Anna Bligh

The report by past Federal Treasurer Peter Costello of his supposedly independent investigation into Queensland State finances on behalf of the Queensland Government Commission of Audit recommended the full privatisation of Queensland Government's electricity generators. Only last year, the Queensland public, outraged at the asset fire sale embarked upon by former Premier Anna Bligh without any electoral mandate whatsoever from the 2009 state elections, savagely punished Labor at the ballot box leaving only 7 sitting Labor members in a house of 89.

That, less than a year after, the new Government of Campbell Newman has contrived an excuse to continue with policies, that have been so resoundingly repudiated by Queenslanders, provoked outrage. An example of the outrage felt is a new opinion poll taken by news.com, which shows that Qld privatisation [is] opposed by 85%: poll.

Professor John Quiggin of the University of Queensland responded on 6 March with a post on his web site. That post included a link to a pdf report which, by examining the disastrous history of privatisation across Australia in recent decades, comprehensively demolishes the case for any privatisation.

In fact, much of the ground covered by Professor Quiggin has also been covered by candobetter.net and, before that, the site citizensagainstsellingtelstra.net. I realised that Professor Quiggin's pdf document could be made so much more useful if it were reformatted from pdf into html so that it could be directly linked to other material on the Internet which is also against privatisation, particularly on candobetter.net. This document is the result of that work.

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary
Evaluation

Moreover, by endorsing the 'Facts and Myths' propaganda pamphlet and website, Treasury has completely destroyed its credibility on this issue. Not a single serious economist in Australia could be found to publicly endorse the spurious claims made by 'Facts and Myths'. The same will be true of whatever Treasury analysis is produced to support future asset sales.

The Commission of Audit Interim Report

Exactly the same points are applicable to the Commission of Audit. The appointment of a Commission of Audit is a routine piece of political theatre, almost invariably adopted by newly elected conservative governments. Invariably, such Commissions report massive fiscal mismanagement by the outgoing Labor government and recommend policies in line with the preferences of the government that appointed them.

The Queensland Commission of Audit is a particularly transparent example. Its chair, former Treasurer Peter Costello, appointed his own Commission of Audit which was used to justify the Howard government's abandonment of 'non-core' election promises. In office, Costello used asset sales to produce spurious improvements in the government's balance sheet.

Although the Howard-Costello government presented itself as a model of fiscal rectitude, independent evaluations have been far less charitable. An International Monetary Fund assessment (Mauro et al 2013) described the Howard government, in its later terms as fiscally 'profligate'.

The conclusions of the Commission of Audit were entirely predictable. Equally predictable was the Commission's, and the Newman governments, refusal to engage with criticism. Following the pattern set by Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser, independent analyses of the Commission's interim report were dismissed wit.h contemptuous quips and ad hominem attacks.

The Commission of Audit Final Report

The recommendations of the Costello Commission have been released, but the report itself remains secret. The only plausible interpretation are

(i) the analysis presented in the report is so weak that its release would undermine the political case for the policies being recommended; or

(ii) the analysis is inconsistent with claims made by the Newman government about tax and expenditure policy

Summary

The sale of Queensland electricity assets has been put forward as a way to reduce electricity prices and improve the state's financial position. In reality, it will achieve neither of these goals.

Footnotes

#fn1" id="fn1">1 (#txt1">text) From the point of view of the corporate interests and their government glove puppets like Peter Beattie, Anna Bligh, Jeff Kennett, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard, privatisation has often not been politically disastrous and rarely disastrous in personal or financial sense. Whilst some may have eventually paid a political price by having lost office, they achieved what they had set out to do and can expect to be richly rewarded in their post-political lives by the corporate sector for their services.

#fn2" id="fn2">2 (#txt2">text) That Kennett was re-elected even once is symptomatic of the political bankruptcy of other opposition forces in Victoria, including the Victorian Trades Hall Council, which called off general strikes against Kennett even though the strikes enjoyed strong popular support. Once people cease being engaged politically, such as when they take industrial action and march in the streets, their minds become easier for the mainstream media to mould. In any case, given the records of 'Labor' governments before and since Kennett's time, which were, at best, mediocre, it is little wonder that many Victorians could not bring themselves to vote Labor.

#fn2" id="fn12">2 (#txt2">text) That Kennett was re-elected even once is symptomatic of the political bankruptcy of other opposition foreces in Victoria, including the Victorian Trades Hall Council, which called off general strikes against Kennett even though the strikes enjoyed popular support.

#fn3" id="fn3">3 (#txt3">text) Peter Beattie has recently expressed remorse for his role in initiating privatisation in Queensland. He correctly acknowledged that the fire sale of publicly owned assets by his successor Anna Bligh, with no electoral mandate, was what caused the devastating defeat of the Labor Party in Queensland last year. (See Former Queensland premier Peter Beattie says he retired too early and feels responsible for Labor's poor poll showing in the Courier Mail of 8 March 2012. Apparently Peter Beattie's regrets do not extend to include: his undermining of Labor's Federal election chances in 2007 with forced local government amalgamations, his negotiations with Prime Minister John Howard over the implementation of the "never ever" GST after John Howard's rorted election victory of 1998, which sabotaged a popular campaign against the GST, full privatisation of half privatised Suncorp (formerly the State Government Insurance Office) in 1998 in spite of promising to retains government ownership in the election campaign of the same year, privatisation of the Golden Casket lottery, etc..

What you won’t hear from Labor or Liberal spokespeople about the causes of the Queensland election result.
Cost of living has been given as a major cause of Labor's loss in the Queensland elections 2012, but the real reasons for these rising costs are skirted. The Liberals have even tried to pin these costs on taxes that have not yet been used. See also James Sinnamon's articles about privatisation and population policy in Queensland and how he tried to call the government, the unions, and the Greens to account on these well before the 2012 elections.

By Dr John Coulter, 28 March 2012
(Headings and illustration are by Candobetter editors).

Most surveys and commentaries have identified ‘cost of living’ pressures as one of the main factors leading to the collapse in Labor support in Queensland. But few commentators have sensibly analysed the reasons for rising living costs and some have mistakenly dismissed the clear link to Federal Government policy. Many Liberal commentators have wrongly tried to blame rising living costs on taxes which have not yet been implemented.

Objective evidence that living costs are rising

Queenslanders’ perception that living costs have been rising is supported by objective evidence; these rising costs apply across Australia and have been evident for some time. Ross Garnaut’s climate change update published in March 2011 pointed out that electricity prices had risen by 32% in real terms between 2007 and 2010 ‘well ahead of the general increase in prices and faster than growth in the average wage’(1). Household electricity prices have been rising faster than those in other advanced economies since 2007.

Electricity more expensive

Garnaut identified the cost of upgrading the electricity network as the ‘single largest cause of price rises’ accounting for about 68%. His Report recognised especially the low voltage distribution network which was requiring enormous expansion in order to service a rapidly increasing number of consumers. Thus Garnaut established that population growth was a major factor driving up electricity prices. He predicted that these costs would continue to rise presumably because governments continue to pursue polices of high population growth.

Water more expensive

What is true for electricity is also true for water. ABS data show a 10% increase in household water costs between 2008-9 and 2009-10, three times the average CPI and with very wide variation between states and regions. In a 2011 ABC news item Queensland Urban Utilities says the hike is necessary to pay for the $9 billion south-east Queensland water grid, an area of rapid population growth. Population growth has led NSW, Victoria, South Australia and WA to build desalination plants producing very expensive water.

Infrastructure does not pay for itself

And so it goes with a wide range of infrastructure services. New people, whether they be Australian born or immigrants, need roads and hospitals, schools and police, sewage and rubbish collection, electricity and water. The cost of these services is not instantaneously borne by these new people; they are borne by existing citizens or, as more frequently happens, infrastructure falls behind need and existing citizens suffer worse services. Roads, schools and hospitals become more congested.

Infrastructure does not last forever. It has been estimated that across all infrastructure, approximately 2% must be replaced each year just to maintain the existing level of service. Two years ago Australia’s population was growing at 2% per year meaning that we had to spend twice as much on infrastructure just to keep pace with population growth (2). In that year Infrastructure Australia estimated that we needed to spend $730 billion or approximately half our annual GDP just to get the country’s infrastructure up to scratch (3).

Privatising public assets to pay for population growth and still not managing

Fortunately, Australia’s rate of population growth has declined somewhat but is still running at 1.4%. Thus we must continue to spend 70% more on infrastructure, just to stand still, compared with what would be needed with a stable non-growing population. Anna Bligh sold public assets in an unsuccessful attempt to match new infrastructure requirements to population growth. She failed on both counts.

Australia does not need to grow its population. We are in a situation in which the costs of population growth outweigh any benefits. Those who do benefit are some of the business interests that make large donations to the two big parties. Herein lies an explanation why, with the exception of Kelvin Thomson (4), none of the Laborial members who have commented on the Queensland election have identified population growth as the reason for large cost of living increases and the demise of the Bligh Government.

Public are right that life is becoming harder in Australia

A second reason lies in the way the main economic indicator of progress and success (GDP growth) misleads and is used by governments to deliberately mislead. Most government spokespeople and most economic commentators use the glib euphemism ‘Standard of Living’ which, when linked to rising GDP, is used to imply that we have never had it so good. GDP is measured in dollars. It makes no distinction between money spent on things that positively improve life and money spent on avoiding the costs of growth. For example, as cities grow and more people live further from their place of work, the additional costs of transport add to GDP. These are costs masquerading as benefits. The increased costs of electricity and water mentioned above add to GDP. When better based, more comprehensive measures of economic progress are used, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), we see that the latter has been falling further behind GDP since the mid-70s (5). In short, we really are becoming worse off!

