Andrew Fraser

It was maddening to hear a number of mainstream and lesser media organs come out observing that the Labor Party lost the recent Queensland election because of ex-Premier Anna Bligh's and ex-Treasurer, Andrew Fraser's counterintuitive and unpopular insistence on going ahead with privatisation and population growth policies, when you spent time recording the efforts of a man who continually tried to raise these issues and was preparing to run for election as an independent on these very matters in a major Brisbane seat. James Sinnamon was engaged in a long running campaign to raise the media profile of the Queensland public's right to choose on population and privatisation, when a terrible road accident removed him from active political life. Reviewing Laura Tingle's "Great Expectations in Quarterly Essay, June 2012, brings home the awful consequences of not having Australian political alternatives to canvass the selling off of institutions. See "Tingle shoots blanks despite great expectations." See also ABC markets new privatisation grab of public assets

James is on film grilling the then Queensland State Treasurer, Andrew Fraser about his failure to consider the financial and political costs of encouraging massive population growth in Queensland, and giving an election speech where he predicted the selling of Queensland Rail and Port among other assets. And he ran a battle on candobetter.net with the Queensland ETU, which he challenged to run an effective anti-privatisation program. James was planning to run against Arch Bevis in Mount Coot-ha in 2010, but instead spent months in hospital with severe head injuries after being knocked off his bicycle by a four wheel drive on a rarely frequented byway. James's removal from candidature on the issue of privatisation seems truly ironic because Bevis, who had held onto his seat through hell and high waters for years, finally lost it to the Liberals, simply because neither the Greens nor the Socialist Alliance nor the Democrats could bring themselves to offer the public an alternative on the obvious issues of privatisation and population policies in Queensland. James intended to run against Andrew Fraser in 2012 in the Federal election, but sadly, he was still in rehabilitation interstate.

It's a shame that apparently no-one thought to stand in any recent state election campaign explicitly opposed to the zombie economists' policy of privatisation. It seems as if Queenslanders' emphatic repudiation of privatisation at the 2012 state elections and the repudiation of privatisation in the 2011 NSW elections has at least helped to cause the Victorian Government to re-think some of its plans to sell-off the few public assets that Kennett didn't flog off.

In March the Baillieu Government announced that it intended to flog off the Port of Melbourne, but changed its mind anticipating the drubbing that the Queensland Labor Government of Anna Bligh was about to face on 28 March as a result of its privatisation policies. Whilst the sell-off of public assets seems to have slowed down, the sale of other Australian assets to foreign interests has gathered steam, including the sale of farmland to Qatar. [1]

More recently, the Baillieu Government has talked about charging tolls on public roads. James Sinnamon, May 2012.

Public institutions and services embody civil rights for Australians; their loss impacts on democracy as well as quality of life

Australians do not have a Civil Code that grants them rights defensible at law, unlike France and almost all European polities except for the United Kingdom. Australian rights were contained in public institutions that administered goods and services for Australians and were answerable to Australians. Such institutions were Telecom, a regulated banking industry and various Ports, Roads, Railways, public housing, electricity, gas and water. They were provided and maintained in exchange for income tax and subsidised, regulated payments. All such assets have either been diminished or completely sold off in trends that began during the Hawke-Keating era. (In some cases underfunding began earlier. Public housing is an example, where Primeminister Menzies, in the 1960s, began to reduce funding for public housing and to encourage private development, at the same time as he encouraged higher immigration.) When these insitutions and assets have been sold off, the rights they fulfilled have been abrogated or have completely disappeared. Now the services they provided can only be purchased and adequate basic resources including shelter, heating and water are now unaffordable to a widening group of Australians.

It was maddening to hear a number of mainstream and lesser media organs come out observing that the Labor Party lost the recent Queensland election because of ex-Premier Anna Bligh's and ex-Treasurer, Andrew Fraser's counterintuitive and unpopular insistence on going ahead with privatisation and population growth policies, when you have worked hard recording the efforts of one Queenslander independent who continually tried to raise these issues democratically and was willfully ignored by the mainstream media and the Queensland State Government.[2]

Until 18 May 2010, James Sinnamon was engaged in a long running preparation to raise the media profile of the Queensland public's right to choose on population and privatisation. A small portion of his efforts is recorded in four films on YouTube, of which the first is Part One of Privatisation and the Right to govern.

In Privatisation and the Right to Govern, (Parts 1, 2 and 3) Sinnamon goes one-to-one with the Queensland State Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, about Fraser's failure to consider the financial and political costs of encouraging massive population growth in Queensland.

In James Sinnamon's Privatisation Speech -Dave Zwolenski Launch, James predicts in detail the selling of Queensland Rail and Queensland Ports among other public assets.

James also ran a battle on candobetter.net with the Queensland ETU, challenging them to run an effective anti-privatisation program. They didn't like being shown up. See "If the unions get off their knees, privatisation can be stopped" and "ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why?" and "Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor.".

Why James Sinnamon did not run for government in 2010 and 2012 on the privatisation issue

As mentioned above, James was planning to run against Labor's long-reigning Arch Bevis in Mount Coot-ha in 2010. Instead James spent months in hospital with severe head injuries after being knocked off his bicycle by a four wheel drive on a rarely frequented byway on May 18th. As noted, the ALP's Arch Bevis, who had held onto his seat through hell and high waters for years, finally lost it to the Liberals. The main reason was probably because neither the Greens nor the Socialist Alliance nor the Democrats could bring themselves to offer the public an alternative on the obvious issues of privatisation and population policies in Queensland. In failing to offer this alternative, all parties participating contributed to what Laura Tingle documents in "Great Expectations," Quarterly Essay, June 2012, as the bipartisan sacrifice of institutions by governments in Australia, leading to government loss of power to deliver government to the people in Australia. See http://candobetter.net/node/3003/.

James had also intended to run against Andrew Fraser in 2012 in the Federal election, but sadly, he was still in rehabilitation interstate.

Candobetter.net was James's creation as a tool in his long-run political reform program which had specific and broader aims. One of those aims was to bring real debate into Australian politics. It still is. James is still the owner of Candobetter.net and still contributing, although at a reduced rate and quantity. We continue to hope that he can return to a more active role in politics.

It was also ironic recently to read at http://www.workersliberty.org, on 2nd of April 2012 an article entitled "Queensland-labour-movement-should-call-refounding-conference," the following:

"Queensland ETU billboard poster. The ETU was the only union to campaign boldly against privatisation. But it did so in a way that was bound to be counter-productive politically, rather than by rousing the labour movement to overturn Bligh."

Ironic because James Sinnamon's campaign against privatisation had been ignored by Worker's Liberty, although he had been a long time activist on privatisation. It was also noticable that Workers' Liberty kept the mention of privatisation a long way down the article, preferring to precede it with motherhood stuff.

As mentioned above, James Sinnamon had challenged the ETU to lift its game on privatisation again and again, where Workers Liberty had remained completely silent on the issue. And, according to the record James kept, the ETU's campaign was anything but bold. Here is a link to the articles he wrote on the matter. ;
"ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why?" and
"Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor"

Below is the transcript of one part of a three part film where James Sinnamon interviewed Andrew Fraser about privatisation and the costs of population growth. It is called, "Privatisation and the Right to Govern." Here is a link to the film.

Towards a better history of what really happened

SINNAMON: (continued from above) The second alternative that you haven't responded to is population growth.

Now, my letter from Anna Bligh read, said, that we are paying for ... um... we are selling the assets in order to pay for infrastructure that is necessary to cope with population growth.

Now it is the */choice/* of Queensland Government and Commonwealth Government to deliver the greater population. Back in 2005, Peter Beattie put in an advertisement in the Courier Mail newspaper that asked people to move interstate- move from interstate into Queensland. He never told the people that four or five years down the track, we were going to be paying for extra population growth by selling off the family silver.

FRASER: Well, James, in fact, the biggest population flows, rather than interstate migration, are, in fact, from overseas migration.

SINNAMON: That's right ...

FRASER: So, let me finish my point, please ...

FRASER (continues): and secondly from increase in the natural birth rate. And, I do not believe, as a nation, that we need to have Checkpoint Charlie set up at the Tweed River. It's not only unconstitutional; it's unAustralian. Secondly, I don't support having birth limits for Australians who want to start a family and the reality is that population growth is not a pre-determined government policy, but, the challenge is for us to deal with the population flows which are occurring. So we can't stop people from coming over the border from New South Wales and Victoria. The Federal government sets the migration policy. People are free to move about within Australia, and, thirdly, I don't support a population limit in terms of birth limits, so there is a challenge that needs to be dealt with.

SINNAMON: Both you and Anna Bligh came out after Kevin Rudd made the statement in favour of Australia's population increasing to ... um...I think the figure was 40 million by 2050 or something like that.

You both said, that 'We can meet the challenge' ...

And it's obvious - the newspapers - every day of the week - are full of stories about how the Queensland government has failed, completely failed to meet the challenge of past population growth.

Our streets are a schmozzle. We are being told that our rates and our electricity rates must go up; we must pay more for water, because we have to build more infrastructure to pay for the additional numbers that the Queensland government has deliberately encouraged to come here.

Now, if - ah - and then back in - when the auditor general's report came out and you - it slammed the Queensland government's management of health, management of transport, Anna Bligh stood up and said, "It's not my fault, it's the fault of population growth." And yet, when there's a raging debate about increasing Australia's population by another 60 per cent, both you and Anna Bligh came out and publicly said that we can rise to the challenge.

Other people who are responsible, who care about our future, recognise that there are limits to what water, what we can pay for, said, "This is not on, this has to be stopped." The fact is that the Queensland Government, at every point, has encouraged population growth and it hasn't told the public, 'if we grow the population of Queensland, then you've got to pay for that population growth with selling off the family silver.'

FRASER: The reality that we have to face, James, as we said very clearly in the public arena, is we have to make choices. There's not - There's a finite resource out there in terms of the ability to raise debt. You don't accept that; you agree with more and more debt. I don't. That's the starting point to the debate.

SINNAMON: No, I don't agree with more and more debt. I think there has to be a limit too. So I propose one way to limit ...

FRAZER: What's your limit?

SINNAMON: Stabilise population. And if we are paying [by] selling off our public assets ...

FRASER: Do you support cutting the migration intake, banning interstate migration, and capping the birth rate?

SINNAMON: I say start with stopping international immigration. I say that, if the Federal government is so irresponsible that they want to increase our population by 60 million, then our state governments have responsibility to say, "Hey, we are having to flog off our assets to pay for this."

We are ... and we had to find the money to build desalination plants because there won't be enough water for people to drink, if we don't ... I mean ... we need that point of leadership. Now, a few councils, like the Sunshine Coast council are trying very hard to put a population cap up there. The Queensland government is bent over backwards to make sure that that doesn't work. You know, they're over-ruling their ... um... Instead of supporting those councils they are using every possible opportunity, including this advertisement back in 2005 to actually encourage more people to come here.

You know, it's clear that the Queensland government has created the problem that it now says it has to solve by flogging off our assets. Which are opposed by 84 per cent under Beatty so that people were never asked about in the first place. They were never asked about population growth. They were never asked about flogging off our assets.

FRASER: [Note distortion of terms] I'm happy to have a public debate about whether or not people think we should cap the birth rate orwhether we should put Checkpoint Charlie up at the Tweed River. I happen to think that the community won't support it.

And neither do I. And neither does the government.

SINNAMON: Do you think that it's excusable to actually encourage population growth as well? I mean, we're not talking about "CheckpointCharlie", we're just simply saying that the population has increased to astronomical levels that already raise ...

FRASER: I think we need to be honest about what controlling population growth means, and that means migration controls ...

SINNAMON: That's right, yes.

FRASER: That mean's Checkpoint Charlie, and that means, capping the birth rate, and I don't support it.

SINNAMON: It means that ... okay... well, basically we disagree, don't we? I say any community has a right to say what numbers come in tot his community. I'm saying that, if the community has to go bankrupt, as you are basically saying we are...

You're saying, you're basically telling me, and Anna Bligh has said, that we have to sell-off the family silver, we have to pay for ever-higher electricity rates, we've got to pay more water ...

We've got to basically throw the Mary River people off their farms, and so on and so forth. It's just never ends - to pay for population growth.

#transcript3" id="transcript3">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 3

Go to #part3">embedded video.

SINNAMON (from before):Now I think that the community are entitled to have those alternatives put to them.

FRASER: James, you and I have very different views on this and you exercised your democratic right to stand as an independent candidate in the last election and put those views into the arena. I also stood as a candidate and others did and others are welcome to in the future and I'm happy for the debate tocontinue from here on in, but I don't agree that the propositions you're putting forward are supported by the broader community.

SINNAMON: Well, what do you say to the fact that 84 per cent of the people oppose privatisation, and that they felt - 66 per cent felt - that they were misled in the last election?

FRASER: What I've said - what I'll say to you - is what I've said all day every day, and that is, we had to make a choice; none of the choices were easy: cutting wages, freezing wages, less teachers, less doctors, less school cleaners, when population's increasing. Or you can make a decision about those things that government has done in the past, but, needs to make a choice about whether we choose to fund new rolling stock and new railway lines for BHP and Rio Tinto or, whether we put it into schools and hospitals and other resources that only governments would provide. We're not selling - ah - the timber business as the whole land ... we're selling the right to mill the trees... They're sold anyway, so they're getting the right to mill the trees. That's what we're proposing to transact there. Those are just the elements of what we are doing in making a decision about doing those things that we need to do ... and those things that are the priorities of government. And, when it comes to it, investing in hospitals, investing in schools, investing in disability services, are all the things that we believe, as a Labor government, ... are the priorities over building infrastructure for commercial interests that are able to do it themselves. That's the essential choice that we had to make and it's the one we made.

SINNAMON: Are you going to stop encouraging population growth? Are you going to come out and tell the public, tell the government, that we are ...

FRASER: #NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth" id="NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth">We're not encouraging population growth, we're just dealing with the natural consequences.

SINNAMON: Why not tell the Queensland public that we are paying for the past population growth ...um... with selling our public assets and inall sorts of ways? And why don't you get up and say to the Queensland public that, if this continues, then, what prospect do we have of having anything left in another fifty years time?

FRASER: Well, the problem with your analysis, James, is that it doesn't accept the fact that we're proposing to put $15 billion worth of assets onto the market, from an asset base of more than $200 billion... and by the time we finish, the asset base will be over $250 billion. So, this year alone, we're building an $18 billion dollar infrastructure program which supports building the asset base. Now, the debate we're having here is about $15 billion, which represents ... ah... a component of just one year'sinvestment that we're undertaking. So, everything that we are proposing to put to the market facilitates the capital expansion of the state. Building more assets, each and every day, each year, into the future. And that's the bottom line.

Comment: If this were true, then it would count as a substantive argument for privatisation. As result of selling $14 billion worth of assets, the Queensland Government's asset base is increased from $200 billion to $250 billion. Part of the reason for this would lie in the fact that more infrastructure assets are needed for Queensland's increased population, anyway. MUch of the money is being openly raised by increasing the charges for services as discussed above, so would not be dependent upon asset sales. All the same the figures Fraser has provided don't seem right and need further scrutiny.

SINNAMON: Okay. This letter in the Courier Mail, Friday, said that you haven't yet released the business case for privatisation. When do youintend to do that?

FRASER: We've put the rationale into the broader public arena.

SINNAMON: The general business case, the actual hard figures that actually show the sort of thing the figures of John - Professor John Quiggin's been asking for. When do you intend to do that?

FRASER: Well I debated Mr Quiggin on radio on Friday.

SINNAMON: For five minutes. For all of five minutes. Hardly a debate, I would have thought.

FRASER: Well, I certainly was ... ah... happy to debate him. The reality is we've had to make this decision and all those ... ah... figures are in the public arena, all the entities have reported as government-owned corporations, and ultimately ... and ultimately, you proposed a different policy and platform at the elections, which didn't gain the support of the people. You're entitled to put your views, James, and I'm entitled to put mine.

