calculations shared by Gartner, by 2012, AI will eliminate around 1.8 million jobs and would replace it with 2.3 million jobs. If we see our journey from past three industrial revolutions towards this current digital revolutions — our working lives and standards have altered fundamentally — and they'll be changing again. Our work-life balance may soon be working two days or four days a week.
Everything we currently do is touched somehow by AI.
Given rational thought and direction, AI is still a big deal. Reality as we know it now is where things complete quicker, more effortlessly, with more exactness. Better learning has shown an exceptionally impactful graph of how cell phone clients have an advantage from computerized reasoning.
2020 will be an essential year in AI-related business progress, as per Gartner. Also, as a digital reasoning platform, (AI) will turn into a definite spark for significant strides in employment growth. AI-related industrial growth should see positive growth into two million net-new employments by 2025.
Several critical advancements in the past have been connected with a higher rate of employment — then a downturn for a time. AI may take this course. But the likelihood is that AI will enhance the profitability of numerous occupations. There could still be a downturn is low-level positions. Passing the financial compliance factors in the US and some other countries may be difficult under the eyes of AI.
Tragically, many people think that their job or employment will be taken over by AI in the form of robotization. Though AI personal assistants may be in that category, the best of the AI advantage will be a growth-blend of the human consciousness where both supplement each other.
IT pioneers shouldn't bring the spotlight on the anticipated net increment of employment. With every interest in AI-empowered advances, IT should be bringing our consciousness to thoughts of what job will be made. AI will change how specialists team up with others and how they will settle on choices and complete work.
Over the years much talk of artificial intelligence has been buzzing in our ears from nearly all professions. In 2019, A.I. is growing and enlarging the way forward — more than we ever anticipated.
Today, people are starting to come to terms with Artificial Intelligence after realizing and estimating how much it is going to make their professional lives tranquil. There was a time when A.I. was considered one of the next-generation machinery which was only pointed out in bestseller motion picture films set in the future.
The overall advantage of artificial intelligence (AI) is that it reproduces choices and activities of humans — minus our fundamental human inadequacies.
We will get rid of some of our exhaustion and time restrictions. We'll make better use of the spectrum of our internet as we observe the present AI inventions. We can watch and see that AI cannot really be summed up in predictions — which is why we will continue to research and see more from these inventions capabilities from 2019 — and well into the future.
M. Al. Nabeel
Digital Specialist, More over writing expert since a long time. I'm Author with passionate attitude for writing as tech and Forex exchange related topics and future technology thinkers around the world. Tech savvy geek for IOT, AI, Digital Transformation, Blockchain.
The post Future of Artificial Intelligence for 2020 appeared first on ReadWrite.
ReadWrite
2020 Artificial Future Intelligence
Embed Pin on Your Blog
px -Image Width px -Image Height
Source: via admin on DeviceDaily.com – Technology Highlights
Email This Pin
Report This Pin


With ninth-inning victory, Montgomery climbs above .500.
SEVIERVILLE, Tenn. — Willy Adames' go-ahead three-run home run in the ninth inning rallied the Biscuits to a 6-5 win over the Tennessee Smokies on Wednesday afternoon.
Montgomery blew a three-run lead in the eighth.
Ryne Stanek (0-2) started the game on the mound for Montgomery, and the right-hander hurled four shutout innings while striking out five. The Biscuits' bats came alive in the top of the fourth, when Jake Bauers took a 3-0 pitch from Tyler Skulina over the right-center field wall for his second home run of the season. The Biscuits added two runs in the inning on a double by Granden Goetzman and a groundball off the bat of Johnny Field to lead 3-0.
That's how it stayed until the seventh when Billy McKinney hit an RBI double. In the eighth, the Smokies loaded the bases before Adam Kolarek hit Jacob Hannemann with a pitch to make it 3-2. A throwing error by second baseman Tommy Coyle brought in the game-tying and go-ahead runs.
In the ninth, Tennessee's David Garner issued a leadoff walk to Kean Wong and Bauers doubled to bring up Adames. Adams' no-doubter to left was his second home run of the season and gave the Biscuits a 6-4 lead.
Biscuits reliever Brad Schreiber gave up a run in the bottom of the ninth but shut the door for his second save.
The Biscuits are back above .500 and will look to stay there when Chris Kirsch (1-0) takes on Jen-Ho Tseng (0-1) this morning at 10:35 in Sevierville.