It follows, the perception that the cost of living has risen steeply is well based. Life is becoming more difficult. Will the Liberal and Labor parties learn these two lessons: move to curb population growth and start using much better measures of social and economic progress? Until they do the electorate will become ever more angry, more disaffected by hollow political rhetoric and will continue to throw out governments that cannot deliver, governments that are steering toward the wrong goals.

References:

1.

Professor Ross Garnaut, Transforming the electricity sector, Climate Change Review Update 8,tinyurl.com/garnaut-review8
2.

Dr Jane O’Sullivan, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10137&page=0
3.

Infrastructure Australia, June 2011 Report to COAG Communicating the Imperative for Action
4.

Sky News's AM Agenda on 26 March 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_18xEcPAPk&list=UUHJgaKR3Glj9bQW4VHYr35A&index=1&feature=plcp
5.

Dr Phillip Lawn, Senior Lecturer Environmental Economics, Flinders University, Personal Communication

Frodo still has pellets in the stomach. Condemnation from the Queensland government is rather shallow when biodiversity in southeast Queensland is under pressure from habitat loss primarily due to increased urbanisation, driven by population growth, a fact stated in the State Government’s State of the Region (SEQ) report.
State planning is currently based upon the fool’s dream of endless growth. Human population growth brings disfunction, social dis-ease, lack of connection to our land and indigenous species, and increased crime. Her veterinarian carers confirm they cannot remove all the pellets from her tiny body.

Shallow sympathy belies institutional callousness in Queensland

Frodo still has pellets in the stomach. Condemnation from the Queensland government is rather shallow when biodiversity in southeast Queensland is under pressure from habitat loss primarily due to increased urbanisation, driven by population growth, a fact stated in the State Government’s State of the Region (SEQ) report.

State planning is currently based upon the fool’s dream of endless growth. Human population growth brings disfunction, social dis-ease, lack of connection to our land and indigenous species, and increased crime. Her veterinarian carers confirm they cannot remove all the pellets from her tiny body.

Echoing the fiction of many of Australia's urban planners and pro-immigrationists, Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh characterized Vancouver as a showcase for "green development" following a recent trip to the fabled city. Growth is somehow made palatable when it is re-christened as "development", and of course, tacking the adjective "green" to it makes any development proposal seem benign. With "green development" the Growth Lobby can have its cake and develop it too. Trouble is, Vancouver's greener pastures don't stand up to scrutiny.

I went to the "De-growth" Conference in Vancouver in early May. I met with Conrad Schmidt of the "Work Less Party", and others, who had a ring side seat to the farce which was the Olympics. I was intent upon writing a summary of the conference, but as usual, was sidetracked by other issues. That Vancouver is held up as a shining beacon of sensible planning is an outrage equivalent to the International Red Cross giving a Nazi concentration camp a five star hotel rating. I'm Vancouver-born, and returned to my roots to attend the conference. My impression of the place was only re-inforced. As I commented, it is a city built on an imported slave labour caste where the slaves, too exhausted by long hours and subsistence pay, are on the one hand, celebrated by the chic left and business class alike as agents of diversity, and on the other hand, blamed for not assimilating into our society by the resentful residents who feel their competition. The truth is, the working immigrant poor, have neither the time nor the energy to do so, and it is their children who must interpret mainstream culture for them. Same old con job. My great grandparents were caught in the same vice at the turn of the century. Today 38% of Vancouverites fail to earn the $18 per hour necessary to live a decent living. And 38% of city residents are foreign born. That correlation carries a message. Most newcomers are poor, and as elsewhere in Canada, take a decade to catch up with the hindmost Canadian working poor. They cannot earn the $25,000 per year necessary to pay enough taxes to reimburse governments for the services that are provided for them. In effect, "cultural diversity" is a corporate welfare scam where Canadians pay for the services of cheap labour and employers, landlords and realtors reap the reward. Nothing new about that script. Yet it is one that travel writers and eminent tourists from Brisbane never read.

Yes, Vancouver has invested billions in monorails. But owing to open-ended growth, that transportation network has not displaced car traffic but only supplemented it. Driving about the city is an even greater nightmare now than it was when I left. And in the shadow of this grand monuments there sleeps the homeless, who can be seen by day begging for money or dashing between cars to wipe windshields. Some find shelter by the entrances of million dollar condo highrises. Vancouver is a glowing testament to the truth that growth never closes the income gap, but widens it. It may reduce unemployment, but not the unemployment rate.It may increase the GDP, but not the per capita GNP. Growth may grow the but the forces that profit from it will will ensure that its benefits are not equitably shared by buying city elections and electing pro-development politicians to the provincial legislature. Even the social democratic NDP failed to arrest the widening disparity of wealth during its eight year reign. In fact, evidence suggests that it worsened. Yet leftist politicians still remain faithfull to the credo that to meet the need for affordable housing, education and health care, they must "grow" the revenues. That can only be done in two ways. One is the traditional way of "taxing the rich". But capital is a moving target, and won't live in a tax regime that is much higher than in other jurisdictions. The second way is to pursue economic growth, which the social democratic leadership has picked up as its banner too. The two party system is in reality, a one party growthist state with two competing factions whose differences can only be calibrated in nuances. But spout the same cant about cultural diversity and sustainability and employ common buzzwords. Every initiative is "green" and all growth is "smart".

A roomate of mine in the early eighties said it best. "Those who advocate more density will get more density without any end to sprawl." Jack Marshall said that smart growth was necessary but not sufficient. It is only necessary as a growth-enabler and a means to line developer pockets. Renegade urban planner Rick Belfour made it clear at the De-growth conference. There are no "green" buildings. We already have TOO MANY buildings and houses. In our post carbon future---if we have one--- cities of Vancouver's size will not be capable of being "fed or energized". Densification does not conserve energy---quite the contrary(see attachment). More energy is needed to transport food in and waste out. Energy is needed for highrise elevators and heat (ever seen a clothes line outside the 11th floor?). So rather than pack them in, as the soft green establishment keeps arguing, we need to disperse people fast. "It is not about the number of buildings", Belfour said, "but where they are situated". They need to situated close to farmland. We need to relocalize and re-ruralize, and depopulate the megalopolis.

I wrote the following upon my return:

Watch online: http://www.thefiveringcircus.com/5ring.swf This portrait of Vancouver will disabuse you of your illusions about my hometown. It is a story that is being played out across the world----the making of cities that mimic John Kenneth Galbraith’s description of America: private affluence co-existing with public squalor. In Vancouver (and elsewhere) we now have a two-party system. The “Work Less Party” , and the incumbent “Care Less Party”.

It would be instructional for Australians to see that. I am made sick by these recurrent tales of "Vancouver, the model city". Bullshit.

Some claim kangaroo meat is 'green'. Some even claim killing kangaroos is 'better' for Australia's environment. So what if Australian farmers of lamb, beef, pork and chicken transitioned to kangaroo?

To this author it is like employing Ivan Milat to skin platypus for cheap token tourist purses.

Personal bias aside, Australia's Federal Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, has highlighted the flawed presumptions of Australia's roo trade as unviable.

The following extracts are taken from Sydney Morling Herald's Jacob Saulwick in his article 'Henry doubts viability of roo harvesting' of 13-Mar-10:

In spite of the fact that 79% of the Queensland public oppose privatisation, 66% would support industrial action to stop the Bligh Government's $15 billion fire sale and many union members have expressed a willingness to strike, the Queensland unions have failed to take the only action that could possibly cause the Queensland Government to change its mind.

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

The following is taken from a PDF leaflet (69KB) I intended to distribute on Labor Day. Unfortunately, a friend's photocopier, which I had been relying upon to duplicate these broke down, so they were not distributed. Some of the material is borrowed from my article ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10. - JS

In disregard of the wishes of 79% of the Queensland public, the Bligh government is pushing ahead with plans to sell off $15 billion of our assets.

When the fire sale was first announced, in May 2009, 2 months after the elections, the outcry from the Queensland public was unprecedented. In the following months talk-back shows, newspaper letter columns and online forums were overwhelmed with opposition to the sale. Many people previously unsympathetic to trade unionism actually pledged their support for any industrial action against the sale.

That industrial action would have enjoyed public support was confirmed in December when a Courier-Mail online poll indicated 66% public support for the Redbank railway workers who struck upon learning their workshops were to be included in Fraser's privatisation plans.

The following motion was carried unanimously by a mass meeting of AMWU members at the Redbank workshops in June 2009:

Yet the unions failed to act.

Instead, they decided to undertake a long drawn-out campaign with redundant priorities, notably to 'convince' a public already solidly on-side. They also warned the Bligh Government of terrible retribution at the ballot box in 2012.

They seemed not to realise that the delay involved in an unnecessary attempt to convince the minority 16% of the Queensland public to oppose the sell-off would assist the further legislative and financial entrenchment of the sales (for example the $200 million paid to the commercial banks to oversee privatisation).

At a privatisation forum on 10 April, Queensland ETU Branch Secretary, Peter Simpson gave his view that the fight against privatisation was already lost, as I recollect, for the reasons decribed above. In view of Simpson's gloomy prognosis, perhaps union members and the broader public that had looked to unions such as the ETU to show leadership are entitled to know:

1. 1.The reasons the unions had for relying on their campaign thus far to convince Bligh and Fraser to change their minds;
2. If the unions truly imagined that their feeble campaign would succeed, at what point did it finally dawn on them that it would not; and
3. Why, at that point, did the unions not give their members the choice of taking the stronger action that would have been necessary for success?

In fact, although the fight has been made needlessly more difficult, the fight to stop privatisation is far from over.

Any union, which stands up to the Bligh Government, is almost certainly assured of overwhelming support from the Queensland public, disgusted by this Government's dictatorial arrogance and wanton deception in the 2009 elections.