SINNAMON: Yes, I that's a bit [??vague]. I think that if people realised that privatisation was up for ... was an issue at the last election it would have been a very different story. I don't think you would be treasurer today if people realised that you were going to sell off $14billion of their assets. And I don't think Anna Bligh would be Premier.

FRASER: Well, you're entitled to put your views, James, and you're entitled to ... ah... proceed with them. That's your perfect entitlement as a citizen and I respect that. I've allowed you to film and record this interview. Use it for whatever political purpose you like into the future.

SINNAMON: Just one other question, Andrew, if you're wrong, if you're proven wrong, and our leaders have been proven wrong every time about privatisation, particularly the privatisation of the retail arm of electricity ... where we were promised cheaper electricity. If you're proven wrong, four or five years down the track, just as the Federal government was proven wrong about privatisation of Telstra, what recourse will they have? How do we get out of the mess that will have been created, that most people believe will happen?

FRASER: James, ultimately, I believe that what we are doing is the right thing to do ...

SINNAMON: How do we ... You're not answering my question ...

FRASER (continues from above): and that what we are doing is the correct thing to do, and that's what's decided to do.

SINNAMON: How do we, what recourse do we have? We have no recourse against Peter Beattie who privatised Ergon without ourpermission ...

FRASER: The recourse as ever, is daily media scrutiny, the parliament, and election. That's the way it's always worked in Australia.

SINNAMON: We've had no recourse against Peter Beattie, who sold off the assets against our wishes and we're all paying higher electricityprices. We believe that the same will happen.

SINNAMON (continues): What recourse will we have when it all goes pear-shaped, as people believe?

FRASER: I'm happy to be accountable for all my decisions, James.

FRASER: Thanks for meeting.

SINNAMON: Yeah. Just as Peter Beattie is accountable today. You know, he's headed off and we're in hock because of the decision that he made today and we'll be [indecipherable] ...

FRASER: Well, I disagree with you. You're entitled as a political candidate to put your view and I'm entitled as a political candidate to put mine.

SINNAMON: Why won't you hold a referendum on this? People ... 84 per cent of people are against it, why can't people have the final say on privatisation? You haven't swayed me.

FRASER: Because we're elected to make decisions. We're elected to make the tough decisions.

SINNAMON: People oppose that decision. They have consistently opposed that. They have opposed every privatisation. 70 per cent ofpeople opposed the Telstra privatisation. I believe that you know that they would have opposed you and would have voted you out if they were aware that you ... if they had had any hint that you were going to privatise, and I think ...

FRASER: Well, James, you're advancing a contradictory thesis that ... um...that one time you're saying I did say that in the election campaign, and the second time ... the second part of your question is that I didn't. So you need to decide which accusation you're going to make against me and the government.

SINNAMON: No, I believe that you're [??indeciferable] ...

FRASER: You're a political candidate and you're entitled to your views. I need to progress, so thanks very much for coming along.

SINNAMON: Okay, well thank you for your time.

#DebateRequest" id="DebateRequest">Appendix 3: Correspondence concerning my request for a debate amongst candidates contesting Mount Coot-tha electorate

James Sinnamon took from Andrew Fraser's reply, that the 'candidate's forum' would be something approximating a debate. It turned out not to be. I was first speaker on the night and given only 10 minutes. No opportunity was provided for me to respond to Andrew Fraser's 'rebuttal' of my arguments against privatisation in my own speech.

His many other attempts to get Andrew Fraser to properly debate privatisation and the issues at stake in the elections can be found in "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" of 17 Mar 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09.

NOTES

[1] Editor: This article adapts a comment by James Sinnamon to this site on 9 May 2012. That comment was adapted from one that James Sinnamon unsuccessfully attempted to post in response to article "Zombies reach Australia," on johnquiggin.com. He writes: 'Point 7 of that site's discussion policy (which I hadn't read) states: "Comments with large numbers of links will trigger spam filters and be rejected automatically". So it was deleted. Whilst this is understandable I still think this is unfortunate. The strength of the Internet is for material, particularly material arguing opposed viewpoints to be directly linked or else linked to from a single document, thereby allowing readers to more easily consider the comparative merits of contrary arguments. Solon and JFK would have surely agreed. That is why my articles and comments often contain a number of links. (At least I have been able to post a shorter comment from that page containing a link back to here.)'

[2] John-Paul Langbroek also challenged privatisation, calling for a public referendum on it. Perhaps that is why he lost the leadership of the Liberal Party with, incredibly, a total outsider with the same policies as the Queensland ALP, taking it over.See John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform

Queensland, beautiful one day, black and ruined the next

Queensland Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, has been talking about what a great investment Queensland coal is. On the 19th of September 2010, for instance, on Channel 2's, The Investigators, he said how it was guaranteed to grow, and boasted about Queensland's huge coal haulage capacity - the biggest in the world.

Because of the need that China and India will have for coal, for the business community and a government keen to dig itself out of its debt, coal mining expansion can be marketed to a furious public as a 'wonderful financial investment opportunity'! For Fraser and the narrow thinking team he advises, it seems that the only important thing is digging the stuff up as fast as possible in order to promote financial investment in Queensland. This is the state with a huge debt because of its 'investment' in chaotic and resented population growth, the infrastructure for which it is now unable to attract finance.

What a lemming philosophy!

lemming cartoon author unknown

It strikes one, listening to this celebration of massive expansion of exploitation of a finite commodity, that it can only come from the blinkered idiocy of economic railroad-thinking. Railroad thinking is a term for a rigid way of thinking that can only go along a line, oblivious to wider implications. Apparently it has not occurred to Fraser that, along with rapid economic growth - for a while - he is hastening Australia and the rest of the world towards coal depletion simultaneously as we face declining oil. When we have significantly run down these conventional fuels, there will almost certainly be widespread famine and suffering in Australia and throughout the world. This may happen within the next thirty years, to read Seppo Korpela's timelines for coal depletion in The Final Energy Crisis.

When people are cold and hungry and the roads are deserted and the factories still, no-one then will look back and say, "Wasn't it great that people invested in digging up all the coal and Queensland managed to slightly reduce its insane debt?"

Survivors then will seem little different to those remaining on the destitute nation of Nauru. Once one of the richest, most beautiful and fertile islands in the world, Nauru is now completely devastated due to having excavated and exported its entire bounty of phosphates in a very short space of time. Of course, the Nauruans were conned and coerced by big business and so are Queenslanders.

Queensland, beautiful one day, black and ruined the next. Queenslanders hate the expansion of coal mining in their once-beautiful state, particularly those who have to live with the despair of watching helplessly as their immediate landscapes are defaced. The more widely educated world fears the pollution.

Newspeak from the BCA on population numbers

Relatedly there is the question of bringing in skilled immigrants to make over-exploitation of our coal resources possible. This has required ongoing propaganda from the growth lobby via its chief mouthpieces in the mainstream press. On September 18, 2010, in
The Australian, Michael Stutchbury quoted some sublime newspeak from the Business Council of Australia's president, Graham Bradley.

Bradley complains that the big pressing structural issues - energy, tax, population and infrastructure - were not given "mature" attention during the election campaign. The population debate, including Gillard's rejection of a "big Australia", did not recognise Australia received only 140,000 permanent immigrants on the latest annual figures. And the large numbers of temporary migrants are mostly foreign students who form Australia's fourth largest export market worth $18bn a year. [and therefore presumably should not count?]

"Mature" attention is code word for the inaudible level of debate that occurred before population growth finally hit the mainstream as a serious issue in the last 18 months," writes Ilan Goldman, energy and population critic. "The BCA just wants us to shut up (i.e. be "mature"). Pointing out that we only had 140,000 "permanent immigrants" is one of a few recent ploys contrived to minimize the obvious ballooning of our population. Bradley acknowledges foreign students as another component of population growth, not just formally defined "immigrants". All the other various visa categories that make a difference to overall population growth are pretty much ignored in this editorial piece in its pretense of some kind of sophisticated quantification."

BCA's Bradley, along with so many others, is fighting a carbon tax because it will increase the price of coal and might decrease the rate of sales overseas:

"The BCA's Bradley similarly warns that Australia faces losing its competitive benefit of cheap coal and gas energy."

Stutchbury also writes that BHP Billiton's Kloppers maintains that exploiting the China boom requires "extra sources of skilled labour." But relatively few people are employed in resource extraction industries, and the mining boom will dry up along with the minerals. Then what will we do with all those unemployed and their children, not to mention, without any income or coal for fuel? The resource extraction industries should not be cited as a reason for high immigration. And we should not be using up all our coal just in order to benefit a few financial investors. We need to conserve it.

Australia's population would still grow for a few more decades even if immigration rates broke even. Our current super-charged 2% growth rate means population doubling within 35 years. As Henry notes, Australia will still experience a "sizeable" population increase even if migration falls to "historically very low levels". He calls for "informed" population debate, according to Stuchbury.

"Informed" debate is, of course, another code-word for debate narrowly based on the growth lobby's limited world view that is focused on the profitability of its members.

"Population concerns have been inflamed by a generation of poor planning and infrastructure under-investment," BCA Bradley says, in a breathtaking confusion of cause with effect.

A child would surely recognize that population growth concerns relate to the current high levels of increase in numbers and the resultant impacts. Calling it "Underinvestment in infrastructure" is just a perversion of the symptom of overstretched infrastructure. But, hey, emperors don't really have to wear clothes. The mainstream press isn't going to call the growth lobby masters to order. It suffices that the populace just keep their eyes closed and that children keep quiet if they cannot help looking.

Residents of the Brisbane suburb of Milton have overwhelmingly rejected a developer's plans to erect a 31 story residential and commercial development atop. A phenomenal 700 submissions have been made by the local community in 3 days against the plans. Instead of respecting community wishes of the community, Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Stirling Hinchliffe has, instead, declared the project to be of state interest and "called-in" the development process in order to allow the project to bypass the normal legal avenues available to the community to lodge objections to the development.

Both Stirlng Hinchliffe and Andrew Fraser the local state member of Parliament have declined invitations to attend the meeting.

What you can do: Please show your support for the embattled residents of Milton by attending the meeting at 6.30PM, next Thursday at the Milton State School, Vote against the use of call-in powers on Westside News's online poll. More information: Ph 0404 833057, 0408 101117, enquiries[AT]cramed.org, cramed.org.

We reproduce below the media Release from CRAMED. Please also find PDF from which it has been adapted attached.

#SeeAlso" id="SeeAlso">See also: Mitchelton residents resist imposition of congestion nightmare of 16 Apr 10, Have your say: Tussle over Milton tower project in the Westside News of 14 Apr 10, Plans for property hubs near train stations have gone off the rails in the Courier-Mail of 8 Apr 10, Residents slam 'sledgehammer' approach to planning in the Brisbane Times of 8 Apr 10, Govt 'calls in' Milton high-rise in the Brisbane Times of 16 Apr 10, Milton tower development called-in in Quest News of 16 Apr 10

Concerned Residents Against Milton's Excessive Development

Final Public Meeting

Before submissions due on Milton Tennis Court and Milton Station
Neighbourhood Plan

When: 6.30PM, Thursday 22 April
Where: Milton State School

A depiction of the 31 storey monstrosity that is to
be erected on top of Milton Station opposite the
Fourex (XXXX) brewery.

A LARGE public attendance is important to demonstrate the strong community opposition to the proposed developments. Bring your neighbours. Bring your family and friends -- wherever they live in SEQ, the same town planning issues we face will eventually impact them and their lifestyle. STOP THIS CRAZINESS!! SIGN SUBMISSIONS!!

Local State MP Andrew Fraser and State Planning and Infrastructure Minister Stirling Hinchliffe have again declined invitations to attend, but local media outlets are expected. Join us in giving a clear message to our elected representatives that enough is enough!!!

Local Councillor Peter Matic will attend and Council town planners have been invited so you will have an opportunity to question them.

The meeting will update you on the Milton Tennis Court Development Application and Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan, as well as developments on the proposed 31 storey development in Railway Terrace, Milton.

Local member Andrew
Fraser who refuses to
hear his constituents'
concerns at public
meeting.

Qld Minister for Infra-
structure and Planning
Stirling Hinchliffe

Submissions on the Milton Tennis Court DA and the Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan are due before the end of April. Please bring your signed submissions to the meeting. Pro-forma submissions will be available at the meeting if you wish to sign them then.

We are seeking volunteers to door knock with the pro-forma submissions. We have had an excellent response to previous door knocking efforts. Please email [email protected] if you can help.

See over for key facts about the proposed developments and what you can do to help.

CRAMED

Get involved for a better Brisbane

FACT SHEET

Milton Tennis Court

• Zoned Sport and Recreation in Brisbane City Plan

• Development application to break block in to 9 blocks, with up to 20 storey buildings, allocated green space is largely flood plain, tidal creek or Council land

• 660 units, 120 room motel, 34000 square metres commercial/retail

• Road access via Milton Road and Haig Road (opposite school)

• 2006 approval for 174 units, 8 storeys expires in September

• Local area has lost many community facilities and has inadequate green space for the existing population. Proposed increases in population mean we need more green space & community facilities

Milton
Station Neighbourhood Plan

• City Plan for this area includes 3 to 10 storey height limit

• Council seeking to increase to up to 30 storeys

• De-facto expansion of CBD

• Developers will use as a precedent for other sites (Milton Tennis Court, St Francis College, Fourex Brewery and then...)

• Council survey in 2009 showed 76% of community opposed proposed heights but Council pushing ahead

Proposed 31 storey development in Railway Terrace

• Approved by Council despite breaching City Plan (February). Approval references the State Government's SEQ Regional Plan

• Does not qualify as a transport oriented development despite public comments that it is a TOD

• Appealed by CRAMED to Planning and Environment Court (March)

• Council and developer approach State Government to declare the project of "State Interest" and use executive powers to approve the development and remove community's right to appeal

• Minister Stirling Hinchliffe to make his decision by Friday 16^th April

• 700 community submissions to Minister during Easter holidays

Submissions

• Submissions to Council are due by 29^th April (Milton Tennis Court DA) and 30^th April (Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan)

• CRAMED would like submissions returned by 23^rd April so we can copy the submissions to the State Government and hand deliver them to Council before the due dates (note Anzac Day 25^th April)

• Visit www.cramed.org for pro-forma submissions or write your own

• If you are able to door knock your local streets, we can deliver multiple copies of the submissions to you. Call Elizabeth (0404 833 057) or Paul (0408 101 117) or Bronwyn (3369 0785) to get copies delivered to you

• Opportunity to sign or return signed submissions at public meeting at 6.30pm, Thursday 22^nd April at Milton State School

• If you send your submission directly to Council, please copy Andrew Fraser, Stirling Hinchliffe and CRAMED

Developers have, in their sights, a tract of open space in the Brisbane suburb of Milton, formerly occupied by the Milton Tenis courts on which they #10;">plan to erect high rise appartments that will house at least an additional 2,000 extra people. The total combined number or residents and workers that would be jammed into the suburb of Milton, from this and an existing proposal for residential and commercial development above Milton Station, could be 12,000, that is as many as live in the rural town of Warwick.

Even the Brisbane City Council, well-practised at trampling upon the rights of Brisbane residents to impose infrastructure or residential developments, is objecting to the size of the development. The Westside News of 3 February reported that in 2006 a court approved the application of a residential development with a maximum of eight storeys. Of the current development propsal, Toowong ward Councillor Peter Matic said of the 20 storey development proposal, "I think it's horrendous. When you look at the plans the developer is affecting the flow of traffic on Milton Rd, there's flooding issues and there has been no consultation with local residents".

Of course, the dictatorial planning powers of State Government makes it legally difficult for the Brisbane City Council to block the plan in accord with the residents. Nevertheless, if the BCC had the will to oppose the development it should be capable of showing the leadership necessary to stop it, with local residents so overwhelmingly opposed.

A leaflet publicising the meeting by the group Concerned Residents Against Milton's Excessive Development (CRAMED) listed that group's objections to the proposal:

• This is a huge increase in density for this site. Once this change in zoning goes through there is no way the Council can change it to a lesser density without VAST expense to the ratepayers because of land owners compensation for loss of land value claims.

