You are here

Miscellaneous comments from 30 Nov 2014

Comments made on the previous Miscellaneous comments page from 14 Sep 2014 can be found here.

If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed in other articles, please add your comments here.

10 Jan 2015: comments on this page have been closed. Please post further comments here.

Comments

The Prime Minister on Monday conceded he had been forced to break his word over cuts to the ABC and SBS because economic circumstances had changed, admitting it was indeed a contradiction to his pre-election pledge and budgetary promises.

A senior Government source told the ABC the figures will be worse, with revenue affected by an iron ore price likely to be written down to around $60 a tonne, roughly 40 per cent lower than in the budget. The significant reduction in commodity prices has had an impact on our capacity to bring the budget back to surplus on the timetable that had been previously envisaged.

There was a $5 billion hole in the budget for higher education, and there would be more "savings" in the Coalition budget for next May!

Joe Hockey remains optimistic and believes consumer confidence will return, and the mid year economic outlook will improve!

On Australian Defence Force pay, he announced that several allowances, including Christmas leave, would not be cut.
The Prime Minister's office briefing that the budget "barnacle" of a $7 GP fee would be dumped only to be publicly contradicted by Treasurer Joe Hockey.

Victorian Treasurer Michael O’Brien blamed the Abbott Government’s first budget for blowing them “off the front page’’ as the Napthine Government braced for their electoral loss. They should blame secrecy, megalomaniac plans without public support, their cosy deals with property developers and big corporations - and hefty population growth wearing thin their budget resources!

If our budget surpluses can't maintain our expected standards of living and the services that previous governments were able to provide, then why the addiction to "growth"! Why do net overseas immigration rates quietly, by stealth, keep increasing? If a family can't provide for their children, then why have more babies? Do they think they can "grow" out of their deficits?

I was just discussing this with a work colleague. The theory is, immigrants will pay for us, and their children will pay off the debt we rack up today.

Its flawed, because it supposes they will be better placed to pay it off, which doesn't happen with stagnating wages and rising costs. Also, it is a very condescending and exploitative way to treat migrants. Perhaps why we do much to pretend we care about their culture, to hide the fact we view these people as just a resource, just like many nations did during the imperialist period.

In fact, there are a number of ideological rationales, marketed as economic theories, all of which ignore thermodynamic laws. I think that the reality is indeed that we are ruled by gamblers - addicts, who think that growth will bail them out until the next lucky strike. The media gives authority to these kinds of personalities and a number of our media owners are little more than big time gamblers, obsessed with acquiring more money and more power and displaying it ostentatiously.

Just like poker machine addicts, our 'leaders' keep telling us that a win is just around the corner, but we must tolerate more 'growth', and that we have to go without now so that we can 'maintain' our standard of living later. If we believe them we are like dependent wives and children with a stockholm syndrome.

They are, as anonymous said, addicts. Self-deluded, self-centered, creatures chemically addicted to adrenalin rushes from surviving risk and punting everything on the next bet.

We need to stop talking about the men and women who market growth in population and infrastructure whilst using our taxes, our land, our parliaments, without asking our permission, as if they were sane and responsible. They are obviously not. They are out of control.

They need to admit that they have a problem and turn over government to democracy rather than growth.

Email the Nepalese Government and demand that the terrible Gadhimai slaughter festival must never happen again.
For months Compassion campaigners have been working tirelessly to stop the inhumane slaughter at this festival. Together with like-minded organisations and individuals around the world, we turned what was a local issue into a global issue. Unfortunately, on the 28th and 29th of November the world watched on as the Nepalese Government allowed many thousands of animals to be brutally slaughtered at the Gadhimai Festival. Our investigators were there to document the event.

Some positive news is that initial reports suggest the scale of the slaughter was vastly reduced, compared with the last festival. Accurate numbers are not yet available but we believe that the number of animals slaughtered this year was at least 75% lower – thanks to the campaigning efforts of our supporters and hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We also believe that the Government did not provide any official funding to this year’s festival, unlike previous years.

This really is the beginning of the end for this dreadful festival and others like it in Nepal, but the Nepalese Government still isn’t doing enough to fast-track an end to this suffering. Please, call on them to ensure this is the last time it ever happens.

Tell the Nepalese Government: Never again.

Step 1: Click: Discussion Papers:Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Step 2: Under 'The 2015-16 Migration Programme', click on 'Setting the Migration Programme for 2015-16' to download the paper.

Step 3: Scroll to page 12 of the paper where you will find the survey monkey link.

Step 4: Complete the 5 minute survey.

IT MUST BE COMPLETED TODAY!

https//:www.surveymonkey.com/s/RYWVBKG
Our suggestion to DIBP was 'zero net migration'. This means that permanent immigration would be equivalent to permanent emigration (estimated to be around 70,000 per annum, and easily enough to cater for our humanitarian/refugee intake of around 14,000).

You may wish to make the same zero net migration suggestion.

My comment:
Already we have high unemployment, and a peak of youth unemployment. We should be investing more in raising the skill and education levels of our own population, not draining skills from overseas! Our population should be stabilized, and immigration slashed to the levels of 1980s and 1990s, of no more than 90,000 per year. We don't need, and the majority of people, don't want a "big Australia". We should aim to be self-sufficient, economical, and productive, not just rely on population growth to boost our GDP!
Immigration has increased five-fold since the Howard Government came to office, but our economy is struggling.
We have unaffordable housing, environmental degradation, massive infrastructure deficits, and we are always struggling to maintain services and infrastructure in our cities. There are various estimates of Australia's infrastructure funding deficit with Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and Citibank putting it at $700 billion.
Read the 2006 Productivity Commission report on further immigration to Australia - it only benefits the migrants and the capitalists!
We should spend more on higher education, and innovation, towards job creation and industries. Just adding migrants is stagnant, and an outdated economic model. If our Federal budget surplus is struggling to maintain the present population and the spending needed, why increase the size of our "family"? Each person, whether arriving or born here, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure! Population growth is the only reason it looks like the economy is growing!
One of Australia's many political ironies is that the national effort to Stop The Boats has disguised an immigration boom. The 2015-16 immigration program should be substantially trimmed down, and considered with a good dose of common sense. Bigger is not necessarily better.