An excuse sometimes offered to not take industrial action is the fear that the unionists may face punitive fines under anti-union laws inherited from the Howard Government. However, when railway workers struck against privatisation last December, the Bligh Government dared not invoke these laws against them and there is no reason to assume that they would dare do so now against workers striking against policies opposed by more than 79% of the Queensland public.

What you can do: Demand that your unions call meetings to give you the choice of whether or not to oppose privatisation with industrial action. Support other unions which take industrial action. Send me a copy of any motions carried, so that I can make these known to others on http://candobetter.net.

James Sinnamon, Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy, the Environment and Economic Justice, Australian Federal elections, 2010.

james[AT]candobetter.net, 0412 319669, PO Box 86, Red Hill Qld 4059
See also: http://candobetter.net/StopQueenslandFireSale http://candobetter.net/QldElections

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

The message being sent by the Australian Government in this 21st Century and in this UN International Year of Biodiversity is that killing wildlife and trade in wildlife is in 2010 somehow acceptable. Even Australia’s Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett at the CITES conference this month failed to oppose the continuation of international trade in critically endangered Bluefin Tuna and Polar Bears. Garrett should go back to singing for his supper.

Australia’s many species of macropods (mainly kangaroo and wallabies) used to be prolific. Now according to the World Wildlife Fund, 42 macropod species are listed, or in the process of being listed, on the IUCN red-list of species threatened with extinction. The distribution and abundance of all bettongs has been severely affected since European settlement. Of all 10 types of bettongs four are extinct, three are threatened and three are considered to be at low risk of extinction.

Western Australia’s woylie population has suffered more than a 90 per cent decline and has been re-listed as critically endangered. Of all five types of potoroos, one species is extinct, three are threatened and one subspecies is considered low risk despite suffering a 10-50 per cent decline in population. With 80 per cent of potoroo species extinct or at risk of extinction, this group of macropods has been severely affected.

There was one type of desert rat kangaroo, which is now extinct. Only known from the hottest and driest parts of Central Australia, has not been seen since 1935.

So long as Australia’s Liberal and Labor governments permit wildlife shooting, there will be people out there like Chris that will exploit it. It is time to outlaw wildlife poaching throughout Australia. It is morally wrong and it is driving species extinctions.

CONFESSIONS OF A WILDLIFE SERIAL KILLER

The following responses to questions were made by a self confessed wildlife killer in Dalby Queensland between 27th and 30th March 2010.

1. Killing kangaroos for commercial meat and destroying their remnant habitat is just a hangover from illegal colonist exploitation of Australia. Killing wildlife is poaching.

Roo Killer Response:
“its only poaching if the animal is protected form all licensed shooting - example koalas, wombats platypus.”

2. Killing native wildlife is wrong. Eating it only encourages supply of kangaroo meat, and perpetuate the wrong.

Roo Killer Response:
“why is it wrong explain that no one can cause there is no right or wrong just different points of view.”

3. Most kangaroo meat is sold as pet food, "not for human consumption". The pets (mainly cats and dogs) are introduced animals. Not only are colonists killing wildlife, they feed it to their pets.

Roo Killer Response:
“71% of roos shot in Australia are exported to Russia for human consumption, 25% for pet food and 4% are shot only for there skins…i shoot only for human consumption.”

4. If as roo poachers claim, that it is ok to eat Kangaroo, what about wombat, Koala and Platypus and dog?
Roo Killer Response:
“wombats, koalas and platypus are protected by law roo's arent protected if you have a marco pods harvesting licence and mate i dare you to eat a dogs liver and see if you live to tell the tail.”

5. "People are capable of eating anything that is available." So why is cat and dog not included? They are introduced animals. Thousands remain unwanted in RSPCA depots and lethal injection is a humane way of killing them. The Koreans eat dog so why not Australians?

Roo Killer Response:
“cause we’re Australian not Korean, dog is a delicacy to Koreans as is kangaroo to most of the world.”

6. Rood poaching ignores the ecological cost. If the roos shooters had to pay per carcass for the loss of the wildlife, their commercial exploitation would not be profitable. I can't see that with roo meat selling for under $4 a kilo how it is profitable anyway. Shooting wildlife for pet meat for pittance?

Roo Killer Response:
“so should people that own cats then have to pay for all the wildlife they kill. all we do is make a good living of an over populated community of animals keep the numbers down for everyone. and i can get a different job when ever i want i'm a mechanical fitter/welder by trade but i choose to do what i love.”

7. So long as cowboy poachers in utes hoon around the scrub shooting wildlife for a pittance and seek to legitimise it by calling it a 'kangaroo industry', there ought to be calls to set up a Poacher Culling Industry.

Roo Killer Response:
“I agree cause 98% of the cowboys hooning around the bush culling roo's aren't accredited and there shooting roos that i can make good money off. poacher's should have the book thrown at them they dont treat the animals the way professional's do.”

8. So where are kangaroos "out of control"? Why were theyr not out of control pre-white fella?

Roo Killer Response:
“if you knew anything about the Australian bush you'd know not much can actually live of the native grasses so when white fellas came and introduces good feed the roos got outta control. put a gold fish in a small tank it grows to the size that suit it's environment.... put the same gold fish in a big tanks and it will grow bigger to suit that environment if there is sufficient food.”

9. What is the minimum definition of a "professional shooter"? Is it anyone licenced to shoot holding a long arm licence? In NSW, this can mean a supervised 12 year old. How are recreational shooters and farmers holding a shooters licence distinguished from professional marksman with a marksman rating? I don't think they are. Australian shooting associations are all amateur and voluntary and there is no official 'professional shooters licence' as much as many roo shooters would comfort from such legitimacy.

Roo Killer Response:
“You have to hold a special license to harvest kangaroos in Australia, issues after an accuracy test and 2 TAFE courses are passed and your vehicle is up to spec and registered threw the states macro-pod harvesting agency the license is issued by the state you live in, the shooters association of Australia has nothing to do with it except issuing me with a gun license saying i can legally own a firearm,you must have a Queensland macro-pod harvesting registration number to btw and there is a special license, if anyone with out this license is caught shooting roo's it is classed as poaching and they get the book thrown at them with a jail term in toe.”

10. A kangaroo's head at 300 metres at dawn or dusk when kangaroos are grazing and so typically shot by roo shooters. This marksman standard ought to be the Australian professional standard. But I reckon we'd find bugger all shooters competent to that accuracy. Hence, despite this being a typical scenario this is why the lack of independent monitoring and systemic cover up of body shots.

Roo Killer Response:
“the government states an accuracy test must be past at 100 yard, 5 out of 5 shots in an inch and a half circle at 100 yards it like the size of a coke lid at that distance, and on a typical night i will take shots in excess of 450yards with a ruger mark2 m77 varmint rifle .223 caliber and hit it in the eye 9 out of 10 time, the other time it goes up its nasal cavity, roo shooters can out shot any long distance sportsman shooter by a long shot we depend on it for a living and shooting targets is a waste of time unless your sighting in your new rifle.”

11. Why is there no independent government watchdog overseeing roo shooters in outback QLD, NSW, SA, WA? Is it because state governments couldn't give a toss?

Roo Killer Response:
“Queensland macro-pod harvesting branch is located in charleville, and each shooter has to purchase tags with the numbers on it so a table to field trace can be establish and all carcasses are inspected by a government vet b4 the go for human consumption, or dog meat. yet again your not in the industry so i wouldn't expect you to actually know the facts only the emotional stuff.”

12. "Kangaroos are destroying...crops" Where?

Roo Killer Response:
“go talk to any wheat. lucerne, oat, or any veggie farmer and they will give you the honest truth and you have to actually leave the city to see where the kangaroos are doing the damage, go to any country town sit at the bar at the local pub and ask the old fellas or any locals from the area and you'll be told what you need to be told.”

13. "Kangaroos are taking valuable feed away from cattle" Where?

Roo Killer Response:
“the macro-pod harvesting license is issued by the EPA (environmental protection agency) just to add insult to injury. check out www.rooshooter.com.au for a little heads up”

(Kangaroo killing) ..."it’s not a pittance of a wage mate since the chiller box re-opened on the 15/1/2010 till this morning 29/3/2010 i placed my 5204th tag on the last roo i shot last night. and that's just for this year so far..... at an average weight of 28kg's going off my records that's right every roo has to be recorded when, where, weight etc..... so far this year that's a grand total of $98,876 b4 taxes.... so if i actually shot for the entire year i will have shot 20816 roos for the year there lucky i take 3 months off over winter aren't they.... and that's just me 1 of over 1500 registered roo shooters in Queensland alone. And yet most of us full timers shoot an average of 20,000 roo's a year and somehow we keep doing this year in and year out and the numbers aren't dropping there's still in excess of 60 million roo's in Australia according to last years study done by the EPA so really we need more roo shooter's."

"well you all have a good day I'm going to bed got a long night ahead of me making my pittance of a wage. oh and tiger quoll maybe some time you should come out roo shooting with me so you can see what its all about. sorry but i can't let you shoot any cause well that would be poaching but you'll still see them in plague proportion and actually know how it really is and see first hand the damage they do. well y'all have fun working the jobs that you hate while i sleep the day away after a profitable night 1100 buck for one night at work who woulda guessed you could make this kinda money and actually enjoy your job."

Further comments:

lol that was funny (29-Mar-2010):

“lol just fueled me ute up at the bp in dalby with a 32 roos and 8 pigs on the back, there were a bus load of city slickers there lol, never seen so many peeps near threw up and crying lmao why do people react to it like that if you dont like wat we do in the bush stay in the city. might have been cause watto and i were eating kfc while we were fueling up dont know. you all need to harden up. its the easiest thing a person can do for a living. yet again your all just turning the situation back around to emotional crap the roo's dont feel a thing they dont even know wats happened to em.