• Where is the infrastructure for this extra population and where are they going to build it. The water, sewerage, power not to mention telephone infrastructure in this area needs to be updated to cope with the number of people here now, never mind 2,000 more.

• These buildings will be totally out of scale with the surrounding houses and will overshadow just about every building in the vicinity. They will interfere with the prevailing breezes. They will also interrupt many local city views that you have paid thousands of dollars for.

• Traffic which is already an issue in this area will become much worse as will parking. The main exit and entry for the residential component of this development will be onto Haig Road. This will make an already dangerous crossing to the Milton State School even more so.

• It is still zoned for sport and recreation. As we all know Gregory Park is a much loved but over used green space. Both Paddington and Auchenflower have insufficient green and recreational space available to their present population.

• This area is a known flood plain and is clearly marked as such on Council maps. Planners that approve buildings on those sites should be personally liable. Why should ratepayers be paying compensation when those sites are affected by future flooding. To confirm this check the BCC web site at the following URL www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/_assets/main/lib927/flooding_milton_flood_flag _map.pdf

• Parts of this site is in a Demolition Control Precinct which appears to mean very little in this case. The majority of these buildings are not sustainable buildings as they are too tall to rely on anything other than air-conditioning.

Since the first meeting, the developer has publicly advertising of the Milton Tennis Court site has commenced much earlier than CRAMED had originally been led to believe thy would now giving them until only 29 April to state their objections to the Tennis Court. Also another development in Milton, that is, for a residential apartments above above Milton Station is to be extended to include a commercial precinct. A further leaflet from CRAMED comments:

What you can do: (1) Attend meeting of CRAMED to oppose these developments at the Milton State School at 6.30PM on Monday 29 March. (2) Attend the protest to save the Koala and to stop overdevelopment at the Queensland Government Growth Summit 11.00AM Tuesday 30 March at the main entrance of Queensland State Library, Southbank.
E-mail: enquiries[AT]cramed.org or phone: 0404 833 057 to become involved in CRAMED.

See also: cramed.org, "The Battle to Save our Suburb" of 15 Mar 10 on wtsag.org.au the web site of the Walter Taylor South Action Group, Transcript of SBS Insight program "Housing 36 Million" of Tue 2 March, featuring CRAMED convenor, Elizabeth Handley.

In 2007, Andrew Fraser, as Local Govenment Minister, imposed council amalgamations against the overwhelming wishes of affected residents, even threatening to dismiss councillors who dared hold ballots on amalgamation. For many months, the angry backlash threatened Labor's federal election prospects. In 2010, the same Andrew Fraser, as Queensland Treasurer, claims that the unions' campaign against his unpopular $15 billion fire sale, opposed by 79% of the Queensland public, will threaten Labor's federal election prospects.

What you can do: Attend Queensland Council of Union's Rallies to stop the Sell-off before it starts: Innisfail - 28 Feb, Cairns - 2 Mar, Mackay - 3 Mar, Rockhampton - 3 Mar, Gladstone - 6 Mar, Brisbane - 10.30AM 9 Mar at Roma St Forum
Sign the petition calling for new state elections and the repudiation of assets sale legislation. (You have until 2 March. See also "Why Queenslanders must demand new and fair state elections" of 12 Jan 10).
See also: "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10, "Anna Bligh faces rural anger in Queensland" in the Courier-Mail of 28 Feb 10 , "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" of 9 Aug 07 by Margo Kingston in WebDiary, "Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia" of 7 Sep 07. ...

Andrew Fraser, who almost destroyed federal Labor's 2007 election prospects with his threats to dismiss councillors for consulting their constituents over forced council amalgamations, now wants unionists to call off protests, such as the above protest of 31 July 2009 in order to save federal Labor embarassment in the 2010 elections. (See #WhatYouCanDO">"What you can do".)

Queensland's Treasurer Andrew Fraser has accused Queensland's unionists of "aiding and abetting" a return to Work Choices under a federal Coalition government according to a report in Brisbane Times. He claims their efforts to force the holding of a new state Labor Party conference to to overturn his Government's plans to sell $15 billion of publicly owned assets, would embarass the Federal Labor Government's re-election campaign.

Mr Fraser said unions should consider the "national dimension" of their fight. The Brisbane Times quoted Mr Fraser:

"I just say to unions that are continuing to carry on here in Queensland that they should focus on the real enemy here and that's (federal opposition leader) Tony Abbott and Work Choices," he told reporters.

"And if they continue on this path, they are only aiding and abetting a Tony Abbott-led Work Choices reintroduction and that means they need to think about what is in the best interests of working people, not only in this state but around the nation."_#main-fn1">1

Coming from member of a state Government which had, since it came to power in 1998, notoriously and repeatedly placed its own selfish sort-term interests ahead of those the federal Labor Party as well as the broader community, an appeal for unions to consider the "national dimension" would appear to be the utmost hypocrisy.

In fact, as this article will show, Work Choices would almost certainly not have become law but for state Labor Governments, including the Queensland state Labor Government, having made unprincipled deals with the same Howard Government that brought about Work Choices.

1999: Peter Beattie's unprincipled GST deal

The State Labor Government, which came to office 1998, two years after John Howard's Government won office in 1996, did as much as anyone else to perpetuate the misrule of the latter.

A factor which would have helped the Howard Government regain offices in 2001 every bit as much as the so-called "War on Terror" and the Tampa affair, was the whiteanting by then Premier Peter Beattie of the grass-roots opposition to John Howard's unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST). During 1998 and 1999 Peter Beattie and the other state 'Labor' premiers fell over themselves to negotiate with the Howard Government over the distribution of GST revenue, even at a time when the passage of the GST legislation through the Senate was far from assured. Their efforts undoubtedly gave the necessary encouragement that allowed Democrats Senator Meg Lees and the majority of Democats Senators to turn their back on their own members and their election commitments and provide the Senate majority necessary for the passage of the GST legislation.

2004: Beattie clamours for signing of Australia US Free Trade Agreement

In 2004, as the Federal Labor party was still considering its position on the iniquitous Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) that was before the Australian Parliament, the Labor premiers, with Peter Beattie foremost amongst them, clamoured in public for the signing of that agreement. Then Opposition leader Mark Latham felt cornered into accepting the rotten agreement as a result. Paradoxically, Latham suffered criticism from militant left-wing unionists in the months prior to the 2004 elections as a result. Whether or not outright opposition to the AUSFTA on the part of the federal Labor Party would have made matters better, their electoral prospects had been needlessly damaged.

2007: Anger at Qld Government forced council amalgamations threatens federal Labor

Three years later, as another federal election was approaching, the Queensland Labor again threatened to destroy federal Labor's electoral prospects by suddenly calling off negotiations with Queensland councils for local govenment reform and imposing forced council amalgamations. On 10 August 2007, Andrew Fraser, as Minister for Local Government, rammed the local government amalgamation legislation through State Parliament against an outcry from many of the affected communities. Tacked on to these bills at the last minute was a provision to allow the Government to sack any councillors who attempted to finish holding the ballots that were then underway to guage community attitudes on amalgamation._#main-fn2">2

As a consequence, Prime Minister John Howard emerged as the unlikely champion of Queensland democracy_#main-fn3">3 when he enacted legislation in Federal Parliament, with the support of Kevin Rudd and the Federal Labor Opposition, to over-ride Andrew's punitive provisions. Howard also instructed the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct further ballots on behalf of the Queensland Councils.

Fraser and Beattie faced no choice but to back away from their threats against the councillors, but not from the amalgamations. The amalgamations proceeded despite the fact that they were rejected overhelmingly in all the ballots and unanimously in the case of Waroo Shire_#main-fn4">4

Unsurprisingly, the actions of the state Labor Government, yet again threatened to destroy Federal Labor's chances. The Courier-Mail newspaper, itself an aggressive promoter of the amagalmations, hypocritically gloated at the harm that the amalgamations were expected to inflict on the Federal Labor Party. The headline of its page 1 story of 20 August 2007, screamed "Rudd to Pay". The subeading gloated "Council merger backlash to deliver ballot blow". It continued, "Queensland ratepayers have vowed to vent their fury over forced council mergers on Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd at the federal ballot box."

"Four in five respondents to Courier-Mail online poll said Premier Peter Beattie's decision to slash local council numbers had made them less likely to vote for the Labor Party at the upcoming federal election."_#main-fn5">5

Although the article briefly mentioned that Kevin Rudd was critical of the Queensland Government's threat to sack defiant councillors, it failed to point out to its readers that punishing Federal Labor for decisions outside of its control and which it had opposed was hardly fair.

In September the anti-amalgamation Friends of Noosa group attempted to also scapegoat Federal Labor for the actions of the state Labor Government by putting up huge "Dump Labor" hoardings on the main northern road into Brisbane._#main-fn6">6

Luckily, in spite of the best efforts of Beattie, Fraser, the Courier-Mail and some misguided opponents of amalgamation, the Queensland public was able to distinguish between the Federal and State Labor Party on that occasion and Labor won the 2007 federal elections. It is no thanks to Andrew Fraser that Howard was not able to set the Work Choices in concrete.

2010: Anger at Qld Government fire sale threatens federal Labor

Now in 2010, Federal Labor party faces yet another threat to its electoral prospects as a result of actions by the Queensland Labor Government. Its $15 billion fire sale, enacted without any electorates and opposes by a still 79% of Queenslanders threatens to turn Queensland voters against Labor at the federal elections.

In 2010, unlike in 2007, the Federal Labor Government is not an innocent party. Its squandering of $43 of taxpayers' in its stimulus spending program as supposedly the only possible way it could stave of recession in this country,_#main-fn7">7 ensured that there were far fewer funds available to deal with emergencies such as the Queensland floods which were seized upon as the Queensland Government's initial excuse for the fire sale. When the fire sale was first announced the Federal Government said that they had no extra funds to help the Qld Government over come the difficulties from the flood._#main-fn8">8.

However, those considering voting for the Coalition, should bear in mind that the Howard Government privatised Telstra in 2005 against the wishes of 70% of voters. In recent days the Liberal Party has again raised the spectre of privatising Medibank Private._#main-fn9">9 So, with this as well the prospects of a Federal Coalition government reviving Work Choices, voters may well find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place at the forthcoming Federal elections. They should should seriously consider voting for a third alternative.

Regardless of how voters decide to express their objections to privatisation at the 2010 federal Elections, it is hard to imagine how unions could, on this occasion, make federal Labor's prospects significantly worse than Fraser himself already has, either in 2010 or 2007.

If Andrew Fraser wanted to demonstrate that, for once, he genuinely wanted to help federal Labor win the elections, then surely the onus would have to be on him to repeal his fire sale legislation rather than the unions to give up the fight to save public assets that is supported by 79% of the Queensland public.

#WhatYouCanDo" id="WhatYouCanDo">What you can do

Attend Queensland Council of Union's Rallies to stop the Sell-off before it starts: Innisfail - 28 Feb, Cairns - 2 Mar, Mackay - 3 Mar, Rockhampton - 3 Mar, Gladstone - 6 Mar, Brisbane - 10.30AM 9 Mar at Roma St Forum
Sign the petition calling for new state elections and the repudiation of assets sale legislation. (You have until 2 March. See also "Why Queenslanders must demand new and fair state elections" of 12 Jan 10).

#SeeAlso" id="SeeAlso">See also: "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10, "Anna Bligh faces rural anger in Queensland" in the Courier-Mail of 28 Feb 10 , "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" of 9 Aug 07 by Margo Kingston in WebDiary, "Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide" forum disucssion of 8 Aug 07 on Online Opinion, "Federal election and Queensland local council amalgamations" of 28 Nov 07 by James Sinnamon in WebDiary, "Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia" of 7 Sep 07, "Beattie pledges to stay on" in the Courier-Mail o 11 Aug 07.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ "Queensland mayors defy dismissal threats to consult their communities" of 12 Aug 07, "Rebel council faces the sack" in the Courier-Mail of 10 Aug 07.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ "Will John Howard save democracy in Queensland?" of 13 Aug 07, "Rebel council faces the sack" in the Courier-Mail of 10 Aug 07.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ Beattie 'drunk with power': PM of 16 Aug 07 on ABC News Online.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ "Rudd to Pay" by Roseann Barrett and Patrick Lion on page 1 of the Courier-Mail of 20 Aug 07. (URL to online version unknown.)

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ "Friends of Noosa's 'Dump Labor' campaign punishes the wrong people" of 13 Sep 07.

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. #main-fn7-txt">↑ "Krazy Kevin Rudd video by Cyrius01" of 7 May 09.

#main-fn8" id="main-fn8">8. #main-fn8-txt">↑ I don't have the Courier-Mail and Sunday Mail articles on hand, but I recall the stories commencing from Sunday 23 May claiming that the recent floods had pushed Queensland into financial peril. This claim was dropped not long after in favour of just the Global Financial Crisis made the fire sale necessary.

#main-fn9" id="main-fn9">9. #main-fn9-txt">↑ "Medibank Private sell plan in Coalition policy" in the Courier-Mail of 17 Feb 10.

James Sinnamon debates Andrew Fraser on Privatisation and government encouragement of overpopulation in Queensland, proposing alternatives - Film. Filmed on Sunday, 30 November. Lasts 21 minutes. In three films on You-tube - links inside this article. 2nd & 3rd film of most interest. Please pass round to your Queensland contacts, but, since privatisation is coming up in other States again - notably in Victoria - this should interest people outside Queensland. See film inside

See also: "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, "Queensland Rail workers strike against theft of public assets" of 9 Dec 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 28 Sep 08. Why I am contesting the Queensland Elections, E-petition to Qld Parliament,"Call for immediate resignation of the Queensland government and new elections," on grounds of not consulting public on privatisation.
Update: Letter of 31 July 09 to Andrew Fraser, included as Appendix 1 (12 Dec 09), Full transcript, Table of Contents, etc. added (2 Jan 10).

This article was orignally published on 4 Dec 09. It was subsequently updated with the letter to Andrew Fraser of 31 Jul 09 which propsed alternatives to privatisation on 11 Dec 09. The latest update of 2 Jan 10 includes the full transcript of the videos, together with comments, a table of contents, and other additions and changes.

Image from Sheila Newman's film of the 30 Nov 09 debate between Andrew Fraser and James Sinnamon to which there are links below in the article.

#main" id="main">

On Sunday, 30 November, almost 4 months after I had e-mailed state Treasurer Andrew Fraser proposing alternatives to the $15 billion of asset sales (see #appendix1">Appendix 1), and 9 months after I had e-mailed both the Treasurer and the Premier requesting that they reveal to the public any plans for privatisation and justify them during the course of the elections, I was able to confront the state Treasurer during a 15 minute interview at the Community Cabinet. The following film, divided into three parts, is a record of that interview, which turned out to be quite a debate. The full transcript of the debate is included below as Appendix 2.

#GettingTheMost" id="GettingTheMost">Getting the most out of the film

You can access the three parts of the film on this page, but, most people will find the first part boring, unless they are looking for documentation of the lead-up to the debate. I suggest you go to #part2">Part 2 for arguments about alternatives to privatisation - notably on banking systems - and to #part2">Part 3 for arguments about why Queensland's population is growing irresistibly and whether that is a valid excuse for privatisation.

#part1" id="part1">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 1

The first part of the film consists of Andrew seeming to insist that we had debated together already and that he had answered my correspondence. I try to tell him that he responded to one email only - up until the invitation to meet him at the Community Cabinet - and that it was that response which confirmed my impression that, prior to winning the election, he was leaving privatisation of assets open; i.e. he was not excluding it. Andrew's answer to that is that the government did not know what its policy would be after the election. I maintain that it was well-known that population growth was costing the government money and that the government should have made clear to the public that there was a problem and that privatisation was not ruled out. Although it was the duty of the mainstream press to ferret this attitude out, it was also the duty of the government and the opposition to publicly discuss the problem of debt and the range of solutions ahead of the election. At one stage Andrew remarked that the whole world and the press were free to attend the small public question and answer session/meet the candidates affair that he describes as a debate we both attended. I reply that the press chose not to come. In other circumstances I might have emphasised 'chose'. Because, of course, my point is that the mainstream press have apparently colluded with the two party system to help them avoid publicly discussing the privatisation issue. See Privatisation and the Right to Govern, Part 1.