Victoria has elected a new Labor Government, and with it a policy that will end the sale of dogs and cats from pet shops UNLESS they are from a legitimate rescue group!
This amazing precedent will protect unwitting animal lovers from supporting puppy factories, and help thousands of loveable cats and dogs find their furever homes.
It's a great step forwards, after a lot of campaigning and common sense lobbying to stop the rort of puppy farms and the battery raising puppies for pet shop, and their over-supply leading to death-row!
Premier Dan Andrew's new cabinet will include nine women with and Western Victoria upper house MP Jaala Pulford and Brunswick MP Jane Garret among the promotions. Ms Pulford has been rewarded for her work with puppy farms as deputy leader of the Upper House.
It's a victory of common sense, and some compassion to end dogs been enslaved for profits.

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY
-: Whatever will benefit Australia - that we are for;
whatever will harm Australia - that we are against. William Lane :-

PRESS RELEASE

Nominations for the Native Australian Award

THE ORDER OF THE TOAD

are invited from Australian Citizens,
to be formally declared on

AUSTRALIA DAY
26th January 2015

GENERAL CRITERIA.

This award is derived from the vernacular heritage of Australia’s pioneering peoples, who applied the term to those who betrayed fairdinkum values, or undertook what were considered un-Australian activities. The graphic symbol of the award, Bufo Marinus, [Cane Toad] should exemplify the character of any nominee - a terminal despoiler, necessitating complete removal from any influence in our Australian civilisation.

Nominations are restricted to individuals who could be classed either as Native Australian, or as an assimilable post war immigrant.

Persons nominated should have excelled in the prevailing Traitor Class:- Globalists and internationalists working against the European derived identity of the Australian Nation, and the Great Cause of Australian Independence; bourgeois liberals; media sycophants; quisling politicians; money changers who advance economics as the prime determinant in society; Australia-hating multicultists undermining our Aussie culture and heritage; Aborigine Race destroyers, proponents of over population through mass immigration, advocates for fake refugees, exploiters pillaging the environment and adding to the destruction of the eco-systems of our Native Land.

Please forward the name and address of the person to be nominated, with full particulars, including references to support the nomination, by 20th January 2015, to the address below. Include your own name and address.

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY
Identity - Freedom - Independence
P O Box 223 Croydon 3136. National Contact Line: 02 8587 0014 www.australiafirstparty.net
email: ausfirst [ AT ] hotmail.com

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY- RECLAIMING AUSTRALIA FOR AUSTRALIANS

The International Monetary Fund released a report last month that showed that China has surpassed the US as the world’s biggest economy. The IMF estimated the Chinese gross domestic product this year will be $US17.6 trillion, compared to the US’ $US17.4 trillion.

Deutsche Bank also pointed out that on a PPP basis, the US’ share of world output has dropped below 20 per cent, which historically has been the tipping point of whether a country or empire has been considered a global superpower.
China is the fastest growing large economy in the world. By contrast, the United States is stagnating, and increasingly finds itself facing the internal pressures of domestic and social problems, which take up time and money.
China assuming its natural position as Asia’s economic leader and following its newfound superpower status to a logical and even constructive conclusion. China is on pace to become the second country in history, after the US, to have a single-year $US10 trillion GDP, something that comes with opportunities and expectations that no responsible leadership can ignore.

America's problem is overpopulation, thanks to huge third world immigration! Obama is not facing up to the facts. They suffer from thousands of cases of female genital mutilation, multiple honor killings, beheadings, be-handings, religious violence toward women, arranged marriages and self-segregation by our Islamic immigrants. America will import 100,000,000 (million) legal immigrants from at least 140 failed countries. In other words, their people flee those countries due to overpopulation, religious conflicts, poverty and starvation.Official figures predict that the invasion past their southern borders will increase next year to an additional 130,000. Housing and feeding this Third World flood will cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion, up from $868 million this year. China, on the other hand, has little immigration and population control, and can accumulate wealth. Nov. 20 statement, Obama announced an executive order stating that new immigration policies must be implemented. The order allows illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship without fear of deportation if they have lived in the United States for over five years, have children who are American citizens, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay taxes.

Frosty Wooldridge says that America's overpopulation predicament is the most ignored, avoided and suppressed issue of our time. But it will prove the most destructive to our country.

The one-child policy was introduced in 1979 by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to curb China’s rapidly growing population. At the time it was approximately 970 million. In late 2013, as part of a package of social, economic and legal reforms, the Chinese government amended the one-child policy to allow couples to have a second child if either parent instead of both is an only child. China’s one-child policy is estimated to have prevented up to 400 million births since it was instituted 35 years ago. By reducing the number of dependents per household and freeing more women to enter the workforce, population control efforts have helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and contributed to China's spectacular economic growth.

I predict that China will continue to grow, albeit at a smaller and smaller rate, eventually stagnating.

We must be clear. China is not taking over the world, they are inheriting a world in which the dominant superpower is commiting suicide.

This has implications for Australia. Our political class refuses to recognise that the USA is in decline, and much more importantly WHY. We are repeating the USA's mistake, and hitching our wagon to China, with the belief that it China's ascent is their making, and not the result of Western suicide and globalist agendas. This means that with the refusal to acknowledge the cause of Americas decline, we overestimate China (by underestimating how much the USA has compromised itself). Americas decline is based on many factors, growth, open borders, rule by billionaires, democracy by oligarchs and vested interests, greed and consumption, plutocracy and significant wealth disparities. These are values our political class value and our media admonishes us for being skeptical of.

Catalyst: Future cities
Thursday 4th December ABC

The media abounds with visions of gloomy, automated megacities or totally sustainable ecological utopias but how do these futuristic visions relate to the development of Australian cities over the next eighty years?
With soaring populations, how will we keep our cities liveable? And what will the city of tomorrow look like? Catalyst reporter, Anja Taylor explores some innovative ideas to enhance our future cities.

There was never any discussion, or options, than the assumption that our population would continue to "soar", and what other options we had for our cities! Planning experts were consulted about how we can have "sustainable" cities, and more of them in Australia!

Shallow programming never allowed any questioning of this dire future, of existence rather than liveable cities. There was no mention of food security, democratic input, housing affordability, and climate change was only given lip-service - of "green" buildings. Unfortunately, Catalyst did not seek an alternative opinion from the Sustainable Population Party.