And yeha roo's may have been here for thousands of years but i can tell ya this i'll be shooting them till the day i die and i wont even make an impact on there numbers in australia, my son is an up and coming roo shooter to at the age of 4 he can skin and gut a roo nearly as quick as me and over the last 4 weekends he has shoot over 50 roos with only 8 misses they still didnt get away tho like always dad was there to clean up the mess. my advice is roo shooters are here to stay deal with it weather it's leagally or illegally roos will be shoot till the end of time or at least untill they learn to shoot back. if you dont like it dont purchase any of the products and you'll be rite out of site out of mind.

i'm chris's partner (29-Mar-2010)

“hi all look i'm a chick and go out every now and then shooting with chris and yes he told me he said about our son going along look its something that as an animal lover i see your point of view on the situation , i used to hate it until i started going out shooting with him and there is actually nothing morally wrong with it at all, chris kills every animal with the utmost respect and never hurts or injuries any joeys they get a quick and painless death like the rest of the roos in his sites, in the last 6 years we've been together i think i've only seen him misses 10 times and that wasn't a complete miss that was a neck shot instead of a head shot, he truely is a master at what he does, and plus the look on his face when he teaches his son and spends time with him out there is worth any amount of roo's lives, i have a photo of chris with our son and the first pig he shot the smile on chris's face i've only seen a few time , when we got married and when our son was born. it's like any thing if you love it you excell at it and do it right. look what happens out there is up to the individual dont judge all roo shooters on the ones you see in the papers giving them a bad name they arent doing anything wrong, there making a living of the land and helping out the local farmers. if cattle were australian wildlife would you all be lobbing to stop them being farmed???? or trying to make life harder for the beef industry i think not.

And to answer you suggestion (29-Mar-2010)

"...Yes, it is as easy as choosing a small or large macca's meal, he doesnt even bat an eye lid at them when i first went out shooting with him i grabbed one of the joeys and tried to take it home with us, chris went off and killed it i felt bad but i understand why he lives by the you gotta be cruel to be kind theory cause well its true it's a sad fact but it has to be done. it's not cruel or inhumane the way he does it, he does it by the book. if he can he tries to avoid shooting doe's for the fact that well i dont think he actually likes to kill the joey's, he might not flinch or have any compassion for the joey if he does shoot a doe's that has a joey but he doesnt smile for a while after. so i think it does in a way affect him when he has to kill a joey just he's not the type to show it. he's gunna be pissed at me for saying that but well he isn't a cold heartless killer like most of you may think.

loop holes mate loop holes (30-Mar-2010):

"There's a loop hole in the claws that people shooting with an accredited shooter, can if deemed competent by the accredited person to assist in them in there duties it doesn't actually state that they can't shoot the roo's while under the supervision of an a credited shooter, i was just getting my point across to tiger quoll that it's not poaching in any way shape or form if you have the correct license's. i honestly think that any one and every one should be aloud to shoot roo's with no limitations, its plain and simple there's to many of them i boxed 114 of them last night and could have easily shot more, but the night isn't long enough, also got 26 pigs there worth more but harder to find even tho there in plague proportion to unlike a roo a pig has a mind and thinks as soon as a pig see's you, your dog, a spotlight ect they do the bolt. and this instinct isn't from being in a spot light before cause like a roo they'd be dead, nothing roo, goat, pig, deer, cat, rabbit, fox or dingo lives to tell the tale when i get my sights on it. a few of my cousins came up to my place last weekend and where trying to challenge me to see wat i could and couldnt do with my .223, there was a hare about 600 to 650 yards away and they put money on it that i couldnt hit it, more fool them, took its head clean off and just to show them it wasnt a fluke i placed the other 4 rounds in to the carcass."

"Look nothing that get shoot by a professional feels a like, it's oh look a light and there dead before they even hear the shot. now any other animal would be long gone after the first shot. but no a mob of roo's are the stupidest mob of animals in the world they jump 15-20 meters away and stop look back then start eating again if the paddock is big enough you can take out a mob of 20 within half and hour, and you only have to move your ute about 20meters in a circle. if they had any kind of smarts they would dissappear after the first shot, still doesnt help tho there just as perdictable on the hop as standing still just sit there and wait watch them threw the scope get the highest point while on the hop line it up and let her rip in the 6 years i've been shooting i've only missed maybe 10 roos that are on the hop and they were clean misses i dint nick the animal’

[Above comments were sourced from responses from Chris Palmer and his partner to a previous article by Menkit Prince ‘Kangaroo Meat: Why it's Not Good Bush Tucker!]

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

If Queensland's current runaway population growth continues, furhter encroachments upon the habitat of our endangered iconic koala are inevitible, practically guaranteeing their extinction from South East Queensland. Yet Premier Anna Bligh, by having renamed the 'population summit' to the 'Growth Summit', has told Queenslanders she is no longer interested in considering the one chance we have to save our koala, that is, population stability.

We reprint below a letter from the Save Our Koalas rally organisers

Dear Koala Supporters,

We asked what you wanted to do in response to the Queensland Government's upcoming Growth Summit, and an overwhelming majority of you want to let Anna Bligh know that the Koala is more important than unlimited growth in Australia.

We need to send a message loud and clear to Anna Bligh and Kevin Rudd, that rushed development will have a catastrophic effect on Koala populations in SEQ, our lifestyles and our biodiversity, and that it could cause the extinction of the koala.

Rally outside the main entrance of Queensland State Library, Southbank, Brisbane at 11.00am Tuesday 30th March 2010.

Recently I noticed that a new study had been commissioned by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) on the subject of animal welfare in the kangaroo industry. The RIRDC kangaroo advisory committee consists primarily of key stakeholders in the kangaroo meat and leather industry such as Brian Topper, Lindsay Packer, Greg Bates and Ray Borda. This committee determines what research is done to make the kangaroo industry develop and become more profitable. Obviously the committee consists of those making the biggest monetary gain from kangaroo exploitation so why all of a sudden do they want to draw attention to the ethics of the industry?

Your average RIRDC study

Studies performed by the RIRDC for the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) are (partly) funded by the Commonwealth government. Often the authors of these reports are directly or indirectly employed by the KIAA itself. For example John Kelly, the executive officer of the KIAA has written several reports for the RIRDC which he often quotes when defending the industry. Examples of these are the "Kangaroo industry strategic plan 2005-2010", "The kangaroo industry -- its image and market" and "Extending the sustainable management of kangaroos". The latter report is aimed at increasing the land areas that shooters have access to (including the whole of Victoria) or to put it another way, decreasing the number or size of refugia areas where kangaroos cannot be shot. Peter Ampt from the FATE program also bobs up in RIRDC reports such as "Consumer attitudes towards kangaroo meat".

RSPCA Pressure or EU Ban

I cannot find a single study done by the RIRDC in the past that has focused on the welfare of kangaroo joeys. This is despite calls for this type of research from organizations such as the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups since at least 1985. The joey issue has been raised on every committee involved in the creation or amendment of the Australian Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos (or "the code") yet has never been acted on until now.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I would suggest that this new study has been commissioned by the RIRDC in an attempt to mask the insensitivity inherent in the industry towards the fate of joeys. Could this possibly have something to do with the proposed ban of kangaroo products into the EU? It would appear the RSPCA have finally got the research study they have been requesting for the last 25 years but you have to wonder, why now ? The study does not conclude for another 2 years but the mere fact that it is being done at all gives the KIAA, the RIRDC and the Australian government an opportunity to dampen the issue on the world stage.

I thought the KIAA was happy with the towbar

Back in 2008 when "the code" was being revised the joey issue was raised again by the RSPCA. This time the use of shotguns to kill joeys made the headlines. John Kelly declared that the KIAA was "generally happy" with the new code and defended current killing methods including decapitation of unfurred joeys and a blow to the brain with a metal pipe or vehicle tow bar for larger pouch joeys as "perfectly humane activities". Further he added that "animal welfare is precisely what this code of practice is all about". As Kelly is clearly involved in RIRDC studies involving the kangaroo industry, why has the welfare of joeys suddenly appeared on the radar ?

It may appear that the concerns/demands of the RSPCA have finally been acknowledged but I doubt this is so. Even when the RSPCA openly criticises the code particularly over the joey issue, the KIAA and governments still claim that the industry has broad RSPCA support. In the words of John Kelly:

"the RSPCA itself is on record as supporting the animal welfare outcomes of the kangaroo harvest"

In the broadest sense Kelly is actually correct, the RSPCA has stated that kangaroo culling is a humane practice when done correctly..... the devil is always in the detail. Like Greenpeace, the RSPCA appears to be unable or reluctant to clarify its "true" position on the kangaroo issue in the media. Little wonder the KIAA milk this positive publicity for all its worth.

Anna Bligh doing her bit

The Russian ban on kangaroo meat last year could also be a driving force behind the industry trying to improve its image. The Russian decision however was officially based on public health issues, it had nothing to do with animal welfare concerns. Perhaps Queensland premier Anna Bligh needs that point explained a little more clearly. Earlier this year anti-roo industry activists, kangaroo shooters and even the KIAA itself were understandably puzzled by her "introduction" of a ban in trading of kangaroo carcasses that had not been head-shot. Supposedly, all Australian states with a kangaroo industry have had this ban in place for many years now, she either hasn't got a clue or maybe she knows more than most after her time spent in Russia trying to overturn the decision. In her attempts to get more Queenslanders to eat roo meat she has resorted to publicity shots of herself biting into kangaroo kebabs. This cheap form of publicity was recently used by Canadian politicians when they tucked into plates of seal meat. Perhaps Bligh was inspired by the Canadian governor general who last year ate raw seal heart directly from the carcass of a seal pup in front of the cameras. Monkey see, Monkey do....