#part2" id="part2">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 2

Not only did I raise the privatisation issue, but I also raised alternatives to privatisation.

The main one I discussed was for the government to set up a state bank and guarantee its own loans, rather than to go looking for forms of private credit. My reference was a book by Ellen Brown, Web of Debt. This was the source of the system that I had asked Andrew or his department - Treasury in Queensland - to give me a written critique of. If what I proposed was wrong, then, fair enough. I was prepared to learn. But I received no answer from treasury and, in the debate, the treasurer tries twice inaccurately to insinuate that I am proposing to have no ceiling on debt, then simply accepts my proposal as another way of raising money and does not contradict my assertion that it would be a cheaper way. You will find this discussion in Part 2 of Privatisation and the Right to Govern.

#part3" id="part3">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 3

One of the alternatives to privatisation that I raised was for the government to stop encouraging population growth. Andrew gave what some tell me is the property developer shock-factor line on this - he insinuated that stopping population growth in Queensland would be akin to stopping Mexicans coming across the Southern Border of the U.S.. He used the term, "Checkpoint Charlie", and you will get the drift of some fantasy about uniformed guns patrolling the Tweed River. He also immediately pretends that I population growth reduction would inevitably include authoritarian controls over numbers of children per family in Australia. He was painting an extreme scenario, which could have had the effect of making me back down and away from the issue of population growth, but I didn't. At the stage we are at the only limits need to be on international immigration and construction permits.

On the issue of limiting interstate immigration, I should just have said to him that population growth is normally restrained locally by limiting the number of building permits issued. It is a normal function of town and country planning, and you would expect a state as planning-focused as Queensland, not to need to be told that. Restricting building permits goes hand in hand with the democracy of local government, where residents - i.e. members of a community - have the ultimate say over the density of settlement and how their environment is treated. They know best and they have to live there. So, no guns or patrols are necessary, just good old tried-and-true keeping building permits to a level that keeps the population stable.

This is a captured image of the Queensland Government web-site explicitly encouraging people from overseas to move to Queensland as of 2 January 2010. This is completely contrary to Andrew Fraser's #NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth">claim made during the debate that "We're not encouraging population growth".

Fraser said, rightly, that most population growth in Australia comes from overseas immigration, and he stated that the Federal Government is responsible for that. However I am well aware that the Queensland Government, like all the other state Governments in Australia, aggressively tries to attract immigrants to Queensland, from overseas and from interstate. Andrew denied that. The film editor, Sheila Newman, has inserted cuts from one of the Government's advertising films that urges immigrants to come and "Live, work and play" in Queensland. (This 50 Mb video is currently linked to from this Queensland Government videos web page, which is linked to from the Migrating from Overseas web page on the web site www.workliveplay.qld.gov.au.)

Australians should be very aware of how the Federal and the State governments- which are all aligned with the growth lobby - and even most local ones - have this agressive formula for putting people off discussing the problem they have created, and of how they will insist that it is not of their own making, even in the face of abundant evidence.

This is discussed in the last part of the YouTube video "Privatisation and the Right to Govern, Part 3," embedded below.

#history" id="history">History of this debate and information about material mentioned within

On 21 March 2009 the Queensland Labor Government was re-elected at the end of a snap early election campaign with little scrutiny by the newsmedia.

As an independent candidate, I tried, during the course of those elections, to hold the government to account for its past record of selling off publicly-owned assets without any electoral mandate. Since 1998, the Labor Government had sold off the state Government Insurance Office Government, airports, a lottery agency, the retail arm of the state owned electricity supplier, a coal loader and much public land.

I also asked for an assurance that the Queensland public would be informed of any further plans to sell off assets during the course of the elections.

On 17 February, even before the elections were announced, I e-mailed Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser. My e-mail listed the assets sold since 1998, concluding:

"Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell off yet more of their assets ...

"The reason I write this letter is to seek your assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections ..."

The letter was ignored, along with my subsequent correspondence.

My strenuous efforts to obtain air time, or, at least, to get the media to raise this issue were almost entirely ignored.

When the Queensland Government, barely two months after their re-election, announced plans to sell ports, a coal loader, the freight arm of Queensland Rail, commercial forests and toll roads, most Queenslanders felt outraged.

An opinon poll revealed that 84% of Queenslanders opposed the sale and 66% believed that the Government had intentionally misled them about privatisation during the elections.

The Queensland Government proceeded with its fire sale regardless.

On Friday 17 July, Andrew Fraser made the claim on the radio that no alternatives to privatisation had been put to him by anyone in state Parliament. This drove me to send him an e-mail (see #appendix1">Appendix 1) which proposed several alternatives. These were:

1. #StateBank">Setting up a state owned bank to raise the necessary loans to fund infrastructure projects more cheaply than could be done with private loans.
2. If the state owned bank is not to be created, then #borrowing">raise the commercial loans necessary to cover the shortfall, which would still have to be cheaper in the long term, anyway.
3. #population">Cease encouragement of population growth, since Premier Anna Bligh said that asset sales were necessary to fund the cost of new infrastructure to service that population growth
4. To Implement, at the state level, the comprehensive University of Newcastle #UsefulJobs">Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) program. This program is fully costed, Australia-wide, at $9 billion per annum and would provide gainful employment to all the unemployed to meet the current needs of existing Australians, This would be a vastly cheaper alternative to the environmentally destructive infrastructure and housing construction juggernaut.

Andrew Fraser ignored this e-mail and my repeated subsequent attempts to have a meeting with him in order to discuss his proposals. On 21 November, during a discussion on Madonna King's program, Andrew Fraser repeated the claim that no alternatives to privatisation had been offered inside or outside of Parliament. This moved me to contact both the ABC and Andrew Fraser to ask that that misleading statement be corrected and to again request an interview with Andrew Fraser. Late on the Afternoon of 28 November I was informed in a voice message that a 15 minute interview at the Queensland Government Community Cabinet consultations on Sunday 30 November had been granted.

I was not able to prepare himself as well as I had hoped for the ensuing interview, which was filmed, and I made some mistakes during the course of the discussion.

Nevertheless, despite its weaknesses, that interview is the single most comprehensive debate with the Treasurer on privatisation recorded on any newsmedia. The only other broadcast 'debate' was a short conversation between Andrew Faser and economist Professor John Quiggin on Brisbane's ABC local radio station on Friday 28 November lasting all of five minutes. The ABC has, so far, failed to make a recording of that debate available.

At my meeting with Fraser, recorded on film, I still received no written response from Treasury, despite all the resources it has and the almost four months time which had elapsed. Also, neither Andrew Fraser nor the ABC have corrected the misleading statement that no alternatives to privatisation have been offered.

I hope that people will use this record as a resource to bring the Bligh government under control and/or to inspire future political candidates. I will be standing in the next Federal election myself, and this will be one of my important platforms.

See also: "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, "Queensland Rail workers strike against theft of public assets" of 9 Dec 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 28 Sep 08.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1 - Letter proposing alternatives to privatisation.

Sent Friday 31 July.

Subject: Request for meeting as discussed on the phone

Dear Andrew Fraser,

You stated on ABC 612 Radio's Party Games a fortnight ago (I think) is that no-one had put to you alternatives to privatisation.

In fact, I think there are a many alternatives that would make unnecessary the $14 billion privatisation program, opposed by 84% of Queenslanders according to one opinion poll.

I would like at the meeting to put to you those alternatives, in case they had not already occurred to you, or else learn from you the reasons why you have not adopted those alternatives, if you have considered them.

I would also like to share this dialogue with the broader public.

If, after our meeting, you remain determined to persist with privatisation, and are confident in your case, then you would surely agree that this would be to your advantage.

A number of my suggestions are within the power of the Queensland Government to implement, whilst a few others could be implemented by Federal Government if the Queensland Government were to present its case publicly and assertively.

I can guarantee that all of the alternatives I intend to put would be far more acceptable to his constituency than continuing to sell off the family farm.

The alternatives include:

#StateBank" id="StateBank">1. Setting up a state bank

A state bank could be used to raise the necessary credit to fund any necessary infrastructure. This could be done at far less cost than raising funds through private banks. A state bank has been used successfully by North Dakota in the United States since 1919. Currently it is only one of two States in the US which is still solvent.

Ellen Brown, who has extensive knowledge of banking systems in the US and elsewhere has proposed that the North Dakota model be used as a basis for the solution in California.

Her articles include:

"But Governor, You CAN Create Money! Just Form Your Own Bank." at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/But-Governor-You-CAN-Crea-by-Ellen-Brown-090529-87.html

"California's Empty Wallet: Turning Crisis into Opportunity" at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/californias-empty-wallet_b_222622.html

"California Dreamin': How the State Can Beat Its Budget Woes" at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/California-Dreamin--How-t-by-Ellen-Brown-090709-934.html

"Towards a Solution to the Debt Crisis in California: The State Could Walk
Away and Create Its Own Credit Machine" at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/towards-a-solution-to-the_b_231021.html

I have yet to see the flaws in Ellen Brown's case. Of course, California still faces serious problems of water shortage, which are being exacerbated by population growth (as does Queensland - see below and see "Crazy From The Heat: An overcrowded California is running out of water and leadership" at http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=690&menu_id=8), but California would stand a much greater chance of getting on top of its ecological problems if it followed Ellen Brown's advice.

I am sure that Ellen Brown would be willing to advise you how to get Queensland out of its financial mess for a cost to Queensland taxpayers vastly less than the $200 millon cost of hiring Merrill Lynch and the Bank of Scotland for advice on how to sell our assets, or if she is too busy, I am sure she would be able to recommend others who could, possibly even from Australia.

#borrowing" id="borrowing">2. Borrowing the additional $14billion

As Dorothy Pratt pointed out in her speech in Parliament on 18 June out the $14 billion that Queenslanders stand to gain from the asset sales is trivial compared with the eventual $85 billion deficit that Queensland is expected to incur.

What, then, is the practical difference between $85 billion and $99 billion (less the enormous overheads, including the abovementioned $200 million incurred in privatisation) if in the latter case Queenslanders retain democratic control of so many of our assets and the income streams?

Also, what guarantee is that the ratings agencies won't next year demand that the debt be reduced from $85 billion in order to retain Queensland's AAA rating?

What guarantee do we have that the same arguments won't be put to justify the sale of our power stations, remaining ports, and water infrastructure?

And in any case, why should anyone pay any regard to what ratings agencies think, given their infamous role in having caused the global financial meltdown?

It has been well established by economists like John Quiggin that the benefits obtained by reducing debt almost never outweigh the loss to society of losing valuable assets.

The claim that private investors are somehow more efficient than Governments has been shown again and again to be nonsense. If anything the reverse is the case.

Where figures have been produced that 'prove' greater efficiency, they invariably ignore the shifting of costs onto the broader community by the private investor.

These costs include:

• wanton neglect of the environment;
• destruction of jobs and working conditions;
• loss of training opportunities and career paths;
• removal of services deemed to be 'unprofitable' (in the narrowest monetary sense)
• neglect of infrastructure and equipment;
• etc.

If all these were to be fully costed, we almost always find that large Government enterprises, particularly in natural monopolies, are more efficient.

Clearly, Queenslanders stand to lose massively and if privatisation is the means adopted to reduce debt.

#population" id="population">3. End Queensland economy's dependence upon population growth

In April 2007, then deputy Premier Anna Bligh defended population growth (explicitly encouraged by your Government by a full-page advertisement placed in the Courier Mail of 8 December 2005) implying that it was necessary to keep people in the construction industry employed.

So, according to Anna Bligh, we are deliberately crowding ever more people into South East Queensland, which has insufficient water reserves to cope with a prolonged drought.

This is why we face impossible congestion on our roads, and it is supposedly to fix this problem that communities all over Brisbane are being destroyed.

The clearing of habitat in order to house additional people is why the Koala may well be extinct in South East Queensland in two years.

We are all paying ever greater rates, water and electricity and gas charges, tolls in order to pay the cost of building additional infrastructure.

As you rightly pointed out a fortnight ago on the abovementioned "Party Games" it costs far more to build necessary additional infrastructure in established areas than in new areas.

On top of that, in a letter sent to me on 19 June, Premier Anna Bligh stated as a justification for the fire sale, "... a State with a rapidly growing population can't afford to ease off building the infrastructure that supports our economy and community."

So, according to the Premier Queenslanders are expected to pay by selling off the family silver for population growth that we didn't ask for in the first place.

To inflict all this upon Queenslanders in order to keep construction workers employed is insane.

At some point, before Queensland becomes as crowded as Rwanda was in 1994, this will have to stop and, according to Anna Bligh's logic, those workers will lose their jobs anyway. Why not, instead, take the truly 'tough' decisions today?

#UsefulJobs" id="UsefulJobs">4. Create jobs which meet the needs of Queenslanders foremost

The University of Newcastle Centre of Full Employment and Equity (http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/) has fully costed at $9 billion a year a program that will employ every unemployed Australian in fulfilling socially useful jobs. You can download their Full Regional Development Report from http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/pubs/reports/2008/CofFEE_JA/CofFEE_JA_final_report_November_2008.pdf

Why not implement this at a state level in order to wean us off our dependence upon socially and environmentally destructive housing and infrastructure building, for which we are now being made to pay with our rail forests, ports and roads, according to the Premier?

I look forward to discussing all of this with you in person at our meeting.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#transcript" id="transcript">Transcript of Sinnamon-Fraser debate

This transcript was created by film maker Sheila Newman in the process of producing the three part YouTube video. All is included including some of the more clumsy parts of my own contribution. This was not me at my best. I know I have been a more effective speaker on a number of other occasions. Nevertheless, this interview remains the most substantial and sustained public challenge to Andrew Fraser on privatisation of which I am aware, that is, outside of State Parliament. Although a number of good speeches were made against privatisation by Independents and Liberal National Party members, they were not reported by the media.

I have added comments where I believe they would help clarify the issues.

#transcript1" id="transcript1">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 1

Go to #part1">embedded video.

JAMES SINNAMON: ... email on the 31st of July... in fact I wanted to actually debate alternatives even before the election. That's why I wanted to have a debate with you and Anna Bligh about - or at least see a debate between you and Anna Bligh and someone who's competent to discuss privatisation.

ANDREW FRASER: You and I did participate in a public debate during the election campaign.

JAMES SINNAMON: Well ...I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

FRASER: It was a candidates' forum that you and I were both present at, James.

SINNAMON: It wasn't ... well, I...I...Anyway, it wasn't actually a debate. It was a 5 minute speech by me. You had a speech...

FRASER: There was questioning from the floor and it was organised by an independent agency, not organised by me.

SINNAMON: It wasn't a debate. You know it was not. I didn't have a chance to respond to you.

FRASER: I'm pretty sure I turned up and there was a debate between candidates and all four candidates were there so let's not pretend something didn't happen that happened.

SINNAMON: That was a debate between about 40 people. It wasn't a debate between ... ah, you know, the public.

A whole lot of people that voted in that election had no idea that um, what was going to be at stake, the further sell-off of 14 billion of their assets. And, polls indicate quite clearly that a hell of a lot of people didn't know that that was on the cards, what was on the table. And the reason I raise this is that I think that people who are the owners of those assets - had every right, every entitlement - to know, firstly, that it was on the table and, secondly, to have the people that were in favour of privatisation put the ... defend ... put the arguments for, and those that are against privatisation put the arguments against it, and have the public decide. Have the public decide which ... whether, privatisation is necessary and whether they'd vote for a pro-privatisation candidate or an anti-privatisation candidate.

Now the people of Queensland were not given that opportunity because my letters were ignored by Anna Bligh and yourself and ...

FRASER: I've written back to you.

SINNAMON: Um...the ...question ...

FRASER: Let's be really clear for the record, seeing as you've chosen to videotape this. 1. We participated in a debate during the election campaign... 2. ...