Professor Stuart White, Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures, said that we could make our cities as "sustainable" as they need to be. The word "sustainable" has become an oxymoron, with little meaning! What is missing is often the institutional arrangements, the political will. So everywhere we look in the work we do, we find that these are the barriers that need to be overcome.

Professor Rob Adams said: "Not only I'm confident that we can actually double the population, it'll be good for the cities".

Australia's population is projected to reach up to 70 million by the end of this century. The extra space we'll need to live like this is mind-boggling. There was never any questioning of this ABS data, and how such large growth was to be "projected"!

Rob Adams's challenge today is even tougher - to accommodate double Melbourne's population in the next few decades without losing liveability. He believes it's entirely possible. Of course, this response in predictable considering that he is a growth-ist and is currently the Director City Design at the City of Melbourne and the Vice Chair of the Urbanization Council of the World Economic Forum. He's had over 40 years experience as an Architect and Urban Designer and 30 years at the City of Melbourne. His vested interests in housing and city growth will fuel his profession, and the hip pockets of architects and planners, for decades to come.

Dr Julian Bolleter is an Assistant Professor at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) at the University of Western Australia. His role at the AUDRC includes teaching a master’s program in urban design and conducting urban design research and design projects. He said that decentralising the population means that each new city could be a small city. This means massive infrastructure investments, more land clearing and the massive costs of city-building. Julian believes linked mega regions like these are the only way we can hope to accommodate a potential population of 70 million without destroying our environment.

Despite all the challenges increasing populations bring, our city planners remain optimistic we can adapt well to our future. City Planners are not responsible for food security, lifestyle choices, jobs or natural resources.

It's an understatement that our lives will be "different" with the massive population growth being "projected" to keep up our GDP! We need to redefine what our economy is aiming for, rather than just "growth" of housing and people!

An overloaded ship can't be efficient, weather storms and maintain balance. We need a policy for a sustainable population size, one that can be enduring and thus ensure our lifestyles remain enjoyable and liveable. These academics have their heads in the sand, or have been blinded by the vested interests of property developers and mortgage lenders.
There's a difference between living in harmony with Nature, and Her constraints, than mere existence and suffering.

Recently, more attention has been paid to natural environments, as well as to how humans affect those environments. Encounters with nearby nature help alleviate mental fatigue by relaxing and restoring the mind.

The rapid pace of urbanisation is an important marker of the societal transition at large that has occurred over the past 30 years. Urban living can be threatening if you haven’t enough space of your own, if you experience insufficient security or live under unstable economic conditions. Stress increases with the anticipation of adverse situations and the fear of not having the adequate resources to respond to them.

The only voice of any reason from continual growth was from Dr Julian Bolleter who said that by about mid-century, really we can't just continue to grow our capital cities. Otherwise we'll end up with mega cities, which is a Sydney of 12 million, a Melbourne of 15 million. When that happens, our liveability will begin to drop away. Congestion, pollution, affordability issues will mean that the quality of life those cities offer declines.

It's anthropocentric to think that humans can overwhelm our landscape, and keep destroying flora, fauna habitats and ecosystems.

Get a list of cities by population. Sort by population from largest to smallest.

People (a few) think that population brings relevancy. Wrong! Demonstrably so! This list may have familiar names, but how have these cities changed the world? Some will be unfamiliar completely. Seattle was a city in the 90s that had relevance. It is under 700,000 people today, presumably less back then.

In fact, there is probably no more guaranteed way (aside from nuking it) to make a city go from something to nothing, than blindly artificially increasing its population.

The future belongs to those cities which maintain their identity, to those which strive to remain somewhere.

Catalyst is stuck firmly in the 20th century, or 19th, or 18th. Cities are the result of requiring masses of labour to live in close proximity to the means of production. Does that sound like what we need for the future? What industries today require masses of labour close by? What function does a city serve today? Automation and IT are making mega cities obsolete.

Thank you Vivienne, for this very necessary comment, which you really should have posted as an article.

Prof Stuart White professing to be able to make our cities as 'sustainable' as they need to be - sounds like he has no concern for democracy, self-determination, or even that bastardisation of democracy, 'choice'.

This is all hung, of course, on the myth that populations have to grow and the third world is pushing at our door. We are being driven down the same road as Ethiopia and the Congo, by the same 19th and 20th century mentalities. https://candobetter.net/node/4147

And, as for the theoretical capacity to make cities 'sustainable'; this continually runs into the hurdle of politics, which means that it just never works out that way.

But if you live a privileged life, like the planners who become rich by pushing other people around, you aren't likely to be exposed to the reality that most people have to put up.

The planners are not just sociopathic in their values and opportunism, they are ecopathic in their blythe destruction of our natural environment, cruel in their taking of what sustains other creatures, base in their reduction of the natural world to insects and microbes that can survive in cities, along with a few rats and seagulls.

A big irony is that Melbourne was actually planned for large open natural spaces and real 'livability' (not the false 'livability' manufactured by a cabal of economists and neo-cons that rule us). We have largely destroyed this really great planning heritage. One of the most loathsome actions against it was carried out by the Steve Bracks government, when it gave 20ha of Royal Park to Australand for the construction of a new private suburb, occasioning the removal of thousands of trees and the abrogation of a large part of Melbourne's public land. This commercial act of vandalism by a Labour government was carried out on one of our largest, oldest and most far-sighted planned parks, which was set aside by Governor Charles La Trobe in 1845.

The planners of today run roughshod over the original planning of Melbourne, as though they were deaf, dumb and blind.

From

Congress has pretty much just declared war on Russia ... and is receiving condemnation and ridicule from conservatives and liberals alike.

Conservative former long-time congressman Ron Paul writes

Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.

***

In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.

These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.

That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:

The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?

The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?

The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.

The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.

Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!

Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the US has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!

The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not even bother to read these resolutions before voting?

In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?

Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”

The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement that “military intervention” by the Russian Federation in Ukraine “poses a threat to international peace and security.” Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we accept that Russia is posing a “threat” to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These are the slippery slopes that lead to war.