John Kelly's definition of humane

The comparison of commercial wildlife killing methods with those used on domestic animals is always a subject that crops up during any kangaroo debate. The herding of sheep or cows followed by queuing for the slaughterhouse is often claimed to be more distressing for the animals involved than being head-shot in your natural environment. The subject of joeys rarely rates a mention when this oversimplified comparison is drawn. It is an argument used by the KIAA and its supporters, many of whom are environmentally aware to a varying degree. Of course this is also a view held by John Kelly and this provides us with an opportunity to understand what passes as humane in his world. Kelly's other interests include a possum abattoir that was secretly filmed in the late 1990's resulting in a legal battle between his company and the ABC. When questioned on the "7.30 Report" about the method used to slaughter brushtail possums in his abattoir Kelly replied :

"We've developed a code of practice to ensure that possums are placed under minimal stress and we believe they are placed under actually less stress than most sheep and cattle processed in a domestic abattoir"

This code of practice involved the stunning of possums in a holding cage before they are thrown down a chute into an area where their throats are cut. At the time of the interview Kelly was unaware of the secret recording. The reporter then played him a copy of the tape and asked him whether the possums that were running along the chute (and on the ground) into the bleeding area were stunned or not. His reply was :

"If an animal moves at the point when it is about to be stunned it can be missed to some extent"

Is leaving a joey to starve to death after its mother has been shot more humane than cutting the throat of a fully conscious possum ? I shudder to think. It does seem obvious that animal welfare is not Kelly's strong point and any sentence uttered by him containing the word "humane" should be treated with due scepticism

.

A RIRDC study on the welfare of joeys is like a tobacco industry study on lung cancer

Which takes us back to this new study being commissioned by the RIRDC and headed up by Dr Steve Mcleod. It appears they will trial the use of spring-loaded captive-bolt guns to stun joeys before they are killed and I assume they are not getting advice from John Kelly to do this. This research is partly funded by the levies they collect from kangaroo shooters for each carcass. I would have thought an independent study more appropriate for this subject as industry based research is conducted to develop an industry, not hinder it. The subject of kangaroo industry RIRDC reports from the past such as those outlined earlier have been carefully selected by Kelly, Packer, Topper etc using the development funds currently available to them. Why would they direct that funding towards an aspect of the industry they would rather gloss over unless they plan to just give it another coat. I was however encouraged by Dr Mcleod's comments on the ABC:

"Because they harvest at night and the young at foot might not be close to a mother that's shot they sometimes might not get seen....... We don't know the extent of that problem and we don't know what actually happens to those young."

By John Kelly's estimate the extent of the problem is that it affects around 0.1% of the kangaroo population. I would suggest that statistics are not Kelly's strongest point either but undoubtedly the cost of Kelly's calculation will turn out to be significantly cheaper than Dr Mcleod's study. Like Anna Bligh, cheap appears to be John Kelly's style.

"We are in the business of selling meat and images of dead animals don't do so" ..... You said it John.

Message sent to growthsummit[at]premiers.qld.gov.au on Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:57 PM by Daniel Boon

Subject: Re Anna Blighs 'Foreword'

Queensland is unique and does have a diverse landscape; however, it doesn’t have a strong economy (otherwise income producing assets wouldn’t be for sale) as a failure to balance the budget indicates; our community identity is fragmented, given the influx of 2,100 people every week.

If, over the next 20 years, Queensland’s population does rise to 5 - 7 million people, then we are in for a harried life style similar to that of Sydney / NSW. The 'growth from record levels of overseas migration and to a lesser extent higher fertility rates' is something the State government does have some say over; an infrastructure fee should be levied on all new arrivals to lessen the environmental, financial and social impact of those incoming people.

Our population growth provides great financial benefits for corporations that fund the major political parties; short-sighted property sellers fail to realize that more land and nature surrounding their property will attract a premium in the not too distant future; however, continued growth will further over-burden our already stretched resources and infrastructures. Public works may create jobs in the short term, but in the long term, they just pose more financial burdens - as liabilities - on the populace.

The first challenge may be perceived providing places for people to live, work and play, but in reality, the Qld Labor Party - with unchecked growth - will see the eventual demise of the koala in Queensland as humans squeeze flora and fauna out. Building an additional one million dwellings will sorely test the forests and other resources and increase greenhouse gas emissions that the Labor government crows so much about introducing policies to decrease.

Population growth and preserving our environment, a classic oxymoron.

Queenslanders are among the highest consumers of energy and producers of waste in the world and our per capita consumption and waste is increasing each year and this is because despite claiming to have sustainable housing criteria, our houses consume more energy in construction and on-going running costs than homes in far colder / hotter climates; in other words, our houses are energy inefficient and that starts with a lack-lustre builder education process by organizations such as TAFE who employ staff with no real idea of what makes a house energy efficient; its far more than a batt of insulation and a mercury injected CFL light.

The 'global financial crisis' will continue regardless, mainly because governments spend more than they ‘earn’ to present a façade of successful management meanwhile spending our children’s future now.

The only option of the Bligh government is to stay within its earnings budget; however, past performance proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it neither has the ability or knowledge to manage in good times or the current situation, let alone plan for growth.

Every decision that involves spending more than one has will compromise everything we once loved about Queensland. Rather than a strong foundation, the Bligh / Labor government undermines our very future. The ‘grand plan’ - allegedly supported by 10 other regional plans across the state and covering about 90% of our population - was drawn up by what I call 'corporate government', corporations that direct the State government; and is not supported by thinking born and bred Queenslanders.

Bligh is right about one thing, it isn’t a one-way street, as our population increases our unique environment diminishes irreversibly. There is no such thing as sustainable growth because growth doesn’t understand the concept of balance.

The Queensland Government’s Growth Management Summit is a farce and the spin words ‘stronger, greener, smarter, healthier and fairer’ are the opposite of what will happen. Queenslanders wince noticeably when Laborites use the terminology 'smart state'.

See also: Queensland Government Growth Summit web-site at growthsummit.premiers.qld.gov.au.

The Bligh Government has arrogantly proceeded with its privatisation plans despite over 80% of Queenslanders opposing the decision.

The government’s original reason for the sell-off - to plug an alleged hole in the budget due to the Global Financial Crisis - just does not stack up anymore.

Come to the rally and help send a message to the State Government that you don’t support its privatisation plans.

Rally Details:

When: Tuesday 9 March, 2010
Time: 10:30am
Where: Roma St Forum followed by a march to Parliament House

For more information visit the Queensland Council of Union's "Queensland Not for Sale" campaign site

No government has the right to sell-off our kids’ future!

Authorised Ron Monaghan, Queensland Council of Unions, 16 Peel St, South Brisbane 4101

Thanks to "Your rights at work" for sending me this.

See also: "Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor" of 28 Feb 10.

The Queensland government plans to move koalas from a site earmarked for residential development. To where in South East Queensland, with ever more of its bushland being bulldozed by the Labor Government's developer benefactors and how the koalas can be expected to survive, let alone thrive, is unclear. We include an email from a save our Koalas. (We think http://www.savethekoala.com. The e-mail address is saveourkoalas [AT] gmail -dot- com)

Subject: Koala Habitat Hijacked for Development - Urgent Action Needed

Hello,

The Qld government has revealed that they plan to translocate a number of Koalas from a site earmarked for development of 600 residential blocks at Narangba near the Sunshine Coast in the very near future. It is apparent that the Queensland Government do not have robust policies in place to protect either the Koala or it's habitat. They plan to move the animals and would prefer that they suffer due to stress and starvation rather than implement the appropriate policies to ensure their survival.

This practice is unacceptable and sets a very dangerous precedence. We simply cannot allow the government to think that relocation takes precedence over necessary policy to protect our native wildlife.

We urge you to contact the Premier premiers [ AT ] ministerial.qld.gov.au and the Qld Sustainability Minister sustainability [ AT ] ministerial.qld.gov.au demanding that they stop this practice and get serious about protecting the Koala in South East Queensland.

Please do this today, we're running out of time.

Thank you

Save Our Koalas Rally Organisers

Editorial comment: Please also send us a copy of any e-mails sent and any responses, so that we can share them with our readers.

See also: www.savethekoala.com, Conservationist says Narangba koala relocation a death warrant ("Anger at koala 'final solution'" in printed version) by Brian Williams in the Courier-Mail of 19 Feb 10.

Originally published on the Queensland Greens web site on 10 Feb 09.

10 February 2010 - The Queensland Greens have today called for federal intervention to address the climate change impacts of the coal epidemic in central Queensland.

"The Greens want a climate trigger to be added to Australia's national environment laws so the federal government can step in to assess the full climate impacts of coal proposals, including Clive Palmer's China First and Gina Hancock's Alpha and Kevin's Corner coal mines in the Galilee Basin," said environmental lawyer and Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland, Larissa Waters.
Greens candidates Larissa Waters, Jenny Stirling and Jonathon Dykyj are visiting Bowen to hear community opposition to the coal mines, coal rail corridors, coal port expansions and local heavy industry area, and will attend a briefing on Galilee Basin coal projects where mining magnate Clive Palmer is also expected.

"The region's communities, the Reef, tourism, agriculture, grazing industries and development of alternative industries are being sacrificed for coal royalties, corporate profits and exports of more carbon pollution to China and Japan," said Ms Waters.

"The proposed coal mines in the Galilee Basin are massive and will turn Queensland into the world's biggest coal exporter right when the latest science is calling for urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," said Ms Waters.

"Premier Bligh is ignoring the revenue and thousands of jobs dependent on a healthy Great Barrier Reef and is failing to drive the creation of thousands of clean energy jobs which could be powering Queensland and protecting the climate," said Ms Waters.