SINNAMON: In front of 40 people, not on the media, not on any major television [unintelligible] not on prime time ...

FRASER: The media were free to attend. It was an open debate.

SINNAMON. Yes, and they chose not to.

FRASER: Secondly, I replied to your letter and other correspondence.

SINNAMON: You did not!

FRASER: And third, I'm now meeting with you now. So, I don't think you
need to ... um... mount a case that is not, in fact, supported by the
very plain fact that we did all those things.

SINNAMON: The fact was that ... and I freely replied ... I said I didn't get from you the categorical assurance that I sought against privatisation and I thought that since you didn't give that categorical ref... assurance, that what was in order was a proper debate, so that you could defend your refusal to give that categorical assurance. And you did not; you ignored that. That was ...

FRASER: Well, as I said really clearly during the election campaign, James, there were going to be tough choices that we had to face, and we've had to face those.

SINNAMON: But, you did not defend a specific tough choice. That was kept under wraps. 66 per cent of people ...

FRASER: Well we didn't make that ...

SINNAMON: ... believe that they were misled on that

FRASER: We did not make that decision about what we needed to do in terms of a budget.

SINNAMON: Well a lot of people seem to think it was. There's an article ...

FRASER: Well, I'm here to tell you ... I'm here to tell you James, that that's not what the case is ...

SINNAMON: The Courier Mail said that you were just looking for a good ..."it's a shame to waste a good crisis" ...[unintelligible] That's the Courier Mail, 21st of October 2009. I haven't heard your response to that.

FRASER: I'm happy to have a look at what you're suggesting. [Mr Fraser looked at the article.] That's an unnamed source about a meeting between the QC unions and the government and, I think you can safely presume that was something that was said by the QC unions, not by the government, so they can choose to defend that statement, rather than me.

SINNAMON: I note you didn't respond to that ...

FRASER: It's an unnamed source from a quote that's not from the government, so ...

SINNAMON: Okay.

FRASER: I'm happy, I'm happy to defend things from the government, but the other people can defend their unnamed sources.

SINNAMON: The fact is that you didn't raise the issue. You didn't respond to my asking you to debate the issue.

FRASER: I did attend the candidates' debate with you, James.

SINNAMON: That was in front of 40 people.

FRASER: And the whole world was free to turn up. I didn't organise the debate. I didn't set the terms of reference. It was organised by the local Chamber of Commerce and all of the rules were set by them. It was a free and open debate and people could raise questions and issues as you did on the night.

SINNAMON: And I said to you afterwards, in an email, that you had not categorically ruled out privatisation and that that needed to be debated before a wider audience and that was ignored, and because it was ignored the people ...

FRASER: And I acknowledge the point you're making, that I did not rule it out, because we couldn't rule it out, because we hadn't decided what or the way in which we would deal with the challenges of putting together a budget after the election, and that's what we said, clearly.

SINNAMON: Before a wider audience - not just the 40 people who were there - that was ignored. There was no further response. There was numerous correspondences between myself and you and Anna Bligh and I got no response further from that. So the whole thing was quietened up.

FRASER: James, I replied to your correspondence.

SINNAMON: You're trying to say...

FRASER: And I also did, on average, a media conference one day a week during the election campaign, so, the notion that you're putting forward, isn't in fact supported by the facts.

SINNAMON: The fact is that 66 per cent of the people felt that they were misled, according to the polls. 84 per cent of the people, according to the polls, opposed privatisation.

SINNAMON (Continues): They feel, as if they, the owners of the assets, were not given any say in the elections about whether ...

FRASER: So do you agree then that we should spend Queensland taxpayer money building rail-lines for BHP and Rio Tinto?

SINNAMON: I don't think ...I think..

FRASER: Whereas, in Western Australia, those rail lines are built by BHP and Rio Tinto?

SINNAMON: You're giving a false dichotomy. What you are saying is ...

FRASER: No, no, one fact is in West Australia BHP and Rio build the rail lines and in Queensland, the government does. So, my question to you is, do you agree with that situation?

#transcript2" id="transcript2">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 2

Go to #part2">embedded video.

SINNAMON: I don't think it's as simple as that. You are, we are choosing on the one hand, these assets that belong to the public; I put to you in an email on the 31st of July (see #appendix1">Appendix 1) a lot of alternatives to privatisation, one alternative - and I've actually ... I've asked you several times could you please tell me what is wrong with my proposal.

One alternative is that we set up a state bank as does the state of North Dakota, and then, instead of going to private banks, we raise a loan ourselves, through the bank, set up a state bank - North Dakota does that - it's obviously not cost-free but it's a hell of a lot less costly than having to raise it through a private bank then we use that to fund the infrastructure, rather ...

FRASER: James, whether you're a private bank or a state-owned bank, you still raise money through the same channels on the international market.

SINNAMON: No ...

FRASER: So GDC is the treasury corporation which raises capital ...

SINNAMON: Not true.

FRASER (continues): in the international markets for the use of Queensland government agencies, government owned corporations, and the budget sector. There's no such thing as magic money where you get debt for free.

SINNAMON: Well, in fact, the fact is that private banks create money out of nothing. All they do ... a bank considers an asset a promise to repay a loan as an asset, so, essentially you could have a state bank. A state bank that simply gets from the state government a promise to repay the loan. And that is actually considered as money. That's exactly the way that private banks raise their own finances and there's no reason why a state-owned bank can't do it as well. The only difference is that we ...

FRASER: So, your solution is more debt, raised in a different way?

SINNAMON: My solution is debt raised in a different way, but it will be a lot cheaper because it would ...

FRASER: But, more debt.

SINNAMON: Because, it's the way that North Dakota does it. That is the state that is not bankrupt whereas all the other states are done. It's been done successfully in other places.

FRASER: But if you just keep raising more money and more debt, without a way of paying it back, then what's your alternative?

SINNAMON: [Unintelligible]

FRASER: There's a limit, is there not?

SINNAMON: It is cheaper to do it if the government owns it. If you don't have to ...

FRASER: But is there not a limit?

SINNAMON: There are limits to how much a state can go into debt.

FRASER: And, what would you propose is the limit for Queensland?

SINNAMON: We're talking about a difference of $14 billion. And the total number of debt is of the order of $90 billion, so it's not making a huge amount of difference. Anyway, I've sent you my email. What I would like, is from Treasury, a written response as to what is wrong with it, rather than argue it out in this way. I haven't got that.

FRASER: Well, I've [? been] undertake to meet with you, James. So ...

SINNAMON: Yeah, okay, but I have also sent you a written document as well and I'd like that... You've had it since the 31st of July. I've given you all four points about the State bank and so forth... and ...

FRASER: And I've just answered your questions ...

SINNAMON: Well, you know, that is ... I don't think that is an answer because my point is that you haven't ...

FRASER:Well, I do not agree with the principle that you can continue to raise debt without a limit.

SINNAMON: But my point is that that is a cheaper way ...

FRASER: You're just proposing a different way to raise more debt.

SINNAMON: A cheaper way. A cheaper way that is done.

FRASER: You'd still have to pay it back.

SINNAMON: That is right. I didn't say it was cost free. I said it was cheaper.

We could have our own state bank. We could raise the finances as a state bank, the same way as any private corporation.

It was done in the past, when we had the Commonwealth Bank. It was done in North Dakota. It's probably been done in lots of other places in the world. It can be done that way. If you have a state bank tomorrow, we could do it. Okay, debt wouldn't go away. But it would be cheaper.

SINNAMON: (continued from above) The second alternative that you haven't responded to is population growth.

Now, my letter from Anna Bligh read, said, that we are paying for ... um... we are selling the assets in order to pay for infrastructure that is necessary to cope with population growth.

Now it is the */choice/* of Queensland Government and Commonwealth Government to deliver the greater population. Back in 2005, Peter Beattie put in an advertisement in the Courier Mail newspaper that asked people to move interstate- move from interstate into Queensland. He never told the people that four or five years down the track, we were going to be paying for extra population growth by selling off the family silver.

FRASER: Well, James, in fact, the biggest population flows, rather than interstate migration, are, in fact, from overseas migration.

SINNAMON: That's right ...

FRASER: So, let me finish my point, please ...

FRASER (continues): and secondly from increase in the natural birth rate. And, I do not believe, as a nation, that we need to have Checkpoint Charlie set up at the Tweed River. It's not only unconstitutional; it's unAustralian. Secondly, I don't support having birth limits for Australians who want to start a family and the reality is that population growth is not a pre-determined government policy, but, the challenge is for us to deal with the population flows which are occurring. So we can't stop people from coming over the border from New South Wales and Victoria. The Federal government sets the migration policy. People are free to move about within Australia, and, thirdly, I don't support a population limit in terms of birth limits, so there is a challenge that needs to be dealt with.

SINNAMON: Both you and Anna Bligh came out after Kevin Rudd made the statement in favour of Australia's population increasing to ... um...I think the figure was 40 million by 2050 or something like that.

You both said, that 'We can meet the challenge' ...

And it's obvious - the newspapers - every day of the week - are full of stories about how the Queensland government has failed, completely failed to meet the challenge of past population growth.

Our streets are a schmozzle. We are being told that our rates and our electricity rates must go up; we must pay more for water, because we have to build more infrastructure to pay for the additional numbers that the Queensland government has deliberately encouraged to come here.

Now, if - ah - and then back in - when the auditor general's report came out and you - it slammed the Queensland government's management of health, management of transport, Anna Bligh stood up and said, "It's not my fault, it's the fault of population growth." And yet, when there's a raging debate about increasing Australia's population by another 60 per cent, both you and Anna Bligh came out and publicly said that we can rise to the challenge.

Other people who are responsible, who care about our future, recognise that there are limits to what water, what we can pay for, said, "This is not on, this has to be stopped." The fact is that the Queensland Government, at every point, has encouraged population growth and it hasn't told the public, 'if we grow the population of Queensland, then you've got to pay for that population growth with selling off the family silver.'

FRASER: The reality that we have to face, James, as we said very clearly in the public arena, is we have to make choices. There's not - There's a finite resource out there in terms of the ability to raise debt. You don't accept that; you agree with more and more debt. I don't. That's the starting point to the debate.

SINNAMON: No, I don't agree with more and more debt. I think there has to be a limit too. So I propose one way to limit ...

FRAZER: What's your limit?

SINNAMON: Stabilise population. And if we are paying [by] selling off our public assets ...

FRASER: Do you support cutting the migration intake, banning interstate migration, and capping the birth rate?

SINNAMON: I say start with stopping international immigration. I say that, if the Federal government is so irresponsible that they want to increase our population by 60 million, then our state governments have responsibility to say, "Hey, we are having to flog off our assets to pay for this."

We are ... and we had to find the money to build desalination plants because there won't be enough water for people to drink, if we don't ... I mean ... we need that point of leadership. Now, a few councils, like the Sunshine Coast council are trying very hard to put a population cap up there. The Queensland government is bent over backwards to make sure that that doesn't work. You know, they're over-ruling their ... um... Instead of supporting those councils they are using every possible opportunity, including this advertisement back in 2005 to actually encourage more people to come here.

You know, it's clear that the Queensland government has created the problem that it now says it has to solve by flogging off our assets. Which are opposed by 84 per cent under Beatty so that people were never asked about in the first place. They were never asked about population growth. They were never asked about flogging off our assets.

FRASER: [Note distortion of terms] I'm happy to have a public debate about whether or not people think we should cap the birth rate orwhether we should put Checkpoint Charlie up at the Tweed River. I happen to think that the community won't support it.

And neither do I. And neither does the government.

SINNAMON: Do you think that it's excusable to actually encourage population growth as well? I mean, we're not talking about "CheckpointCharlie", we're just simply saying that the population has increased to astronomical levels that already raise ...

FRASER: I think we need to be honest about what controlling population growth means, and that means migration controls ...

SINNAMON: That's right, yes.

FRASER: That mean's Checkpoint Charlie, and that means, capping the birth rate, and I don't support it.

SINNAMON: It means that ... okay... well, basically we disagree, don't we? I say any community has a right to say what numbers come in tot his community. I'm saying that, if the community has to go bankrupt, as you are basically saying we are...

You're saying, you're basically telling me, and Anna Bligh has said, that we have to sell-off the family silver, we have to pay for ever-higher electricity rates, we've got to pay more water ...

We've got to basically throw the Mary River people off their farms, and so on and so forth. It's just never ends - to pay for population growth.

#transcript3" id="transcript3">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 3

Go to #part3">embedded video.

SINNAMON (from before):Now I think that the community are entitled to have those alternatives put to them.

FRASER: James, you and I have very different views on this and you exercised your democratic right to stand as an independent candidate in the last election and put those views into the arena. I also stood as a candidate and others did and others are welcome to in the future and I'm happy for the debate tocontinue from here on in, but I don't agree that the propositions you're putting forward are supported by the broader community.

SINNAMON: Well, what do you say to the fact that 84 per cent of the people oppose privatisation, and that they felt - 66 per cent felt - that they were misled in the last election?

FRASER: What I've said - what I'll say to you - is what I've said all day every day, and that is, we had to make a choice; none of the choices were easy: cutting wages, freezing wages, less teachers, less doctors, less school cleaners, when population's increasing. Or you can make a decision about those things that government has done in the past, but, needs to make a choice about whether we choose to fund new rolling stock and new railway lines for BHP and Rio Tinto or, whether we put it into schools and hospitals and other resources that only governments would provide. We're not selling - ah - the timber business as the whole land ... we're selling the right to mill the trees... They're sold anyway, so they're getting the right to mill the trees. That's what we're proposing to transact there. Those are just the elements of what we are doing in making a decision about doing those things that we need to do ... and those things that are the priorities of government. And, when it comes to it, investing in hospitals, investing in schools, investing in disability services, are all the things that we believe, as a Labor government, ... are the priorities over building infrastructure for commercial interests that are able to do it themselves. That's the essential choice that we had to make and it's the one we made.

SINNAMON: Are you going to stop encouraging population growth? Are you going to come out and tell the public, tell the government, that we are ...

FRASER: #NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth" id="NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth">We're not encouraging population growth, we're just dealing with the natural consequences.

SINNAMON: Why not tell the Queensland public that we are paying for the past population growth ...um... with selling our public assets and inall sorts of ways? And why don't you get up and say to the Queensland public that, if this continues, then, what prospect do we have of having anything left in another fifty years time?

FRASER: Well, the problem with your analysis, James, is that it doesn't accept the fact that we're proposing to put $15 billion worth of assets onto the market, from an asset base of more than $200 billion... and by the time we finish, the asset base will be over $250 billion. So, this year alone, we're building an $18 billion dollar infrastructure program which supports building the asset base. Now, the debate we're having here is about $15 billion, which represents ... ah... a component of just one year'sinvestment that we're undertaking. So, everything that we are proposing to put to the market facilitates the capital expansion of the state. Building more assets, each and every day, each year, into the future. And that's the bottom line.

Comment: If this were true, then it would count as a substantive argument for privatisation. As result of selling $14 billion worth of assets, the Queensland Government's asset base is increased from $200 billion to $250 billion. Part of the reason for this would lie in the fact that more infrastructure assets are needed for Queensland's increased population, anyway. MUch of the money is being openly raised by increasing the charges for services as discussed above, so would not be dependent upon asset sales. All the same the figures Fraser has provided don't seem right and need further scrutiny.

SINNAMON: Okay. This letter in the Courier Mail, Friday, said that you haven't yet released the business case for privatisation. When do youintend to do that?

FRASER: We've put the rationale into the broader public arena.

SINNAMON: The general business case, the actual hard figures that actually show the sort of thing the figures of John - Professor John Quiggin's been asking for. When do you intend to do that?

FRASER: Well I debated Mr Quiggin on radio on Friday.

SINNAMON: For five minutes. For all of five minutes. Hardly a debate, I would have thought.

FRASER: Well, I certainly was ... ah... happy to debate him. The reality is we've had to make this decision and all those ... ah... figures are in the public arena, all the entities have reported as government-owned corporations, and ultimately ... and ultimately, you proposed a different policy and platform at the elections, which didn't gain the support of the people. You're entitled to put your views, James, and I'm entitled to put mine.