Liberal former long-time congressman Dennis Kucinich agrees:

H. Res. 758 ... is tantamount to a ‘Declaration of Cold War’ against Russia, reciting a host of grievances, old and new, against Russia which represent complaints that Russia could well make against the U.S., given our nation’s most recent military actions: Violating territorial integrity, violations of international law, violations of nuclear arms agreements.

Congress’ solution? Restart the Cold War!

The resolution demands Russia to be isolated and for “the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense [my emphasis] under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies…” In other words, ‘let’s get ready for war with Russia.’

This is exactly the type of sabre rattling which led to the initiation and escalation of the Cold War. It is time we demanded that the U.S. employ diplomacy, not more military expenditures, in the quest for international order.
It is time the U.S. stepped out of this expensive dialectic of conflict and seek to rebuild diplomatic relations with Russia and set aside the risky adventurism in the name of NATO.


The libertarian website Antiwar points out:

The bill includes a bizarre litany of complaints, starting with President Obama’s announced “reset” of Russian relations in 2009 and then accusing Russia of doing things in response, including things that happened in 2008 or before like the Russo-Georgian War.

It also complains that the Ukrainian military isn’t as big as Russia’s military, which seems like the obvious result of Russia being a way, way bigger country.

The most bizarre aspect of the bill, however, comes near the end, when they complain about Russia’s state-sponsored media broadcasting in languages other than Russian across Europe and the rest of the world to gain influence.

Which Russian state-sponsored media does, but the bill then explicitly turns around and calls for the US state-sponsored media to expand dramatically across Europe, and particularly in Russian language, insisting this is vital for “multi-lateral cooperation.”

The bill also demands Russia “seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States” in clause 21, after half of the 20 previous clauses call on President Obama or others to take explicitly hostile action toward the Russian economy or military.

Nonpartisan, veteran investigative reporter John Pilger sums it up:

Resolution 758 ... in a nutshell, says: “Let’s get ready for war with Russia.”

Bottom line?

Both conservative and liberal financial experts say that the U.S. is desperately trying to start World War 3 ... even though the American public doesn't want it.

TERRA AUSTRALIS

This is Australia, this is each one's earth
that is Australian, this soil is sacred
now and forever for each one for whom
the vision of this land resurgent ever stirs
in every landscape, for each one that sees
in every town and township, every house
and paddock, every street and track
each patch of untouched bush, each wasted acre
that the greed of sheep or wheat or axe
has furrowed and scarred and swept
and ploughed to barrenness, for each that sees
as his own body and as mighty all this land.

This is Australia, each tree and bush, each hill,
each mountain, each vast plain where dust-storms
ride the ancient beds of ancient seas,
each headland set to face the surf,
each creek, long dry, that thunders when the rains
break their all-feeding benediction on the earth,
each rock that carving bears or tribal myth explains,
each billabong the heron's grey reflection shows,
each jungle-patch along the north-east shores,
each valley and each gully where the euro runs,
each foot of earth, each stick, each grain of dust,
makes, and is ever part of, each Australian.

This is Australia, this is the land
whose sons and daughters are forever blind
and deaf to all its mystery; this is the land
barren of lovers; this is the land defiled
by those whose flesh is quarried from its earth;
this is the land whose sons and daughters turn
their faces from it, holding always
vain dreams in their small minds of their own greatness
greater than it; this is the land whose children
fear it, being so small and petty-mean
that never in their hearts is courage great enough
for them to love its beauty and immensity.

This is Australia. This is the land
now raising new the spirit of its earth;
this is the land that now a few do love
fiercely and fearlessly; this is the land
that now has found a few to call
its vision from the cupboard of neglect
and set it up for every man to see.
This is the land preparing for those
who shall acknowledge their full fellowship
with every fistful of its soil, those who shall hold
that soil as their own flesh, those who shall be
consecrated in their loyalty. Ian Mudie 1940 [Jindyworobak]

Wow! Some poem. Thank you, Anonymous, for posting it here.
Here is some info from about the author, Ian Mudie:

Writing career

Encouraged by P. R. Stephensen, who published one of his poems in his magazine The Publicist in 1937,[1] he became associated with the Jindyworobak Movement in 1939 and in 1941 moved to Sydney and became involved in Australia First. He was a friend of Miles Franklin and Colin Thiele,[1] and attracted favourable criticism from Xavier Herbert.

He took an active part in various national writers' bodies in Australia.

He was a strong critic of white Australians' treatment of Indigenous people. The Australian literary historian, Brian Clunes Ross has written,

"Ian Mudie in The Australian Dream (1943), revealed the delusory quality of the nationalist perception of Australia through its refusal to take into account the destruction of the natural environment and of Aboriginal culture… the Jindyworobaks… [were] often misrepresented by critics who claimed that the movement aimed to base Australian culture on Aboriginal culture. The Jindyworobaks were interested in Aborigines, and if white Australians are now able to recognise the grim impact of their civilisation on the Aboriginal inhabitants of the country, the Jindyworobaks are partly responsible…the Jindyworobaks… wanted to achieve a harmonious relationship between culture and the environment, and realised that Aboriginal culture embodied it. This was an example from which they could learn, not by imitation, but by coming to understand and accept the conditions which the environment imposes on them." (Australian Literature and Australian Culture)

After the Second World War Mudie conducted research into the paddlesteamers of the Murray-Darling river system and in 1961 published the book Riverboats. He also wrote the story of "The Wreck of The Admella" off the south-east coast of South Australia and "The Heroic Journey of John McDouall Stuart".
Works
Verse

Corroboree to the Sun (1940)
This Is Australia (1941)
The Australian Dream (1943)
Their Seven Stars Unseen (1943)
Poems 1934–1944 (1945)
The Blue Crane (1959)
The North-bound Rider (1963)
Look, the Kingfisher (1970)
Selected Poems 1934–1974 (1976)

Editor

Poets at War: An anthology of Verse by Australian Servicemen (1944)
The Jindyworobak Anthology (1946)

Non-fiction

Riverboats (1961)
Wreck of the Admella (1966)
The Heroic Journey of John McDouall Stuart (1968)