"Hancock's Kevin's Corner and Alpha Coal Mine will forever mark the exact point at which Rudd capitulated to the coal lobby, squandering the mandate he was given to deal with climate change and betraying future generations of Australians" said Jenny Stirling, Greens third Senate candidate.

In addition to coal projects, the state government is dumping the worst polluting industries such as aluminium and nickel refineries with smelters, chlor-alkali plant, ammonium nitrate plant, coke and gas fired power plants right on to Bowen residents in a ‘state development area' which demotes the community's legal rights to oppose the development.

"The federal government needs to step in and conduct an assessment of the cumulative impact of heavy industry and resource extraction on the community and the environment in the region," said Ms Waters.

Candidate for Dawson Jonathon Dykyj said: "We are here to challenge the short-sighted and inappropriate development of this region and to put forward sustainable alternatives which are economically and environmentally sound for this wonderful part of Queensland."

The Greens want to see the region's economy based on clean energy industries and associated manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, tourism, and improved public health, education and services for the aging population and young families.

For comment:
Larissa Waters - Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland - larissa.waters [ AT ] qld.greens.org.au

Background on planned Bowen development blitz

• Massive 16,500 ha Bowen State Development Area to house some of the world's worst polluting industries such as aluminium and nickel refineries with smelters, chlor-alkali plant, ammonium nitrate plant, coke and gas fired power plants.
• Abbott Point Port expansion to export 110 Mtpa of coal together with a Multi Cargo Facility will require 580 ha dredging and reclamation in World Heritage Great Barrier Reef waters. Coal exports are projected to increase from the present 25Mtpa export upwards to 230 Mtpa with the Palmer/Hancock coal mines.
• Both of the above sited next to the nationally significant Caley (Keela) Valley Wetlands which meet RAMSAR status and are home to over 20,000 wetland and migratory birds and 200 species.
  490km rail corridors will be 100m wide from Galilee Basin (Palmer's China First) to Abbott Point, cutting through the township of Collinsville, stock routes, prime agricultural and grazing lands and ecosystems.
• Land clearing for the mines, railways, pipelines and coal stockpiles will affect thousands of hectares of vegetation and biodiversity habitat.

See also: "Clive Palmer, Queensland Government announce $69 Billion Coal project" in the Sunday Mail of 7 Feb 10.

Today (6 Jan 2010) in the Queensland Courrier Mail, http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/06/bligh-delivers-a-farce/ Bill Hoffman has written a robust opinion piece entitled, "Bligh delivers a farce".

Queensland's Marie-Antoinette Government

Pointing to the Queensland Government's forcing the Sunshine Coast Council to cooperate with the development of three sites, "owned by less than a handful of property development companies," Hoffman accuses the government of hiding behind the need of low-income families for housing in order to excuse unaffordable and environmentally damaging developments.

Queensland's Deceptively named Sustainable Planning Act

"Current infrastructure and planning minister, and former Property Council advisor, Stirling Hinchliffe[candobetter ed's emphasis] has been given unprecedented power under Queensland’s new and equally deceptively named Sustainable Planning Act, which was introduced in late December, 2009, to ride roughshod as he chooses over local government planning objectives."

He criticises the Queensland Government for allowing developers to buy up land with the intention of developing it, but holding on to it until the price goes up.

"A simple use-it-or-lose-it provision as a condition of approval would have at least guaranteed the articulated intent of the policy," he writes.

He describes how hypocritical this in the light of Kevin Rudd's early comments about combating the obscenity of homelessness. Today, however, about 100,000 Australians are estimated to be homeless in any week.

"The Affordable Housing Strategy has delivered an estimated $1 billion to the bottom line of just one property company," Hoffman ells us.

And he asks why "the unions, students, church groups, lawyers and community groups" aren't on the streets demanding an end to the farce."

Why the unions, churches, students, lawyers say nothing about this shame and destruction

I think I know why. They unions and church groups have invested their funds in property development; the lawyers make money out of conveyancing; many students are studying to be planners and won't pass or be employed by developers or the government if they stand up against corruption in development and population-building; and the community groups are disorganised through immigration, pace of projects, and poor information and communication, since they tend to rely on newspapers, tv and government for news. (This Hoffman article is a bit of an exception to that). Of course, if he is talking about mainstream environmental groups, well, most of them get grants from the government and their staff want to keep their positions.

Hoffman also says, "There is little the electorate can do about this having voted Labor back in at last year’s early poll, which was called before all the bad news began to filter out. ..."

Not true that people can do nothing

People can do something. Instantly! They can sign this petition calling for the government to resign:Sign here

How about a groundswell?

Here it is:

"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. "

"If this means having a LNP Government led by John-Paul Langbroek in office instead, that certainly seems preferable to the continued misrule by this crowd,"says its author, James Sinnamon. (See coming article from James Sinnamon).

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.

#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.

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

On 30 November 2009 I wrote the following letter to Anna Bligh:

Dear Anna Bligh

It's time the Queensland kangaroo killing industry was shut down before kangaroos become extinct. At present they are abundant and it's best they stay that way for the sake of this country's ecology. Kangaroos have always benefitted the environment (unlike humans who destroy it). Read The Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre report found at http://www.nokangaroomeat.org/ACT%20biodiversity%20report%20final%20copy.pdf

Conservation Icon, Steve Irwin had this to say about the lie of sustainable wildlife use:-

"As the horrific propaganda of sustainable use of native wildlife continues, and those people pushing it continue to attack me and threaten us, our world's precious wildlife is suffering as a result.

"Since when has killing animals saved a species? The farming, killing, skinning and eating of native animals is a rife and evil industry, which operates under the cloak of science and lies.

"Crocodile farmers claim that since they started farming and selling legal skins, meats and products, they have single-handedly saved crocodilian species from endangerment. This is the easiest lie to expose. In the countries that the croc farmers claim success, it's actually established protection laws and enforcement that protects these animals.

"Example: - Australian Crocodiles and American Alligators fully protected and policed in the 1970's. This is the truth of the Crocs and Gators recovery, protection by law!

"Now for the worst possible news - BUSHMEAT! As a result of established wildlife and
conservation organisations backing the sustainable use of wildlife and actually supporting the 'killing' of native wildlife, they have created a market. Third world nations now see examples of modern nations supporting killing, eating and wearing wildlife for money, so now they're doing it. The latest and most horrendous markets created are in Africa, South America and Asia where enforcement of laws is impossible and even though the animals may be protected, the policing agencies have neither the money or power to do anything. So mass wildlife slaughter takes place unchecked.

'Sustainable Use' of native wildlife in so-called modern nations like Australia and the U.S.A. has inadvertently created a multi-million dollar 'bushmeat' industry, where local people kill native wildlife for meat, skins and products. Please don't blame the local people; it's not their fault! They're simply hunting for much needed money. The greatest wildlife perpetrators of today's world are those behind the driving force of 'Sustainable Use.'

"How are the Tiger Farms in Taiwan and China helping to save Tigers in India, S E Asia or
Siberia? They are perpetuating the market in Tiger products, which is the single greatest reason for the endangerment of Tigers.

"How are the Bear Bile farms helping Bears in Asia? Endangered. How did Mink farms help Mink in Europe? Endangered. How do Tuna farms help Blue-fin Tuna? Critically Endangered.

"Since when has killing any animal saved it? If wildlife and conservation organisations continue to support 'Sustainable Use,' then 'BUSHMEAT' industries and global endangerments will continue until all the animals have gone.

"We in the so-called modern world must set the examples. This current example we've set - that eating, killing and wearing wildlife products is legal and 'sustainable' is obviously the
greatest disaster for today's wildlife. If we don't eliminate 'Sustainable Use' now it will be too late.

"If we can destroy the market, we'll destroy the industry. Historically the only reason spotted cats, like Leopards and Cheetahs are still found in the wild, is because of peer pressure. It became 'uncool' and controversial to wear spotted cat fur coats, so the market was destroyed and the industry suffered. Slowly, less and less Leopards and Cheetahs were being shot for their skins, and just as well or they would've been extinct 20 years ago.

"If we can all refuse to buy, eat or purchase native wildlife products and express our disgust in the industry, then every single person can help slow down this incredibly disastrous wildlife atrocity.

NEVER PURCHASE NATIVE WILDLIFE PRODUCTS!!"

As you know, Australia has the worst reputation in the world for wildlife extinction having driven 38% of its species extinct in a short 230 years, species that have been here for millions of years living harmoniously with the land. Since Australia is party to the Convention on Biodiversity which has as its aim to reduce biodiversity loss significantly by 2010, isn't it time we stopped the sustainable use lie and started protected our ecosystems instead? We are in the midst of the 6th Mass Extinction caused by one species - homo sapiens - so it is our responsibility to act now. That means governments who make policies and enforce them.

IT's time to stop crunching out the same old drivel that the kangaroo killing industry is an important industry. It is driving kangaroos to extinction, destroying the land, making people and their pets sick, putting a nail in the coffin of Australian tourist industry (worth $73 billion) and heaping shame on Australia. It's time to put it to rest forever.

More Australians are beginning to wake up to the 'sustainable use' lie so don't think you can continue to pull the wool over our eyes because you can't.

Sincerely,
Menkit Prince

ON 18 DECEMBER 2009 I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING REPLY:-

Dear Mr/Ms Prince

Thank you for your further email of 30 November 2009 concerning animal welfare issues associated with commercial kangaroo harvesting. I have been requested to reply to you on the Premier's behalf.

The contents of your message have been noted.

This matter has been referred to the Honourable Tim Mulherin MP, Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland for consideration.

Again, thank you for contacting the Premier.