SINNAMON: Yes, I that's a bit [??vague]. I think that if people realised that privatisation was up for ... was an issue at the last election it would have been a very different story. I don't think you would be treasurer today if people realised that you were going to sell off $14billion of their assets. And I don't think Anna Bligh would be Premier.

FRASER: Well, you're entitled to put your views, James, and you're entitled to ... ah... proceed with them. That's your perfect entitlement as a citizen and I respect that. I've allowed you to film and record this interview. Use it for whatever political purpose you like into the future.

SINNAMON: Just one other question, Andrew, if you're wrong, if you're proven wrong, and our leaders have been proven wrong every time about privatisation, particularly the privatisation of the retail arm of electricity ... where we were promised cheaper electricity. If you're proven wrong, four or five years down the track, just as the Federal government was proven wrong about privatisation of Telstra, what recourse will they have? How do we get out of the mess that will have been created, that most people believe will happen?

FRASER: James, ultimately, I believe that what we are doing is the right thing to do ...

SINNAMON: How do we ... You're not answering my question ...

FRASER (continues from above): and that what we are doing is the correct thing to do, and that's what's decided to do.

SINNAMON: How do we, what recourse do we have? We have no recourse against Peter Beattie who privatised Ergon without ourpermission ...

FRASER: The recourse as ever, is daily media scrutiny, the parliament, and election. That's the way it's always worked in Australia.

SINNAMON: We've had no recourse against Peter Beattie, who sold off the assets against our wishes and we're all paying higher electricityprices. We believe that the same will happen.

SINNAMON (continues): What recourse will we have when it all goes pear-shaped, as people believe?

FRASER: I'm happy to be accountable for all my decisions, James.

FRASER: Thanks for meeting.

SINNAMON: Yeah. Just as Peter Beattie is accountable today. You know, he's headed off and we're in hock because of the decision that he made today and we'll be [indecipherable] ...

FRASER: Well, I disagree with you. You're entitled as a political candidate to put your view and I'm entitled as a political candidate to put mine.

SINNAMON: Why won't you hold a referendum on this? People ... 84 per cent of people are against it, why can't people have the final say on privatisation? You haven't swayed me.

FRASER: Because we're elected to make decisions. We're elected to make the tough decisions.

SINNAMON: People oppose that decision. They have consistently opposed that. They have opposed every privatisation. 70 per cent ofpeople opposed the Telstra privatisation. I believe that you know that they would have opposed you and would have voted you out if they were aware that you ... if they had had any hint that you were going to privatise, and I think ...

FRASER: Well, James, you're advancing a contradictory thesis that ... um...that one time you're saying I did say that in the election campaign, and the second time ... the second part of your question is that I didn't. So you need to decide which accusation you're going to make against me and the government.

SINNAMON: No, I believe that you're [??indeciferable] ...

FRASER: You're a political candidate and you're entitled to your views. I need to progress, so thanks very much for coming along.

SINNAMON: Okay, well thank you for your time.

#DebateRequest" id="DebateRequest">Appendix 3: Correspondence concerning my request for a debate amongst candidates contesting Mount Coot-tha electorate

The e-mail below is a request that there be a debate between the candidates. I took from Andrew Fraser's reply, that the 'candidate's forum' would be something approximating a debate. It turned out not to be. I was first speaker on the night and given only 10 minutes. No opportunity was provided for me to respond to Andrew Fraser's 'rebuttal' of my arguments against privatisation in my own speech.

My many other attempts to get Andrew Fraser to properly debate privatisation and the issues at stake in the elections can be found in "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" of 17 Mar 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09.

#request" id="request">E-mail requesting debate

Mount-Coot-tha candidates' public debate
Date: 24/02/09 03:47 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Andrew Fraser, Larissa Waters, John Pollard

Dear Andrew Fraser, Larissa Waters and John Pollard,

As an Independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha, I would like to have the opportunity to debate all other candidates standing for election before the electors of Mount Coot-tha.

I believe that this would give voters the best possible opportunity to decide which of us is the most suitable candidate.

I think it should still be possible, even given the time constraints (which I personally believe to be unnecessary) to find a suitable public venue for the debate and to organise a meeting.

I also think it would be worthwhile to engage in online debates. I suggest an online forum be set up for the Mount Coot-tha electorate.

In the meantime you can all also feel most welcome to post your own comments to my web site. The most suitable places to comment would be:

http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

I look forward to hearing from you all.

yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha.

--

(contact details)

#response" id="response">Andrew Fraser's response

RE: Mount-Coot-tha candidates' public debate
Date: 24/02/09 04:50 pm
From: Andrew Fraser
To: James Sinnamon

Dear James Sinnamon

Thanks for your email. It has been past practice that the Brisbane Inner West Chamber of Commerce has hosted a candidate forum. I have already been approached, and I understand the Chamber is again proposing to approach candidates for participation in such a forum. I propose that, once again, the Chamber host such an event. I've forwarded your email to Lynne Brown of the Chamber, who is coordinating the time and place.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Fraser

Grounds are that the government failed to inform people during the last Queensland State elections of their intentions to privatise Queensland assets to the value of $15billion.

If you are a Queensland resident and Australian citizen, please sign the petition.List of Queensland e-petitions http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetitions.aspx?LIndex=1

CURRENT E-PETITION
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1360&lIndex=-1
Subject:

Call for immediate resignation of the Queensland government and new
elections

Eligibility: Queensland Citizens
Sponsoring Member: Dorothy Pratt MP
Principal Petitioner: James Sinnamon
PO Box 86
RED HILL QLD 4059

Posting Date: 02/12/2009
Closing Date: 02/03/2010

TO: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Queensland citizens draws to the attention of the House the Queensland public, the rightful owners of $15 billion worth of assets which are to be sold, were denied any say over this because of the failure of the Queensland government to reveal those plans during the course of the elections. We consider the stated intention of the government to proceed with the sale in the face of opinion polls, which show at least 80% public opposition, to be amongst the most serious breaches of public trust imaginable.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to call upon the Queensland government to resign immediately to give the Queensland public a chance to elect a new Government which can gain its trust. Your petitioners also warn any private investors considering buying the assets, not to do so and call upon a future State government which does enjoy the trust and confidence of the Queensland people not to honour any such contracts for the sale of assets.

Whilst Brisbane's Courier Mail rightly recently exposed the ecological vandalism of Consolidated Rutile on North Stradbroke Island, it and the rest of the Queensland newsmedia, have largely ignored a proposed extension of sand and gravel mining on the nearby mainland, which may prove to be even more harmful for the Moreton Bay region.

The compelling case against the expansion of Neilsen's sand and gravel mine

In the Bald Hills region immediately to the North of Brisbane, in the Greater Moreton Shire, the health and peace of 600 students of Bald Hills Primary School, one of the first 10 to be established in Queensland, is threatened by the proposed extension of an existing sand and gravel mine across the Pine River into the adjoining flood plains as close as 150 metres metres from the school oval.

As well as the health of school students, the extension of the sand mine, owned by Neilsen's mining company, threatens the whole surrounding flood plain and even Moreton Bay. A six minute YouTube broadcast "Bald Hills Flats under threat" published on 9 August has put the compelling and overwhelming case against the expansion of sand mining. Much of the following is paraphrased from that excellent video.

Bald Hills flats, which is bordered by the Pine River, contains a delicate diverse eco-system that serves as a large cartchment area which feeds into Moreton Bay.

Studies in the US show that the ecological costs of sand and gravel mining include:

• increased stream acidity;
• soil nutrient depletion; and
• loss of bio-diversity, including in the Bald Hills region aquatic birds, rare fish and koalas.

Health effects caused by silicate, and other forms of dust, include:

• respiratory problems;
• aggravation of asthma; and
• increased risk of lung cancer.

Pine River has flooded many times in the last 20 years. During a recent flood earlier this year, everything in the flood plain was washed out into Moreton Bay -- toxic wastes, algae from stagnant swamps caused by sand mining and sludge.

Such natural events are well beyond what Nielsen's are capable of preventing or constraining in any way.

Already the Pine River is under great stress from numerous inappropriate developments upstream. A number of public works have been destroyed or damaged because of the inability of planners to predict what course the water of the Pine River will follow.

The narrator of "Bald Hills Flats under threat" makes the emphatic point:

"The Bald Hills Community is not seeking a few token conditions which will be applied upon application approval. We do not want this application approved at all. Not now. Not ever.

"Surely we have learnt from past mistakes that you simply just can't go ahead and decimate a valley within the Brisbane Metropolitan area because of a need for resources. The problems outlined here are not problems that can simply be addressed. The problems here are problems that simply can't be overcome."

Why do our governments seek population growth if it necessitates ecological destruction?

This point confronts the nub of the conflict at the heart of the fight of the Bald Hills Community.

The Pine Rivers Press of 20 August reported that Neilsen's CEO Mario Panuccio said the company had exhausted its supplies at its Brendale site. Panuccio continued:

"To ensure the secure supply of sand and gravel to support the growing community's infrastructure needs, we need to put in place a plan to source sand and gravel from our eastern landholdings."

So, in order to provide for a "growing community's infrastructure needs" a "traditional, historic, well-loved, green pasture within Brisbane turned into a dusty, ugly open-cut mine." as the narrator points out.

The threatened destruction of the Bald Hills flats is only one of almost countless costs the Australian community is being made to bear in order to pay for population growth needlessly imposed by Federal, state and local governments.

This population growth is utimately driven by the Federal Government's record high immigration program for apparently no better purpose than to line the pockets of the property developers and land speculators who so generously contribute to the coffers of the governing political parties. Just some of ecological costs include the threartened damming of the Mary Valley containing the endangered lung fish, the Mary Valley cod and the Mary Valley turtle, the damming of Wyaralong said to be necessary to provide the necessary additional water, the threatened total extinction of the Koala, not only in the Bald Hills region, but throughout the rest of South East
Queensland, the destruction of Minnippi Parklands containing rare sugar gliders. Social costs include the destruction of rural communities, ever increasing trafic congestion, escalating housing costs and homelessness, escalating council rates and charges for electricity, water, road use and other government services.

Surely, then, it is time that we questioned altogther the need for population growth? Surely, instead of causing incessant population growth, our governments at the Federal, state and local level, should instead, be working out exactly what numbeers of humans South East Queensland and the rest of this country can support and accordingly plan to stabilise our population at those levels?

How our governments no longer serve the interests of local communities they claim to represent

A number of courageous people from the Bald Hills are determined to stand up for their community and environment.

They are led by parents of children attending the Bald Hills Primary School. However, they face formidable barriers in the form of the Moreton Bay Regional Council and the Queensland State Labor government. The Moreton Bay Regional council is the product of the dictatorial amalgamations imposed in 2007 by then Premier Peter Beattie and then Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser at the behest of the Property Council of Australia. Whilst in some councils this backfired badly on Beattie and the Property Council, when popular anti-development mayors won in Cairns, the Sunshine Coast and Redlands Shire, the Moreton Bay Regional Council appears to be dominated by councillors unresponsive to the needs of constituents such as those in the Bald Hills region.

Further, the Queensland state Government is doing its best thwart the wishes of the Bald Hills community. According to a Bald Hills community activist, teachers from the Bald Hills Primary School were threatened with the sack if they were to participate in any community protests against sand mining.

However, the Bald Hills community are resolved to fight and need your support. If they succeed in saving their valley, then so can you next time the preservation of your lifestyle and your environment stands in the way of corporate profits.

See also: "Bald Hills Flats under threat", an excellent six minute YouTube broadcast published on 9 Aug 09 (also embedded in this article), "Residents launch campaign to fight quarry plan" by Joel Gould and Miranda Forster in the Pine Rivers Press of 20 Aug 09, "Parents blast plan to mine sand and gravel near school" by Tanya Chilcott in the Courier Mail of 20 Aug 09 (almost identical copy to be found here), "North Stradbroke Island eaten away by sand mininig" by Greg Stolz in the Courier Mail of 15 Aug , "North Stradbroke Island mine rort alleged" by Greg Stolz in the Courier Mail of 20 Aug 09.
Recent articles describing other threats to biodiversity in South East Queensland: "Rescuers fear for koalas" by Alyce Valentine in the Pine Rivers Press of 27 Aug 09, "Traffic noise makes it hard for frogs to find a mate" by Brian Williams in the Courier Mail of 27 Aug&nbsp, "Rezoning anger at Bald Hills" by Miranda Forster in the Pine Rivers Press of 13 May 10, Bald Hills Against Mining FaceBook page.

What you can do

1. Contact the Mayor of the Moreton Bay Regional Council and the other 12 Councillors and let them know of your opposition to the expansion of sand and gravel mining. Please send us copies of any correspondences to and from these councillors so that we can publish them.

2. Contact you local member (MLA) of the Queensland Legislative Assembly (Parliament) and demand that the state Parliament act to save Moreton Bay as well as Bald Hills flats. Contact details of Queensland MLA's can be found here on the State Parliament web site.

3. Contact Geoffrey Wilson the Queensland State Minister for Education (ph 07 3237 1000, education[AT]ministerial.qld.gov.au) and ask that teachers be given categorical assurances that any participation by Bald Hills State School teachers in protest actions in support of their community and their environment will not result in their sacking or any other form of victimisation.

4. Attend protest actions against the expansion of sand and gravel mining on the Bald Hills flats. Also attend other protest actions in support of the environment such as the protest to Save the Koala, which is also threatened by the extension of the sand mine.

Details of the Save the Koala protest are:

Time/Date:11AM sign-in for a 12PM start, Friday, 25 Septemper
Place: Brisbane Square (in front of Treasury Casino)
Contact: saveourkoalas[AT]gmail.com, www.koalarescue.org.au

Bligh and Fraser Deceiving Self and Public

Media Release from Dorothy Pratt, independent member for Nanango, 2 June 2009

Short sighted and seriously self deceiving is how Member for Nanango Dorothy Pratt described the actions of Premier Anna Bligh in selling off state assets such as the Queensland motorways, Qld rail's coal haulage, Port of Brisbane and Forestry Plantations Qld and who knows what else.

"This is a desperate, ill thought out attempt to fill a dirty big black hole resulting from a spend-happy government," she said.

"I always have issues when the people's assets are sold off to pay for a squanderer's debt. Good times have been abundant for years but as soon as we hit hard times the coffers are bare because the government didn't save for the rainy day. To say I'm furious is an understatement. If you wanted to sell, why would you sell at the bottom of the market? You don't sell the cow when your income is derived from the milk.

"What's the point of having a business if you're going to sell off the infrastructure so that you don't have an income? It's absurd and to say that privatisation of these assets will make it cheaper for the general public is simply a con. I've never seen anything come down in price once it's privatised. Privatisation of the energy delivery system was supposed to result in lower prices for the consumer. That not only didn't happen but prices have skyrocketed since."

Mrs. Pratt said the announcement only seven weeks after the election screams of deliberate deceit of the people and to state that the government has a mandate to sell these assets is self deceiving on both the Premier and the Treasurer's behalf.

"The Premiere cited Qantas as having gone from strength to strength since it was privatised but she failed to mention the jobs lost to overseas, Qantas' short-cut tactics and their near disastrous consequences. These same issues will dog the privatisation of these assets. The unions know it, the workers know it but the Labor government is sticking its head in the sand. They have failed to ensure the state stayed in the black in the good times and are scrambling to cover that failure before the budget is delivered in two weeks time," Mrs. Pratt said.

See also: Dorothy Pratt's web-site at pratt-mp.webs.com.
Contact: ph: 07 4162 1381, e-mail: Nanango [ AT ] parliament.qld.gov.au.

Dear Premier Anna Bligh,

Today, you told the Queensland public "(Privatisation) was not something that we had even fully contemplated because we didn't understand - nobody knew - the size and the extent of the effect of the global financial crisis on our revenue."

How is it that a political "nobody" like myself understood that privatisation would be on the political agenda even before the last state election, and yet you would have the Queensland public believe that this never occurred either to you nor to any of your full-time paid advisers?