According to their new report, Wealth of Generations, older Australians are capturing a growing share of Australia’s wealth, while the wealth of younger Australians has stagnated, a new Grattan Institute report finds.
The housing boom plus rapid increases in government payments on pensions and services for older people risks creating a generation of young Australians with a lower standard of living than that of their parents at a similar age. The "housing boom" is because of high population growth, back to back on the demographic Ponzi scheme of constant population growth!
Worst affected were 25 to 34-year olds who had less wealth than people of the same age eight years before – even though they saved more than did people of that age in the past. In 2010, governments spent $9400 more per household over 65 than they did six years before. Much of the increased spending was funded by budget deficits. Future taxpayers will have to repay the debt. So, this generation is "borrowing" money that belongs to future generations, before they even exist?
In the past, each generation took out more from the budget over its lifetime than it put in . This “generational bargain” was sustainable when incomes rose quickly – the norm for 70 years. The more of us there are, the more our wealth must be diluted, and spread out!
The generational bargain is at risk because government transfers from younger to older cohorts are now so large that future budgets may not be able to afford them. There's an insinuation that the misfortune of this generation, and that of future generations, is somehow the fault of the "ageing population" of baby-boomers who had it good!
Download the report
The housing price boom was a result of increasingly available credit, falling interest rates, and construction of new dwellings not keeping up with population growth in large cities. Older people who bought humble houses are now "wealthy" due to inflation, not for "capturing" or "stealing" our nation's wealth.
As the population ages and the number of people in these age groups swells, the relative cost of those aged 60 and over will rise. Obviously, there can't be a baby boom, or immigration boom, without a resultant "boom" of older people down the track.
An ageing population and falling terms of trade will drag on growth. Some also predict much slower growth in productivity. Rather, we should be more concerned by the huge number of young people being outcast by our economy, due to lack of jobs! How can they afford to retire in the future, without savings and superannuation?
Some economists warn that the potential for reduced economic growth over the next few decades means there may be less scope for dramatic technology-driven improvements in living standards similar to those in the past. Lower growth substantially reduces the improvement in living standards from one generation to the next. It also makes capital gains more important. Rather, our massive and booming population growth has been based on advertising our housing and living standards to the overseas market, meaning that it's eroded.
The Productivity Commission estimates that state and commonwealth government health spending will increase from 6.5% of GDP in 2011-12 to almost 11% in 2059-60. On the contrary, people today are living longer, and healthier lives and more are self-funding their retirements than before. Older people contribute a huge army of volunteers, and family supports, helping working aged people in child and care of the sick and elderly.
The generational bargain has served Australia well. Yet it will be undermined if some generations are asked to do more than their fair share, as if older generations are over-consuming and vilified as being an economic drain? It makes the older generations, who've worked hard and built our nation, are "taking more than their share" of the nation's wealth, and are something that our economy won't be able to afford in the future?
According to ABS population growth projections, Australia’s total dependency ratio – defined as the ratio of the non-working population, both children (<20 years old) and the elderly (over 65 years old), to the working age population – is worst under the ABS’ “high growth” (Panel A) scenario, thereby placing a question mark over Bloxo’s claim (HSBC Australia’s chief economist, Paul Bloxham) that high immigration is required to mitigate the impacts of population ageing.
Macrobusiness: Bloxo calls for bigger population Ponzi

We forget that technology and medicine are probably the largest contributors to increasing standards of living, as well as political and economic reforms.

Where would we be without penicillin, anaesthesia, antibiotics, the microchip, solar power, the telephone? Democracy and freedom of speech? Separation of Church and State? Where would we be without good implementations of these systems and ideas?

If you think about it, technology has greatly increased the productive output of each power (and in theory, should continue to do so). A worker today can't afford a home that one in the 1960's could have brought, but the worker today, if they are on the factory floor, is much more efficient, due to better machinery and practices.

Yet we waste this production on worthless consumption, and creating "bulls$%t" jobs in administration and services because we can't adapt to change. Thats the shame, that each individual can do so much more, but ends up with less and less, because our system is geared towards destruction and waste, disposability.

In the "Post Growth" world, we could see many opportunities. The opportunity to bring workmanship and pride back into manufacture, instead of cheap, nasty dispoability. The opportunity to spend less time chasing non-value adding consumption and pursue other activities. We build units purely to flip them. Who cares if they don't last. What a waste of resources.

Australia finished World War II with seven and a half million people and the memory of near-invasion by Japanese forces. The 2 per cent population growth goal adopted then had widespread community support. . Immigration has been a significant contributor to Australia's population growth. Since September 2005, net overseas migration has overtaken natural increase as the main component of population growth. After the end of World War II, Australia embarked upon a fantastic baby boom in tandem with a “populate or perish” approach to its immigration program. By 2011 Australia’s population had passed 22 million and today the population clock has just ticked past over 23 million, underscoring a very rapid pace of growth. Population growth has helped produce a strong economy, but now it's being used to prop up an ailing GDP.

The Grattan Institute should be reporting on increasing poverty, not older people "capturing" our wealth! The emphasis should be that population growth is diluting the wealth that we had, when land and housing was cheap, jobs were readily available, and we were the "Lucky Country" of opportunities. The Grattan Institute is being divisive, and politically-correct by avoiding the downward slide of heavy population growth, and diseconomies of scale. Profiling one sector of our society, older people, as an economic burden would be scandalous if it were some ethnic, religious or migrant group, but older Australians are fair targets!

It's assumed that migrants bring skills, and are young, but migrants age too.
Professor Hugo says Greek and Italian migration in the 20th century is a good example. "Hundreds of thousands of Greek and Italian migrants came to Australia to seek a better life and to fill skills shortages over a number of decades in the 20th century. Today, we have a large ageing migrant population in those communities," he says.
Population growth means that each generation's wealth is diluted when it's passed onto to an increasingly large pool of people - and as each generation gets bigger, our economy becomes more and more burdened and overloaded with less surplus to share.

Africa’s giraffes are silently disappearing and few countries have policies in place to help slow their quiet extinction. According to estimates from the Giraffe Conservation Research group, there are now only 80,000 giraffes in Africa, compared to 140,000 in 1999.

Fifteen years ago about 140,000 giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) roamed the plains and forests of Africa. Today that number has plummeted by more than 40 percent, according to the Giraffe Conservation Foundation (GCF).
As human numbers go up, West African giraffe numbers go down. Human population increase has had a severe impact on the West African giraffe. As the population increased, humans began living closer to the giraffes and cutting down trees, resulting in habitat loss.