Margaret Klatt
Acting Director
Executive Correspondence

The contents of my letter representing many hours of labour have been noted? Is this your idea of democracy? It isn't mine. I get the feeling governments do whatever they want and virtually ignore the people. What is it going to take to really get them to pay attention to us?

A friend of mine wrote to the local department regarding illegal kangaroo shooting in her town. Correspondence follows.

Fran Bailey, Australian Parliament House, Donna Petrovich, Victorian Parliament

Dear Fran,

I know you have always been prompt to respond to any of my correspondence with you in the past, but this time I would like to bring to your MOST URGENT ATTENTION a matter that has been making me SO UPSET AND UNWELL FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW, that I have had to visit my local doctor to be subscribed medication to help me to relax at night time and try to sleep. This is certainly not like my normal behavior Fran, as I am a positive thinker, a high achiever and a normally very happy go lucky type person, but as a result of what has been happening in my local area over the past two years, my general well being has changed dramatically.

On almost a weekly basis, if not, every 10 days, I hear and sometimes see hunters shooting from dark until the early hours of the morning. There are lots of gun shots on each of these nights, some close to my property and others a little further away in the distance. The hunters are in utes or four wheel drives and have very high powered, bright lights mounted on these vehicles. On several occasions I have called the police, however, although reported, I have never seen or heard a police siren or received a phone call back from the police to say that they have investigated the reason for my call. I assume the shooters are hunting for kangaroos and I demand to know why!

Kangaroos are a protected species Fran and we have lost so many of our precious native wildlife since the February 7 bushfires, I think it is absolutely disgusting that we allow shooting and hunting of any kind to continue. . Australia has the highest rate of extinction on the entire planet and we have lost 38% of our wildlife in the short time we have settled here! This is a disgusting reality Fran and WE MUST NOT TAKE THESE FIGURES LIGHTLY! BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO BLAST AWAY AT OUR WILDLIFE, ESPECIALLY OUR KANGAROOS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING!

TOO MANY POLITICIANS ARE SITTING ON THEIR HANDS RIGHT NOW OVER ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES FRAN, FROM HUNTING OF KANGAROOS, TO ALLOWING THE JAPANESE TO CONTINUE WHALING !

So Fran, I am asking you to make a difference on this issue of hunting in the Yarra Valley. Fran you are always involved in so many issues around the valley and I can imagine you are a VERY compassionate person. So PLEASE FRAN, PLEASE DO YOUR PART IN STOPPING HUNTING IN THE YARRA VALLEY! OUR BELOVED KANGAROOS ARE A PROTECTED SPECIES !

I DON’T KNOW WHERE TO START, BUT I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS FRAN AND THE DSE NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALLOWING THIS SHOOTING TO CONTINUE!

It always happens at night time and these poor nocturnal creatures do not stand a chance of survival against lights, guns and redneck hunters. This is simply not able to be policed out there, so heavy fines and jail terms need to apply and we must ADOPT A “DOB IN A HUNTER” POLICY!

I know I am not the only person upset by this nightly carnage, as I know other wildlife carer’s in the area, and they too are very saddened and sickened to hear and see these people murdering the very animals they are fighting to save. They are on stand by 24 hours a day to rescue, rehabilitate and release back into the wild, injured, burnt or orphaned animals, only to have them be hunted down and killed by low life moronic scum!

I know that I can hear and witness it on certain nights of the week, so what is happening in other parts of the valley that I cant hear or see! Kangaroos are being slaughtered everywhere!

I don’t know if you know this Fran, but I have seen footage of what goes on amongst these horrible people who kill the kangaroos. So many times they are under the influence of alcohol when they go out shooting and it often takes them several attempts to kill the poor darlings and when they get close to the injured or dying kanga, if there is a young joey in the pouch or at foot, they are ripped from the pouch and bashed against the bull bar until they are dead! These morons practice this form of killing whether they have been drinking or not Fran.

I am sorry to go on about this Fran, but you must be able to tell how passionate I am about this issue. I am particularly upset at the moment because I have heard at least 15 shots fired tonight since around 9.30pm. On two occasions in the past, I have got in my car (despite the protest from my husband) and gone to where I could see the lights darting around and hear the gun shots but unfortunately I haven’t been brave enough to approach these bastards as they are usually on land not far from my home, shooting.

I am going to sign off now Fran, as the shots are continuing and I am becoming more and more upset. I am very eager to hear your response.

Please do not hesitate to contact me either by email or telephone Fran.

Thank you in anticipation.

REPLY FROM DONNA PETROVICH'S SECRETARY:

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kangaroo shooting

Dear Vicki,

Thank you for your email re the shooting of kangaroos.

If you could email me with your residential address I will send out to you some specific information regarding the shooting of kangaroos.

I look forward to your reply.

Carmel Clancy
Office of: Donna Petrovich
Member for Northern Victoria Region

84 Sydney Street, Kilmore 3764
Telephone; 03 57822011

Of course, no mail was sent to my friend ... not that it would do anything to ease her mind as long as the kangaroo shooting was continuing night after night. What is the result of this passionate letter? Absolutely NOTHING!!

If you have any creative ideas of how we can get through to these politicians, please share them with us by replying below ~ we would love to have some success for a change! In fact, we would like to have our democracy back because it sure appears that we don't have any.

More than 1,300 Queensland Rail workship employees walked off the job in Ipswich, Rockhampton and Townsville in protest against plans to include the workshops in the Queensland Government's $15 billion public assets fire sale. The workshop employees had been led to believe that they at least would be spared from privatisation. However, on 8 December, Queensland Government announced that workshops were to be included after all. Instead of selling Queensland Rail to a private bidder the Queensland Govenment intends to offer shares to the Queensland public in a manner similar to the way in which Telstra was floated. Workers, who would only be guaranteed employment for a further two years after change of ownership were to given $1,000 sharess and offered $4,000 more at a discount.

But the broader Queenland public, many of whom had been burnt in buying Telstra shares aren't interested. An comment in response to a Courier-Mail online article "Rail workers walk off job" was typical of the public's response on both talkback radio and online forums:

Why should the people of Queensland by shares in QR or any other government owned assets. They own it already!!!!!!

Nor were workers interested in the miserable pittance of bribe that they were expected to accept in return for the destruction of their own and their children's job security. ABC online news reported Owen Doogan Secretary of Railway, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) stated that there was "Absolute anger at the idea that $1,000 worth of shares is going to be okay for them to sacrifice the job security of what they have at the present time - absolute joke."

Another ABC online story "Rail workers strike over Government asset sales" reported RTBU Vice-President Ian Moffit had promised more industrial action leading into the new year. He said:

"The union movement have now declared war on the Queensland Government,"

"We are not going to sit back idly and allow all this to go ahead.

It is certainly not a moment too soon. The Queensland Government has been at war with trade unionists together with the rest of the Queensland public for years. The $15billion fire sale is but the latest salvo in that war.

Finally they are getting back a small taste of their own medicine.

Update, 11 Dec 09: A Brisbane Times poll question "Do you support rail workers decision to strike against the Queensland Government asset sell-off?" had 67% of respondents voting 'yes'. Whilst it is possible for the poll to be biased in either direction, this result is encouraging. It would seem consistent with the current 79% of opposition to the sale, but allowing for the fact that many Queenslanders have still swallowed the virulent anti-union propaganda, exemplified by the Courier-Mail editorial "Under the influence: Anna Bligh dances to union tune" of 20 Aug 09. Also, Trade Union equivocation over the sale and their past failure to take decisive action would have compounded the problem. This is discussed in the article "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 8 Dec 09. If this industrial action were to grow into a strong and decisive industrial campaign against privatisation and the union movement were to carefully explain the necessity of industrial action to the public, there is no reason why support for the Trade Union could not at least match the current 79 public opposition to the sale.

Click here to view goverment film - (note slow quicktime download 47 mb)

Anna Bigh says she cannot see, "any sensible or legal way" to cap the population.
"As attractive as a population cap sounds, I think it's misleading to imply to people that such a thing could be done," she says.

NewsComAu reports today that a Galaxy poll's results "suggest that 60 per cent of Queenslanders want the Government to take steps to limit the state's southeast population growth explosion." (Source: (Craig Johnstone and Natalie Gregg, "Queensland residents want to cap population growth," The Courier-Mail, December 07, 2009)

Misleading, irresponsible propaganda from Anna Bligh

But, although her government actively advertises for overseas and interstate immigrants, Premier Anna Bligh is quoted as saying that, "she said she was yet to see "any sensible or legal way" to cap the population. "As attractive as a population cap sounds, I think it's misleading to imply to people that such a thing could be done," she said."

Population sociologist, Sheila Newman, responds here on candobetter.org:

Premier Bligh could start by ceasing to advertise for more interstate and international immigrants.

Her statements implying that population caps are not possible are ridiculous, misleading and irresponsible. All societies have numerous democratic ways of controlling population, unless they are politically prevented from doing so by undemocratic governments like Anna Bligh's.

We have only to look at the Scandinavian and EU countries in Europe. Among the most important is the ability to limit the issue of building permits at a local level in accordance with residents' wishes. /files/qld-immigration-page-capture.jpg

Premier's stance that resistance is futile is wrong

The premier's stance seems to be that resistance is futile; the growth lobby (driven by property developers) will have it's way with us. It might suit the ALP's interests in land speculation, but it's just not true. A Premier has a duty to her constituents well-being and should be above this kind of propaganda.

The consequences of continuing to grow Queensland's population threaten the welfare of present and future generations far into the future as well as destroying Queensland's magnificent and delightful fauna and flora.

Australians should be aware that the population growth that is happening in Queensland and the rest of Australia is not democratic. It is engineered upwards by government and drives ecological damage, native animal extinction, and unaffordable cost of living.