On 17 February, even before the early elections were suddenly announced, I sent to both you and to the Treasurer an e-mail, #appendix_1">included below (and here), in which I stated my objections to privatisation. That letter is included below. In that letter, I pointed out that your Government had privatised a large number of publicly owned assets since winning office in 1998 without ever once having consulted the public.

During the election campaign I repeatedly raised this question with both you and the Treasurer, against whom I was standing, and challenged both of you, as well as Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to debate the issue.

Correspondence concerning privatisation was sent either sent directly to you or cc'd to you on 12 March, 13 March, 18 March and 19 March (2 sent).

On 13 March, Madonna King asked Treasurer Andrew Fraser on my behalf if he would commit himself to not privatising further Government-owned assets. Andrew Fraser failed to answer that question.

On 18 March I sent a survey to you and to every Labor Party candidate and every other candidate I could reach, a survey which included the following question:

Will you give electors a categorical assurance, if elected, that either you will oppose any further sell-off of public assets, such as Queensland Rail, water infrastructure, electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, ports, airports, schools, hospitals, etc., or you will not support any sales until such time as the Queensland public have shown support for privatisation through a referendum or public opinion polls?

You have denied the Queensland public, the rightful owners of the assets you intend to sell, their democratic right to settle this critical issue at the last election, in spite of my best efforts.

I therefore ask that you either withdraw your privatisation plans and come up with other means acceptable to the Queensland public to get our state out of its current financial difficulties, or put the whole issue to a referendum.

Yours sincerely,
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Coot-tha
March 2009 State elections

Update (5 June 09): Anna Bligh's own Labor Party branch votes unanimously for her expulsion.. See story in the Courier Mail.

See also: Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise of 27 May 09,"Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09. Courier Mail Readers comments about privatisation, 299 so far, nearly all opposed.

What you can do to prevent the theft of your property:
Sign the petition against privatisation;
Attend protests against privatisation outside the state Labor Party conference this Queen's Birthday weekend including a protest organised by the ETU for Sunday at 11am.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1: E-mail sent to Premier Anna Bligh an Treasurer Andrew Fraser on 17 February 2009

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

I will be standing as an Independent pro-democracy candidate in the state electorate of Mount Coot-tha in the forthcoming state elections.

In part, my purpose in standing is to raise critical policy issues, which I believe will otherwise not be drawn to the attention of the Queensland public.

One issue is privatisation.

The evidence clearly shows that privatisation has gravely harmed the public interest and as a consequence, has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public, including the Queensland public, for years.

Yet, most Australian governments, including your own, have persisted in imposing privatisation without any popular support and without any electoral mandate.
The list of privatisations, which comes to my mind, includes Energex, Ergon, the Golden Casket, the Mackay and Cairns airports, the Dalrymple Bay Coal loader and numerous tracts of valuable publicly owned land.

Indeed, the only privatisation that was raised in an election campaign of which I am aware, is that of the then named State Government Insurance Office (SGIO), now named Suncorp. Former Premier Peter Beattie promised during the 1998 election campaign not to fully privatise the half privatised SGIO, but, upon winning office, promptly broke that promise.

Last year we witnessed, in neighbouring NSW the appalling spectacle of the NSW corporate sector including Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper, clamouring for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, even though that policy was never put to the NSW public in the previous state elections of 2007, had been explicitly rejected in the 1999 elections and was opposed by at least 79% of the NSW public.

In spite of the widespread public opposition, and in defiance of a vote 702 to 107 against privatisation at the NSW state Labor Party conference of May 2008, Morris Iemma's Government proceeded to ram through the privatisation legislation anyway. Thankfully for the people of NSW, the legislation was blocked with the votes of the Liberal/National Party Opposition, Greens and Independents.

Premier Anna Bligh, I was disturbed to read that your Government also gave its support for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, in spite of your own reported personal stance against the privatisation of Queensland's electricity generators in 2006.

Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell off yet more of their assets, including Queensland Railways, electricity generators, more airports, the water grid, public buildings, public land, etc.

The reason I write this letter is to seek your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Cooth-tha

Appendix 2: E-mail sent to Premier Anna Bligh an Treasurer Andrew Fraser on 12 March 2009

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

In the letter I sent to both of you on 17 February, before the elections were called I asked for "your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any (publicly owned) assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda."

I have still not received that simple assurance.

I ask this because I believe that, in a democracy, the public should be consulted by their elected representatives about all questions that will affect their lives, particularly decisions the (claimed) need for which can be easily foreseen.

However, as you are both surely well aware, the Queensland public has never been consulted about any of the numerous privatisations that have occurred since your Government came to power, starting with the full privatisation of the already partially privatised State Government Insurance Office (SGIO - now called SunCorp) in 1998 against a specific election promise made by former Premier Peter Beattie.

Had the Government retained ownership, or at least partial ownership, then at least one insurance company could have been directed by your government not to have resorted to the unconscionable business practices that have been described on the Madonna King radio show over the last two days.

Other privatisations, which have been imposed on the Queensland public since then include:

• The remaining government stake in Brisbane airport in 2009;
• Cairns Airport in 2009;

Mackay Airport in 2008;

• The Qld Government's stake in the Emu Downs wind farm in Western Australia in
  2008;
• The Enertex (not be confused with Energex) gas business5 in 2008;
• The Golden Casket state lottery agency in 2007;
• Ergon in 2006;
• Energex, the retail arm of Queensland's electricity generation utility in
  2006;
• the Dalrymple Bay coal loader in 2001
• TAB in 1999

I believe all have been detrimental to the public interest and some, including the privatisations of Energex, Ergon, the Dalrymple Bay coal loader and the SGIO, as discussed above, have been indisputably disastrous.

If the public had been consulted, none of these privatisations would have occurred and the Queensland public would have been spared the harm caused to them.

I therefore ask that you give, to the Queensland public, a categorical assurance that you will not privatise any more assets during the coming Parliamentary term.

If you are not prepared to give such an assurance, then privatisation is an issue at stake in these elections and should be openly discussed.

Accordingly, I would ask that, as a candidate opposed to privatisation, that you justify your stance before the Queensland public in a debate with me.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha

#reply" id="reply">Appendix 3: Anna Bligh's reply of 16 Jun 09

Dear Mr Sinnamon,

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the Government's recent announcement about asset sales.

My Government's Renewing Queensland Plan seeks to realign the State's asset base with the community's needs. I have enclosed a copy of my Ministerial Statement in this regard. It proposes the sale of a number of Government owned assets -- Forest Plantations Queensland, Queensland Motorways Limited, Port of Brisbane,Abbot Point Coal Port and the non-passenger sections of Queensland Rail.

The money raised will all be used to build new publicly owned assets -- public hospitals, schools, roads, and public transport infrastructure.

Of course, the Government would rather not have to contemplate the sale of these assets. It was not an easy decision to make and was not taken lightly.

However, falls in coal royalties, stamp duty, GST and other income in this global recession has robbed $15 billion from our budget over the next four years. That's about one-third of our entire annual State Budget.

These circumstances have brought into sharp focus the future challenges we face as a State and they are different to the challenges we've faced in the past.

In the last century, a key challenge was to provide the infrastructure to unlock our State's vast natural resources. So, for example, the Government built and owned ports and railways to haul coal at a time when private companies wouldn't do so.

But the coal industry is now well established with many of the world's largest, multi-national companies operating global businesses. Continued investment of tax payer funds into a commercial transport business for these companies simply cannot be prioritised over investment in passenger trains and public transport.

Do we continue to haul coal for private multinational coal companies? Or do we build new passenger rail networks and more buses for urban and regional Queensland?

Do we continue to own a forest plantation and buy and sell timber? Or do we finish building and rebuilding major hospitals in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Mt Isa, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, and the Gold Coast?

Do we continue to own a tollway on the Gateway Bridge? Or do we build new and safer roads in our many growth areas, like the Sunshine Coast Motorway, the Townsville Port Access Road, Forgan Smith Bridge in Mackay, Flinders Highway upgrade & the Bundaberg Ring Road?

Do we continue to own a port? Or do we build the new public housing and social infrastructure our State needs?

Or do we keep running these businesses, stop investing in them and let them run down? These are the choices. Doing nothing is not a choice.

The businesses we have chosen to sell are requesting investment of $12 billion from the Government over the next 4 years. That's $12 billion that can't be spent on schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.

It's true that some of these assets earn revenue for government. We will forgo about $280 million a year as a result of these sales. But the interest bill alone on the $12 million investment requested from Government is $750 million every year.

Some people are concerned about what this decision means for jobs. All enterprise bargaining agreements with workers will be honoured. As well employment guarantees will be in place for at least two years beyond the date of sale. Employees transferring to the new businesses will experience no interruption to their continuity of service, or accrued entitlements.

An industrial relations working party has been established to discuss the details of these arrangements with unions.

These are hard decisions. My Government went to the last election promising to maintain the State's record $18.1 billion building program. Not just for the 127,000 jobs it supports, but also because a State with a rapidly growing population can't afford to ease off building the infrastructure that supports our economy and community.

At a time when the State's income is under pressure due to the global recession, it is not possible to keep owning all we own while still borrowing to keep this building program going.
I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

ANNA BLIGH MP PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND

Queensland State Treasure Andrew Fraser claims that he has no option but to sell off yet more state-owned assets in order to solve Queensland's financial crisis. In this article, Ellen Brown, author of "The Web of Debt" urges Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California, which faces financial difficulties similar to those faced by Queensland, to follow the example of North Dakota, which has its own bank, in order to create money to lend itself in a manner no different to the way that private banks create money to lend Governments, but at interest rates much lower than would be charged by the private banks.

But Governor, you can create money! Just form your own bank.

By Ellen Brown. Link to original article.

"I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives. This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face. Sacramento is not Washington -- we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have."

   -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted in Time, May 22, 2009

In a May 22 article titled "Billions in the Red: Fiscal Reckoning in CA," Juliet Williams reports that since California voters have now vetoed higher taxes and further state government borrowing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he intends to close the budget gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts. The cutbacks could include laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, ending the state's main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, slashing money for state parks, and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished. Schwarzenegger bemoaned the fact that the state could not print its own money but said it could only spend what it had.

But wait -- perhaps the state can create its own money. After all, banks do this every day. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they create "credit" with accounting entries on their books. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains on its website:

"Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank . . . holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times."_#main-fn1">1

President Obama has also acknowledged that banks create money through the "multiplier effect." In a speech at Georgetown University on April 14, he said:

"[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks -- 'where's our bailout?,' they ask -- the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth."_#main-fn2">2

Money in a government-owned bank could give us the best of both worlds. We could have all the credit-generating advantages of private banks, without the baggage cluttering up the books of the Wall Street giants, including bad derivatives bets, unmarketable collateralized debt obligations, mark to market accounting issues, oversized CEO salaries and bonuses, and shareholders expecting a sizeable cut of the profits. A state could deposit its vast revenues in its own state-owned bank and proceed to fan them into 8 to 10 times their face value in loans. Not only would it have its own credit machine, but it would control the loan terms. The state could lend at ½% interest to itself and to municipal governments, rolling the loans over as needed until the revenues had been generated to pay them off. On average, interest has been calculated to compose fully half the cost of every public project._#main-fn3">3 Cutting costs by 50% could make currently-unsustainable projects such as low-cost housing, alternative energy development, and infrastructure construction not only sustainable but actually profitable for the government.

Is all this too radical and unprecedented to consider? Not at all. One state has had its own bank for 90 years, and it has escaped the credit crunch and is doing remarkably well . . . .

The state-owned bank of North Dakota

Only four of fifty states are now solvent, meaning they can meet their state budgets; and one of them is North Dakota._#main-fn4">4 It is an unlikely candidate for the distinction. It is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather and isolated farmers. Yet since 2000, the state's GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion.

North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. It has avoided the credit freeze by creating its own credit, leading the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty. The Bank of North Dakota was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. The bank's stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. The bank operates as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It has ample money to lend to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans); it purchases municipal bonds from public institutions; and it makes loans at 1% interest to new farmers. The state's current governor was formerly president of the Bank of North Dakota.

In California and other states, workers and factories are sitting idle because the private credit system has failed. An injection of new money from a system of publicly-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota could thaw the credit freeze and bring spring to the markets once again.

Footnotes

Cash-starved states need to play the banking game:
north dakota shows how

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ "Money, Banking and Monetary Policy -- Everyday Economics," www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ "Obama's Remarks on the Economy," New York Times, April 14, 2009.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ Margrit Kennedy, Interest and Inflation-free Money (1995), discussed in Deidre Kent, "Margrit Kennedy Inspires New Zealand Groups to Establish Regional Money Systems," McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis, www.mkeever.com (2002).

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ John Mitchell, "46 of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy in 2009-2010," Freedom Arizona (January 30, 2009).

Original article published as "But Governor, You CAN Create Money! Just Form Your Own Bank." on 29 May 09 Op Ed News
See also: "Revive Lincoln's monetary policy - an open letter to President Obama" of 9 Apr 09 by Ellen Brown (also published here), "Cash-starved states need to play the banking game:
North Dakota shows how" of 2 Mar 09, "Take back the power to create money from the private banking industry" - submission by Ellen Brown to President Barack Obama's Open Government Dialogue of   of 29 May 09.

Brisbane's local ABC radio morning presenter Madonna King failed to use knowledge that she had in her hands that would have demolished Queensland Premier Bligh's excuse for not raising the issue of privatisation during the recent state elections. When I tried to phone the ABC to put this knowledge directly to the Premier, I was cut off.

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise" of 27 May 09.

On the morning of Wednesday 28 May I heard Madonna King interviewing Queensland Premier Anna Bligh over her suddenly announced plans to privatise Queensland's publicly owned electricity generators, ports, railways and other assets.

When Madonna King asked Anna Bligh why she had not discussed her plans to privatise during the recent elections, the Premier claimed that the issue had not occurred to her.

For the Premier to have claimed that such a critical issue as privatisation would not have entered her head during the course of the election campaign would have truly been stretching he credulity of the ABC's listeners.

Almost certainly the real reason for her omission was that she knew that privatisation was overwhelmingly opposed by the Queensland public as even the editorial of Tuesday 26 May in the virulently pro-privatisation Courier Mail acknowledged:

"Predictably, (Premier Bligh and Treasurer Fraser) made no mention of this during the recent election campaign. This means they have either just come up with this idea in the face of worse-than-expected revenue figures, or, as is equally possible, they decided to wait until they were re-elected before unveiling a strategy that, if carried out, will almost certainly result in job losses."

In fact. Madonna King knew perfectly well that I, as a candidate, had attempted many times during the course of the election campaign to get both Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser to come clean with the Queensland electorate regarding privatisation during the course of the campaign. Indeed, only the previous day I had sent her a copy of a letter I had sent to the Courier Mail. In that letter, I wrote:

"I stood as an independent candidate against my local member and State Treasurer precisely because I believed that the electors of Queensland were entitled to express their opposition to privatisation at the ballot box.

"In fact, even before the elections were announced, I sent an e-mail on 17 February to both the Premier and Treasurer asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections. My letter was ignored.

"My repeated challenges to Anna Bligh, Andrew Fraser as well as Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to defend privatisation in a public debate during the subsequent campaign were also ignored."

So, there could have been no possible excuse whatsoever for Premier Bligh not to have not mentioned the issue of privatisation during the elections, but in spite of having been repeatedly supplied this knowledge by me, Madonna King failed to put it to the Premier.

I attempted to phone the talkback line on 1300 22 612 in order to put this to the Premier.

When I phoned, I told them that I wanted to ask the Premier why my letter of 17 February was ignored and put to her that she therefore had no mandate to privatise.

I was thanked for my call, but after a few seconds, I was cut off.

I tried to dial again but found the lines engaged.