As with so many other species, the causes of this decline include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, overhunting and poaching.

Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If recent trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change.

Petition: Save giraffes from extinction

Our planet is dying. The Living Planet report, produced by WWF (once called the World Wildlife Fund) in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London, has found that the number of vertebrates – mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish – on earth has fallen by more than half since 1970. The number of insects worldwide had fallen by 45 per cent since the Seventies, while human populations had almost doubled. The report concludes that today’s average global rate of consumption would need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain it. That leaves little room for our iconic mega fauna, famous in stories, zoos and picture book, and if even these keystone species fall off our overpopulated and razed planet, then there's little hope for the small, seemingly normal and insignificant species that have a rightful place on the Earth's web of Life!

More cuts, new spending and a deeper deficit will be spelt out in the federal government's budget update next week. Mr Hockey said in a Sky News interview today that a return to budget surplus would be pushed out beyond 2018 given economic conditions.

"There have been good signs this year that the economy is strengthening. We want to keep that momentum going," he said.

Treasurer Joe Hockey will release the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook on Monday, which economists say could reveal a deficit for 2014/15 upwards of $35 billion.

Nominal GDP growth in 2014/15 will fall short of the 3% forecast in May, potentially being lowered to 1.0%. The drop in the terms of trade has proven to be sharper than expected and real GDP growth may be closer to 2.25% than the 2.50% previously expected.

Former demographer with UN Population Division, Dr Joseph Chamie, said that Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth. “Economic growth requires population growth” is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.

Is population growth a Ponzi Scheme?

Australia has had 22 years of continuous population growth, but today we are not wealthier and more prosperous than before, but suffering from multiple razor attacks to public services, the dismantling of Medicare by stealth, deregulation towards neo-liberalism, lower tax benefits and welfare. Surely the elusive bonus "surplus" is just around the corner, and maybe a reality by 2018? Until then, governments and economist continue with the same failing economic model based on perpetual economic and population growth!

Standard economics doesn't even discuss how energy is tied into growth, which it sees as the outcome of interactions between capital and labor. It is evident that increasing production and consumption is rightly called economic growth only up to the economic limit. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer, not richer.

The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.

The description from Your TV:

Florian Hartung and Dirk Pohlmann have reconstructed a previously unknown dimension of the collaboration between Nazis and the CIA in the Cold War. Drawing upon recently released documents, the film exposes for the first time a perfidious, worldwide net that reaches deep into the power structures of the Federal Republic of Germany. Lending their authority to the fact-finders' mission are high-ranking statesmen, journalists and historians.

Aired on 14 December 2014 on SBS ONE Expires on 28 December 2014, 6:30pm.
Video on demand here.

"Florian Hartung and Dirk Pohlmann have reconstructed a previously unknown dimension of the collaboration between Nazis and the CIA in the Cold War. Drawing upon recently released documents, the film exposes for the first time a perfidious, worldwide net that reaches deep into the power structures of the Federal Republic of Germany. Lending their authority to the fact-finders’ mission are high-ranking statesmen, journalists and historians. (From Germany) (Documentary) (class tba)"

This is a pretty remarkable documentary. I wonder if there is a transcription available. For me it shows that the Nazis were not defeated in WW2; many of their chief actors were blackmailed to work for the CIA, using funds that the United States recovered from Nazi treasure stashes. The essence of the association was and remains for a fascist force to demolish any democratic communist or socialist movements,oppositions or goverments, using violence, assassination, torture and by supporting wars. It seems that the elites in the US truly believe that they are superior beings who owe nothing to most of the people in the world.

With these values dominating the power elite in the United States, one can understand how the black population there remains so oppressed. Slavery has never really been overthrown. The slaves were 'freed' into poverty. They were a class that totally lacked land, which is the basis of all wealth. When they formed labor movements, their leaders were assassinated. Millions of immigrants have been brought into the US to keep the black population from making any gains.

The Bob Barker, the Sea Shepherd ship captained by Peter Hammarstedt and best known for its campaign against the Japanese whaling fleet, has been shadowing the Nigerian-flagged Thunder through a field of pack-ice for more than three days.

The high seas cover about 50% of Earth’s surface and host a major share of the world’s biodiversity, but remain largely ungoverned. Outside of fishing, global shipping and cargoes are expected to triple by 2060. The risks of deliberate or accidental discharge of oil and other substance, noise and ship strikes will rise.

Many marine ecologists think that the biggest single threat to marine ecosystems today is overfishing. Our appetite for fish is exceeding the oceans' ecological limits with devastating impacts. According to the United Nations, over 70 percent of the world's fisheries are either 'fully exploited', 'over exploited' or significantly depleted'.

In 2010 Greenpeace added the toothfish to its seafood red list to highlight the vulnerability of slow-growing Antarctic toothfish and the overfishing of the Patagonian species.

Researchers with the University of Tasmania’s Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, said Sea Shepherd’s ships controlling illegal fishing could instead make themselves “extremely useful” if they exercised ­"restraint". On the contrary, "restraint" will mean the illegal activities will continue!

Sea Shepherd intercepted Thunder, a Nigerian-flagged ship, by their ship Bob Barker last week. It had taken place in international waters, where Patagonian toothfish poaching was considered an unregulated but not an illegal activity.

Sea Shepherd says Interpol, CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Fishing Management Authority have all been informed of the vessel’s activities. Why aren't they actually where the illegal poaching is occurring? It's pointless having high-powered institutions with impressive names, but they are impotent unless they are actually doing something.

The Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies believes that passive monitoring of unauthorised vessels operating in those zones would be a far more ­effective use of Sea Shepherd’s resources? on the contrary, watching, and observing, will not achieve anything.

Whales in the Antarctic would never have been saved by "restraint" or casual observation of Japan's whaling crimes! Where are the law enforcers of our oceans?

There's a lot of incoherent policies and contradictions coming from Federal politicians. Now new Social Services minister Scott Morrison has the task of drastically trimming our welfare budget.
The forecast increase on welfare spending of just 2.4 per cent in 2015-16 will barely match inflation before allowing for population growth, and a rising number of beneficiaries.
The Australian Council of Social Service yesterday noted that operating funding for the ­department had been cut by $250 million at a time when frontline agencies were struggling to meet growing demand. This comes at a time when so many Australian families are facing crushing cost of living pressures.
As the Immigration Minister, Morrison helped revive the old lie that boat people are "illegal" - powerful rhetoric introduced by the Howard government at the time of the Tampa episode in August 2001. Boat people were used to divert media and public attention from our increasing rate of net overseas immigration, and create a smoke-screen for the real masses of people arriving each day! The Department became the "Department of Immigration and Border Protection" - protection from the threat of boat people! Asylum seekers became "illegals", but we still were signatories of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
There is a diminishing pool of new jobs, and housing services for the vulnerable will be slashed. As a former Immigration Minister, surely Morrison is aware of the inconsistency of our high skilled immigration, the large numbers filling our job queues, and our unemployment crisis? ABS reports that unemployment among skilled migrants is up to 30% higher than the rest of the population! Large multinational companies, shouldn't have to advertise local jobs to Australian workers. They claim that they can’t find "skilled" workers locally. But how do they know if they don't even bother looking? And whatever happened to training workers and putting on apprentices? Why have such high rates of skilled migration then?
$21 million ripped from homelessness support, cuts to mental health programs and carers, early intervention for families where the child is at risk, as well as services to help families with their finances will just be the beginning of a sustained attack on struggling Australian families and the support they need every day. The Department of Social Services published a range of welfare support groups that their funding had been abolished. Organisations losing funding include Blind Citizens Australia, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and homeless bodies such as National Shelter and the Community Housing Federation. Our most vulnerable people are under attack!
These cutbacks are not about welfare, but trimming our economy while population keeps being "projected".
Our failing, and false, economic model based on population growth, when everything else is declining and failing to keep up, is surely adding to our economic woes. We need a good dose of reality, and fresh thinking in Parliament House. Maybe the air is stuffy, or they don't get outside enough into the real world. It's about gambling with our livelihoods, and assuming that the great budget "surplus" is just around the corner, when we might continue going down the slide from the "Lucky Country" of wealth and privileges, to a third world economy based on cheap and plentiful labour, and internally-compounding economy of housing growth.

The largest survey of Australia's community services sector reveals that 80% of frontline agencies are unable to meet current levels of demand with the resources they have. The biggest gaps in meeting demand are in the areas of greatest community need. The increasing demand for service and funding will be met by savage cut-backs, not more welfare!

It's a kick in the teeth for our most vulnerable people, at Christmas while most of the public are distracted by Christmas, and the commercial blitz! The irony is that ACOSS has no policy on population, or immigration, except on asylum seekers and refugees. They believe that the majority of people who have entered Australia by boat seeking have been found to need protection from persecution, and therefore that the vulnerability of asylum seekers must be a primary consideration in any government response to people movement. The masses, the skilled migrants and their families, are ignored. ACOSS develops and promotes socially and economically responsible public policy and action by government, community and business. How "socially and economically" responsible is it to keep increasing the size of Australia's population at a time of increasing economic shortfalls?

When are these social institutions and not-for-profit welfare organisations going to call for a population plan for Australia, and a responsible size in proportion to our economic and environmental landscape?

There is said to be a "direct relationship between rapid rates of population growth and declining economic conditions in developing countries". Last century, no nation made much progress in transitioning from developing to developed until they brought their population growth under control.
Not only in developing countries, but Australia's economy is suffering severe shortfalls, and heavy cutbacks to spending. While the size of our economy has grown, for 23 years, personal wealth for most is declining. If each generation increases in size, and this has been considerable in Australia, income generated from our economy must be shared between more and more people. If more people are unemployed, and on welfare, there is less incoming revenues.
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently claimed that birth control was "treason"! He says that a declining birth rate may undermine economic growth. But in fact it is the other way around.
Kelvin Thomson's Blogspot

"We need this to take Turkey above the level of modern civilizations," said Erdogan, who has four children. Level of "modern civilizations" sounds more of an aim for power, and dominance, not human welfare and overcoming poverty!
At present, Turkey sucks in foreign goods and relies on foreign cash to finance even lackluster economic expansion.
Fertility rates have dropped to just over 2% and women are having children later. Women are denied the right to a Caesarean birth. He also pushed what appeared to be a socially conservative agenda; telling a conference that dealt with women's rights that women could not be equal to men. He appears to be pushing a nationalism deeply intertwined with an Islamic religious identity — arguing for the return of the language of the Ottoman empire or pushing a theory that Muslim explorers discovered America.
The Turkish President no doubt more obscure reasons for encouraging population growth! There are religious roots of the government led by Erdogan, who has been described by critics as an “Islamist”. He has long been accused of seeking to diminish the country’s secular principles and limiting the civil liberties of women.
Islam is now the worlds second largest religion after Christianity. At the current rate of growth it is estimated that Islam’s population by the year 2025 will be 1.9 billion (about 24 percent of the total European population). It's success is from high Muslim birth rate and immigration, not from converts (non-Muslims becoming Muslims). Despite being a "secular" government, individuals belonging to the small remnants of Turkey's Christian population groups were nominally Turkish citizens.
Erdogan is a devout Muslim, and his comments on women's rights have often been interpreted as a sign of the conservative, traditional gender roles he and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) espouse.
In recent years, a slew of government initiatives has pushed Islam deeper into Turkey’s nominally-secular education system. This condemnation of birth control is about confining women into a traditional role of wife and mother, and boosting the spread of Islam.
Erdogan's claim that birth control has served to "dry up" Turkey's population is at odds with official statistics, which show the country's population, which now tops 76 million, to have grown rapidly in recent decades.

The Boycott Halal campaign is led by New South Wales farmer Kirralie Smith and supported by extremist groups including the "Islam-critical' Q-Society, Restore Australia, the Australian Defence League and the Patriots' Defence League. Halal products are those deemed permissible for Muslims to eat or use under religious law. Animals in Australia (with exception of pigs) are now mostly slaughtered by Muslim males in ccordance
with Islamic sharia law.
Worldwide the halal industry is worth $US 2 trillion and is growing 20% a year.

Boycott Halal movement set to escalate

Groups are claiming that certification pushes up prices and the money goes towards funding "terrorism". The campaign urged customers to stop drinking Paul's Iced Coffee because it is certified as halal, which it said was in turn "supporting Muslim terrorists and cruelty against animals".