As I had already been treated poorly by the ABC during the course of the recent election campaign, it seemed likely to me that I had been deliberately cut off. So, during the day, I attempted to ring the ABC in order to establish whether or not this was the case. I left a message asking that I be called back, but was not contacted. I then posted the following letter to the ABC's feedback page:

"Hi,

"I'm trying to ascertain whether or not I was deliberately cut off, when I phoned in this morning to put a question to Premier Anna Bligh on the issue of privatisation.

"I wanted to ask her why she ignored my e-mail which asked her, prior to her calling the election, if she would inform Queenslanders of any plans to privatise any more of their assets during the election campaign.

"As Ms Bligh was trying to claim that the issue of privatisation had never occurred to her during the course of the campaign, I thought that this would be of utmost interest to your listeners.

"However, shortly after I was thanked for my call, I was cut off.

"I need to know whether or not this was deliberately done.

"So could someone please call me on ... so that I can know, from now on, whether or not I am welcome to express my views on Brisbane ABC local radio, in particular, Madonna Kings's Morning Show?

"I have already left a message to be called back and have tried unsuccessfully to dial 130022612 in order to be able to discuss this.

"Thank you.

"Yours sincerely,

"James Sinnamon

"Independent pro-democracy candidate
Mount Coot-tha electorate
Queensland State elections, March 2009
http://candobetter.org/QldElections"

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise" of 27 May 09.

In response to the Queensland state Government's threat to conduct a "Shock Doctrine" style asset fire sale, James Sinnamon, who stood as an independent anti-privatisation candidate in the recent Queensland state elections wrote the following e-mail to the Murdoch-owned Courier Mail newspaper, which pointed out the Queensland Government had not gained any mandate to sell any publicly owned assets. Copies were sent to every state member of Parliament including Treasurer Andrew Fraser and Premier Anna Bligh.

Dear Editor,

In your editorial "Asset sales welcome but timing poor" (26 May) you wrote, "Predictably, (Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser) made no mention of (their plans to sell off publicly owned assets) during the recent election campaign."

I stood as an independent candidate against my local member and State Treasurer precisely because I believed that the electors of Queensland were entitled to express their opposition to privatisation at the ballot box.

In fact, even before the elections were announced, I sent an e-mail on 17 February to both the Premier and Treasurer asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections. My letter was ignored.

My repeated challenges to Anna Bligh, Andrew Fraser as well as Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to defend privatisation in a public debate during the subsequent campaign were also ignored.

I consider this treatment of myself and the Queensland electorate, whom they know full well to be overwhelmingly opposed to privatisation, unacceptable.

They must either immediately abandon these plans, or else call new elections so that the issue can be properly decided by the Queensland public.

At the very least they must be forced to properly justify the case for asset sales in a comprehensive televised public debate.

James Sinnamon,

Independent pro-democracy candidate
Mount Coot-tha electorate
Queensland State elections, March 2009
candobetter.org/QldElections

Update: (27 May 09) A Courier Mail online poll, published on 27 May had 91% of respondents answer 'No' to the question, "Should the state Government sell public assets to help the Budget?", with only 9% in favour. However, if past experience is anything to go by, the expressed wishes of even its own readership will scarcely cause the Courier Mail editors to bat an eyelid in pushing their pro-privatisation ideological barrow.

#letters" id="letters">Update: (27 May 09) Although the Courier Mail published a number of letters concerning privatisation, all opposed, mine was not included. The letters are:

Air of panic in a cash-strapped state

THE discussion by Treasurer Andrew Fraser and Premier Anna Bligh about the possible sale of public assets illustrated that they are in panic mode about the state's finances.

Off-loading assets, through the short-sighted polices of the Government, would leave a financial hole to trouble future generations of Queenslanders.

My comment: A good letter, but it may be possible to draw the implication from the letter, as it has been published, that the writer would not mind so much if assets when the price is better. This is what Andrew Fraser is claiming that he intends to do.

WHY would anyone think that getting rid of our stockpile of resources in an economic crisis is a good idea?

Did we not learn anything from the privatisation of Telstra? Gee, know, let's sell all of our assets, even though they are profitable and some of the only bargaining power we have left, federally, so we can continue spending money on fruitless pursuits and living in debt. Be realistic. We are not going to have improved health, transport, or education systems because we sell public assets. It's another short-term solution to save face in the public's eye. The Government does not have our interests at heart.

My comment: The Courier Mail and all the Murdoch newsmedia fully supported the Telstra privatisation and virtually every other privatisation. It clearly cares little for the wishes of even its own readership, who overwhelming oppose privatisation. It's online poll, published on 27 May had 91% of respondents answer 'No' to the question "Should the state Government sell public assets to help the Budget?"

NOT long ago the State Government was talking about borrowing massive amounts of money for infrastructure. Now Bligh and Fraser are talking of selling off assets to fund infrastructure. Why the sudden change of strategy?

They both should be honest and tell the public of Queensland the reason is not because it is a better strategy but that they can no longer borrow the money because of the drop in the state's credit rating. This means that they now have to pay an additional 2 per cent interest and even then no-one wants to lend them the cash.

The people of Queensland have a right what is going to appear in the Budget when those running the state are getting so desperate.

My comment: Whilst this writer is clearly opposes privatisation, he/she seems to accept because of the financial crisis, that there is no alternative but to sell. In fact, if corporations invariable borrow to buy publicly owned assets, why should a state government be any less able to borrow in order to prevent the sale of assets? A still better solution would be for the government to create its own bank and use it to lend it the necessary money. This is what the US state of North Dakota does. As a consequence, that state has a budget surplus and an economy that is much healthier than the economies of most other states.

HOW dare Bligh and Fraser even talk of selling state assets without asking the people of Queensland.

They are merely the temporary custodians of assets which we, a taxpayers, have spent years paying for. If they want to leave the future of our essential services to the whim of some corporate profiteer, they should ask the people, the real owners of the assets if they agree to the sale. Let's have a referendum.

My comment: My letter called for new elections, but a referendum would not be a bad idea.

IF the State Budget deficit id funded by the sale of public assets such as power stations, highways, water supplies and ports, how does the Government propose to fund future budget deficits once these public assets are gone?

Surely the time has arrived for a bit of belt-tightening instead.

My comment: Belt-tightening is always preferable to selling off them farm, but let's make those profiteers who got us into this mess tighten their belts the hardest.

THAT Premier Anna Bligh would consider a sales of some of Queensland's assets shows that not only has she run out of money, but also ideas. The only certain outcome is that the cost of income will increase significantly.

See also: "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09.

Media Release, Tuesday 17 March 2009

Queensland voters, who overwhelmingly oppose privatisation, have a right to know which candidates can be relied upon to block any further sell-offs of public assets, said James Sinnamon, independent candidate for the Brisbane inner-north-west seat of Mount Coot-tha.

"The privatisation of the Cairns, Mackay and Brisbane airports, the Golden Casket, Energex and Ergon during the last term of Parliament, demonstrate that privatisation was an issue at stake in the 2006 state elections," said the independent candidate, "yet where were the electors told of this?"

Mr Sinnamon had contacted both the Premier, Anna Bligh, and the state Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, before the elections were announced in order to ask Anna Bligh for an assurance that, if she intends to privatise any more publicly owned assets, that she state her intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections. Alternatively, he asked that Anna Bligh undertake to put any privatisations to a referendum.

So far, Mr Sinnamon has not received a clear response to that question.

Instead, he has received three different responses on three different occasions from Andrew Fraser.

The first, given on the Brisbane Madonna King radio show last Friday, was that he had no plans to privatise any more assets and that he was ideologically opposed to privatisation.

The second response, given in a letter received by Mr Sinnamon later on the same day stated:

"We will only ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the Queensland community."

So, instead of being ideologically opposed to privatisation, Andrew Fraser had become merely not ideologically in favour of privatisation. In his words:

"We ... will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation."

Then, at the Mount Coot-tha electorate 'meet the candidates' night on Monday 16 March, Andrew Fraser gave yet a third response.

Mr Fraser told the meeting that the government had no business owning and operating airports and that the money was better spent on our hospitals.

"So, it seems to me that the State Treasurer is ideologically in favour of privatisation, after all," commented Mr Sinnamon, "at least in regards to airports."

"Why weren't Queensland electors told of that in 2006?" asked the candidate, "Now, in 2009, are Queenslanders only to learn, upon the re-election of the Bligh Labor Government, that the Bligh Government also believes the government has 'no business' owning Queensland Rail, the Port of Brisbane corporation, water infrastructure or electricity generators?"

James Sinnamon had also sought a commitment against privatisation from Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg, but has, so far, not received a response.

He said that if neither the Labor Party nor the Opposition Liberal National Party (LNP) are prepared to rule out privatisation, then they should defend that stance in a public debate.

Accordingly, the candidate issued a challenge to both Mr Springborg and to Mr Fraser to publicly debate privatisation before the election.

"If they are personally unable to debate the question, I am happy to debate with any other candidate from either party," said Mr Sinnamon.

Mr Sinnamon further called upon all candidates to give a clear commitment against privatisation and intends to put that question to each candidate. He will be publishing the responses on the web site candobetter.org.

James Sinnamon is also convener of Citizens Against Selling Telstra. The responses will also be published on its web site at citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com.

Contact:
James Sinnamon
Independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha,
0412 319669, 07 31185221
PO Box 86, Red Hill QLD 4059
james[AT]candobetter.org
candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

See also: "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Independent candidate seeks categorical assurance against privatisation from Laurence Springborg" of 11 Mar 09, "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent" of 9 Mar 09, citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com.

#FromAndrewFraser-13mar09" id="FromAndrewFraser-13mar09">Appendix: Letter from Andrew Fraser of Friday 13 March 2009

Mr James Sinnamon

Dear Mr Sinnamon

Thank you for your e-mail of 17 February concerning Queensland Government policy on privatisation.

The Queensland Government's record on the sale of Government assets is very clear. We will only ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the Queensland community and where the Government is able to maximise the financial return to taxpayers.

The Queensland Government has effectively managed such transactions in the past ensuring the proceeds are applied effectively to improve the state's stock of social and economic infrastructure such as the sale of the regional airports where the proceeds will go to hospitals in Cairns, Mackay and Mount
Isa. Under the sales agreement for this transactions the airport will operate under a long term lease and the state will continue to own the land and airport infrastructure.

We have not and will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation.

Yours sincerely

(signature)

ANDREW FRASER

#ToAndrewFraser-13mar09" id="ToAndrewFraser-13mar09">Appendix: My letter in response of Friday 13 March 2009

Dear Andrew Fraser,

The letter I have received from you is not the categorical assurance against privatisation that I was seeking from you.

Furthermore, it significantly contradicts what I recall that you told Brisbane listeners on Madonna King's Breakfast show this morning.

This morning, according to my recollection, you said that there were no plans to privatise any more of Queensland's assets and that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation.

In contrast, your letter states:

"The Queensland Government's record on the Sale of Government. We will only
ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the
Queensland community."

Further along, in marked contrast to my recollection of your statement that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation, the letter merely states, "We have not and will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation."

So can you please make clear to me whether you are ideologically opposed to privatisation or just merely not ideologically in favour of privatisation?

Either way this doesn't provide the categorical assurance I was seeking.

I therefore repeat my challenge to you, and to other candidates, who appear to favour privatisation during the next term of Parliament, including, it would seem, the opposition leader Lawrence Springborg, that you publicly debate the issue of privatisation with a candidate opposed to privatisation, such as myself.

I will also be asking all candidates for categorical assurances that they will oppose privatisation during the course of the next Parliament. I trust that the ABC, the Courier Mail and other newsmedia will make the responses known to electors so that they can be fully informed when they cast their votes.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

I will be standing as an Independent pro-democracy candidate in the state electorate of Mount Coot-tha in the forthcoming state elections.

In part, my purpose in standing is to raise critical policy issues, which I believe will otherwise not be drawn to the attention of the Queensland public.

One issue is privatisation.

The evidence clearly shows that privatisation has gravely harmed the public interest and as a consequence, has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public, including the Queensland public, for years.

Yet, most Australian governments, including your own, have persisted in imposing privatisation without any popular support and without any electoral mandate.

The list of privatisations, which comes to my mind, includes Energex, Ergon, the Golden Casket, the Mackay and Cairns airports, the Dalrymple Bay Coal loader and numerous tracts of valuable publicly owned land.

Indeed, the only privatisation that was raised in an election campaign of which I am aware, is that of the then named State Government Insurance Office (SGIO), now named Suncorp. Former Premier Peter Beattie promised during the 1998 election campaign not to fully privatise the half privatised SGIO, but, upon winning office, promptly broke that promise.

Last year we witnessed, in neighbouring NSW the appalling spectacle of the NSW corporate sector including Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper, clamouring for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, even though that policy was never put to the NSW public in the previous state elections of 2007, had been explicitly rejected in the 1999 elections and was opposed by at least 79% of the NSW public.

In spite of the widespread public opposition, and in defiance of a vote 702 to 107 against privatisation at the NSW state Labor Party conference of May 2008, Morris Iemma's Government proceeded to ram through the privatisation legislation anyway. Thankfully for the people of NSW, the legislation was blocked with the votes of the Liberal/National Party Opposition, Greens and Independents.

Premier Anna Bligh, I was disturbed to read that your Government also gave its support for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, in spite of your own reported personal stance against the privatisation of Queensland's electricity generators in 2006.

Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell of yet more of their assets, including Queensland Railways, electricity generators, more airports, the water grid, public buildings, public land, etc.

The reason I write this letter is to seek your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Cooth-tha

In "Council amalgamation costs blow out another $100 million" in the Courier Mail of 29 Jan 09 Hannah Davies, reported:

"THE cost of Queensland's controversial local council amalgamations is spiralling, with ratepayers set to fork out a further $100 million to foot the bill.

"Despite State Government claims that merging councils would save money, many are struggling to offset the costs of amalgamation and are asking for extra funding.

...

"Council lobby group the Local Government Association of Queensland said amalgamation costs had been severely underestimated.

...

"(Acting director Greg Hoffman said,) "We are estimating the government will need to spend $100 million over the next 10 years to enable councils to implement the changes.

...

"As reported in The Courier-Mail this week, Moreton Bay Regional Council - formed from merging Redcliffe, Caboolture and Pine Rivers - will have to spend almost $1 million on new uniforms for staff."

This is on top of $3.5 million to equalise staff wages and $1.9 million to align computer systems.

...

On 30 Jan 09, Johanne Wright responded in a letter entitled "Merger cost predictable":

"As president of a residents' association which supported genuine local government reform, but was appalled at the seriously flawed and undemocratic, forced amalgamations, it comes as no surprise that the costs of this process were seriously underestimated by the Sate Government.

"It should come clean and spell out what savings will accrue and when we will see these. Our research shows that there will be negligible to no savings. Any that might occur will take five to 10 years to accumulate."

In the meantime, both Queensland taxpayers and local ratepayers will continue to pay for the anti-democratic amalgamations of 2007 rammed through by then Labor Premier Peter Beattie and then Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser (now Qld state Treasurer) made at the behest of the Property Council of Australia. This is on top of the ever-escalating increases in charges of water, electricity, transport, housing, etc. caused by the Queensland Government's policies of privatisation and enforced popoulation growth.

The Property Council demanded amalgamations because it regarded smaller councils, such as the now abolished Noosa and Douglas Shire Councils, which were more responsive to the wishes of local residents, as impediments to their plans to impose urban development and population growth.

However, the forced amalgamations were opposed by a massive grassroots opposition in all of the local government areas to be abolished. In every local government area in which residents were consulted, amalgamation was rejected overwhelmingly.

Of course, the Courier Mail is now silent on its own support for amalgamation which flew in the face of Queensland public opinion and the hard evidence. At one point, during the heigh ot the controversy, pro-John Howard Courier Mail even seemed to cynically welcome the prospect that then Federal Opposition leader Kevin Rudd would pay a political price at the 2007 elections for the conduct of his Queensland state Labor counterparts. This was in spite of the fact that Rudd, unlike the Courier Mail, had at least gone on the public record as being opposed to the council amalgamations.

If ever Queenslanders are ever able to fix up the shambles created by the Beattie and Bligh governments, it won't be any thanks to the Courier Mail.