Abattoirs in Queensland are having to fork out up to $27,000 per month for Halal certification, money which is allegedly being used to fund Islamic schools and mosques. In many Australian abattoirs only Muslim males can now find employment as slaughterers. Non-Muslims and women are considered haram - unclean.

Scientists have long debated halal and kosher slaughter and recent evidence suggests that the draining of blood from an animal from its neck causes unnecessary suffering and prolongs the death process, as a European Union study reported in 2008.

The global market for halal-certified products and services is estimated to be worth more than USD2.3 trillion, expanding by 20% per year. Companies who believe non-Muslims do not care, pass on the extra cost to consumers. It's a "religious tax" we are being forced to pay!

Experts say Australia is one of the top destinations for corrupt ­officials fleeing China, and with the Canadian changes there are fears the country could become a haven for white-collar criminals.
Competition between countries trying to attract investment from wealthy Chinese individuals has heated, with the announcement that Australia is easing its investor visa programme. Instead, the government in Canberra has introduced fast-track visa approvals under its Significant Investor Visa (SIV) scheme.
The visa scheme is offering residency to those who invest over A$15 million (€10.41M) for one year.
The Australian has revealed that the former chief of the giant Chinese utility State Grid was hiding out in Australia with millions of dollars he stole from the company. Chinese investigators have identified at least six other former officials and state company executives accused of bribery and embezzlement ­involving about $1 billion.

The Australian: Fears corrupt Chines set to rush significant investor visa scheme

Pressure is now building in the country to improve the scrutiny of foreign investors who want to buy residency in Australia and use it as an opportunity to escape liability. Canada has tightened it investment scheme, yet Australia still has the welcome mat out for the wealthy!

China's state media CCTV had accused the Bank of China of money laundering in Australia. The report, now removed from all Web sites, had mentioned Australia as one of the possible destinations for "grey money" from China.

A typical scenario involves officials sending their spouses and children overseas, often using them as a conduit to shift assets offshore. With barely any assets to their name, the so-called "naked official" – as is the popular term for them in China – is then able to join their family overseas at the first whiff of trouble. . The Washington-based Global Financial Integrity group, which analyses illicit financial flows, estimates that $US3 trillion flowed out of China illegally between 2005 and 2011.
SMH:Australia set to seize assets of corrupt Chinese officials

Our liberal immigration Department, and policies, does not "discriminate" who comes here, and with huge number able to escape any control or filters, Australia is now a magnet for corrupt arrivals. Australia is becoming a refuge outpost for corruption, and if they have mega$$ they are welcome, but "illegal" if they are impoverished boat-people and be interred in detention centres.

A location that should be best known as the landing place of Melbourne's first European settlers today is the site of a homeless camp and a memorial for rough sleeper Morgan Wayne "Mouse" Perry who was killed there exactly a year ago. The first white settlers from Tasmania arrived at the site in 1835, but is now infamous for the cruel death of a vulnerable homeless man!

The numbers of rough sleepers at the place he was killed have increased during the past year and Salvation Army Major Brendan Nottle said there have been repeat outbreaks of violence. Many suffer from mental illness, poverty and drug users are increasing, especially "ice".

Such history repeats itself.

Land was sold, bush was cleared for the creation of roads and buildings, and wetlands were drained. The Wurundjeri dispossession of land took place not just through displacement but through the destruction of their landscape. 1838 forty-one allotments of twenty-five acres each were sold in the areas that would become Collingwood and Fitzroy. Aboriginal people were pushed further and further out, and freedom of movement across the land became increasingly difficult. Aborigines were forced into the territories of adjacent mobs, and this caused violence.

Many of the dispossessed were eventually drawn to the settlement, of what is Melbourne now, where food and alcohol was available. The same cycle of addiction and dependence is happening today.

Now, the dispossessed are being victimized and denied land ownership, and forced into the fringes of our society, and economy. It's a cruel irony, of colonization, growth, overpopulation, corporate power, polarised wealth, and then the casting aside of those who are not welcome, or participants, in our consumerist and predatory economy. That's what's "bad" about Melbourne - greed!

The Age: Homeless camp reminder of what's bad about Melbourne

Australian industry is mounting a concerted campaign to wind back and abolish weekend and public holiday penalty rates, particularly in the hospitality sector.

Many other business groups are also targeting penalty rate reductions. The Accommodation Association wants the loading for working public holidays cut from double time and a half to time and a half.

SMH: Employers step up efforts to get rid of penalty rates

These penalty loadings are not tips, bonuses, or icing on the cake! Around 4.5 million workers across the country depended on penalty rates to "actually put food on the table, take the family out to get a meal and go for a holiday once a year.

The large employers' claims are typically self-serving, favouring big business and larger profits, and the end result will be greater poverty, stress, and increased social isolation for those working weekend and shift work. We would see a further decline in the notion that government should be about the common good in favour of wealth creation for corporations.

It's neoliberalism, of favouring those creating wealth over the common good of society. How many other industries, especially those that serve the entry levels for young people, will follow suit if this is allowed? Students are being loaded with increasing debts, and this means working as well as studying. The loss of penalty rates will be another downward pressure on our standards of education. A large struggling and competitive population is an ideal for high ranking elites!

Tourism is predicted to surge more than 10 per cent a year, according to the business consultancy firm Deloitte which has nominated tourism as one of Australia’s super-growth sectors. However the hospitality industry says that to reach this potential, there is need for simpler visa rules for both employees and tourists including the introduction of a premium pathway for luxury travellers.

So, with more migrants here on "simpler" visa rules, the hospitality industries will be flooded by job applicants, and this oversupply - at a time of record youth unemployment- will be a wind-fall for the industry. It's a downward push on wages and conditions, thanks to globalization and the power of growth industries to set their own demands.

The federal government department responsible for tourism, Austrade, said that regional tourism is suffering and urgently requires workers in hotels, pubs and restaurants. It says that as early as next year, there will be a shortage of some 56,000 workers in the hospitality industry. It has thus backed industry calls for increased flexibility of the 457 work visas and working holiday visas. This "flexibility" also clearly means an attack on local workers in favour of temporary migrants!

Pages