Here is a quick lesson in how populations are controlled when societies are governed democratically.

Population Policy Battlefronts for democracy and ecological sustainability
1. Local Government
2. State Government
3. National Government
4. Global

1. Local Government

* power of limiting building permits (and thus of limiting population growth) in line with water catchment capacities, aesthetics, civil hygiene, preservation of agricultural land and natural amenities, like green wedges, nature reserves and parkland
* promotion of energy efficient public and private buildings
* facilitation of householder independence from the State power and sewerage grid
* incorporation of local indigenous species' needs for space, food and water within the concept of local planning and as participants in the regional ecology.
* residents should have self government
* local elected officials and paid staff are servants of residents and should not implement plans without their agreement
* food and fiber production should be local where possible, minimising energy used to transport goods in and out of a community

2. State Government

Wherever States have the responsibility for and power of limiting impact on the bio-regions within their borders they should exercise this within the context of national and local population policy. In Australia the states have the power over land-use and water sources and the ability and responsibility to signal when infrastructure is close to capacity. They have a number of tools for limiting urban expansion. Among these are:

*taxes on second homes, taxes on windfalls gained by sellers when land is rezoned,
*redevelopment, not new development - of old buildings, insulation of old buildings - instead of land-clearing for new construction. These taxes are there to feedback order into the allocation of construction permits and should not be relied upon as something that can be grown to subsidise increases in government spending.
*housing as a citizen's right, a state's duty and a public cost
*land-development by the state to provide low-cost land to undercut speculative private development, which raises costs through unreasonable profits, thus driving up all other costs, and providing a motive for overpopulation

- Water should not be disaggregated from land because this removes valuable biofeedback that signals limits to growth.

- State governments must be entirely transparent in all their transactions and so must the political parties in and out of government. See "John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform."

- Business can only be the servant of democracy and should not dictate population limits.
- Economy is a subset of the environment.
- State governments have no business making plans for local government to follow if these are not inspected and agreed to in detail by local residents.

3. National Government

* adoption of democratic and ecologically informed population policy
* separation of political and administrative responsibility for population and immigration
* chairing of a cabinet committee on population by Prime Minister adoption of a consumption strategy
* aim to stabilise population numbers by:
- promoting small families and a
- zero net migration program - gives around 70,000 person-spaces
* plan immigration program for the humanitarian longterm, staggering intake to cope with foreseeable ongoing demands and climate change
* Change the emphasis on immigration and population research funding from its longstanding almost exclusive focus on internal migration and ethnic group demographics, in order to give far greater attention to population numbers, per capita energy use and environmental impact.

4. Global

Australia should support policies to help people to protect local controls over land-tenure, recognising that the population problems of Africa, India and the Pacific Islands, only started when colonisation dispossessed people from their local lands and stable economic traditions in homeostatic indigenous ecologies.

Australia should direct more money into foreign aid to combat the conditions that contribute to overpopulation by assisting initiatives for educating and enfranchising women, enhancing children's health, promoting family planning education and safe, non-coercive family planning methods and protecting local self-government and self-sufficiency.

Australia and other 'Developed' countries should cooperate with United Nations global initiatives in developing longsighted population policies which take into account our high environmental/energy consumption impact per capita.

As an ecologically impoverished commodity producer, Australia should lead other commodity producers by example and assist in the development and use of low energy consumption technology and lifestyle, being careful to keep its population low in conformity with the limiting characteristics of the continent's ecology and the nature of commodity dependent economies, which also do not require large volumes of workers, unless they are conducted as slave colonies to furnish cheap supply to other countries - a practice that is neither ethical, humane or sustainable.

Australia should not encourage high birth rates or high immigration without their constituents knowledge or agreement, based on useful and true information about optimal carrying capacity and the preservation of democratic rights and local empowerment.

What you can do: If you are a Queensland resident and Australian citizen, please sign the petition here.

Dalby is situated one-hour from Toowoomba, two-and-a-half hours west of Brisbane and three hours from the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. The town faces a severe water shortage and the worst drought in history.
Map of Dalby

The Mayor Ray Brown says the town's in real danger of running out of water and restrictions may be increased to their highest level if the situation doesn't improve.

Cr Brown says the weir is empty and the town's been drawing its water supply from bores.

The construction of a reverse osmosis plant will provide an additional 1.7 million litres per day or about 25% of Dalby's water supply needs on an annual basis. Will allow the conversion of previously unsuitable water into water suitable for town supply purposes of a very high quality, which will improve the overall quality of our town supply. The reverse osmosis produces water at a cost comparable to the treatment of river water but is much more reliable in dry times.
Dalby's economy

Dalby and the surrounding Wambo Shire is is at the centre of rich coal and natural gas reserves which underpin the power generation industry for SE Qld. The region is renowned as a rich agricultural area, growing crops such as cotton, sorghum, wheat, barley, sunflowers, chickpeas, mung beans and corn, as well as the production of lamb, beef and pork.
Dalby's economic forecast looks “bright” as infrastructure developments, a growing resource sector and population increases combine to promote continued business growth.
Over the period to 2031, the population of Dalby is expected to increase by 3,723 persons – or an average annual rate of 0.9% – to a population of approximately 19,734 persons.

El Nino:

El Niño - the extensive warming of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean that leads to a major shift in weather patterns across the Pacific - is often experienced as drought affecting large parts of eastern and northern Australia. The 1982/83 Ash Wednesday bushfires were largely due to drought conditions caused by the El Niño effect. The most recent strong El Niño event was 1997/98.
The El Niño phenomenon affects runoff in catchments serving all major water supply systems in eastern Australia.

IPCC have indicated that El Niño events have become more frequent and drying in the last 30 years compared to the previous 100 hundred years.
Additionally, IPCC make the point that many world climate models indicate that mean conditions that are ‘El Niño-like’ may well prevail in the future.

Fastest-growing region:

Peter Garrett’s decision earlier this month to kill off Queensland Premier Anna Bligh’s $1.8 billion project to dam the Mary River at the Traveston Crossing, near Gympie, has got the Premier in a spin about how the Government’s going to manage future population growth without running out of water.
Ms Bligh described the veto as a blow to the residents of Australia’s fastest-growing region. With figures showing 70 per-cent of new arrivals to Queensland settled in the south-east, it’s now critical the government find ways to move people on to regional areas.

Dam levels in Toowoomba, Queensland's biggest inland city, are down to 8.5 per cent.
A pipeline has been built connecting Toowoomba to Brisbane's major water source, the Wivenhoe Dam.

It is due to begin pumping in January. In the meantime, Mayor Peter Taylor says several emergency bores have been sunk to keep the city going.

Obi Obi Creek:

Obi Obi Creek, the town's only source of water of the Sunshine Coast hinterland town of Maleny, received just 39.2mm of rain in November, almost 100mm short of the 140mm November average.

Maleny resident, zoologist and conservationist Dr Les Hall has been in the limelight again lately. And it's all because of his survey of platypus burrows in the banks of the Obi Obi Creek, adjacent to Cornerstone's proposed construction site for a Woolworths supermarket.  Les told the company that the creek bank adjacent to the site has the highest platypus population density compared with any other part of the creek. He said that in his survey he counted an average of one burrow every three metres; some of these were old, some collapsed, but many others along the bank were fresh and in use and some were obviously occupied by mothers and their young.

"No matter what happens, whatever the developers' protections, they will still destroy the platypus burrowing area along the creek bank," Les warned.

The wetlands will also provide habitat and feeding areas for the two bird species, rainbow bee-eater and cattle egret, listed in an international agreement (RAMSAR) that Australia has signed. The two sites will provide habitat for a number of wetland-dependent threatened species.

Obi Obi Creek is the main contributor of water for the Baroon Pocket Dam.  This dam will soon be linked to the southeast Queensland pipeline network.

Water crisis:

‘Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink;’ Thus spoke the Ancient Mariner in the 18th century.

A recent report warns that without global action, demand for water in 2030 will outstrip supply by 40 per cent.

Desalination technology comes with drawbacks as they require significant energy, and pollute the marine environment with hot, hyper-saline and chemical-rich outflow that is discharged back into the ocean. There are already dead areas in our oceans.

There is a limit to the number of dams that can be constructed, the amount of water that households water restrictions, and the number of rivers that can be manipulated and strangled.   

A 2% growth rate means a double of population every 35 years, even if it doesn't sound much.  Growth should be "managed" at a time of climate change and global water and food threats. 

Wivenhoe Dam failure

"Recent pronouncements have left us exposed to a repeat of History. (...with the prospect of dam failure evident since 1992 in the dam levels chart and as yet unexplained). 

Large scale rainfall events occur, on average, every 3.7 years, The panic caused by a 6 year gap will be repeated in the future with the possibility of even larger gaps as wide as 14 years.”

Limitless Growth?

There is no such thing as limitless growth on finite ecosystems, or finite natural resources.

An action plan has been developed in consultation with the body responsible for regional water security, the Queensland Water Commission. There will be four or five tanker loads of water this week (up to 11,000 litres in each tanker) trucked to Maleny.

Despite the massive problems with water in southeast Queensland, it still has an unfettered high rate of population growth. No effort whatsoever has been put into slowing this growth rate. Apparently not even a thought of it from anyone in the state government except for Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke.

Bligh acknowledged recently that south-east Queenslanders are beginning to think the lifestyle costs of population growth outweigh the economic benefits. "But population growth is a fact of life in Queensland. We cannot put up the barbed wire fence at the border, we can't stop people having babies, so we have to find a way of coping," she said. She could cap the population and ask our Federal government to stop economic immigration!

The southeast corner of the state is becoming more populated, with an estimated 15,000 people a year moving there from all over Australia in search of a “better life”. Premier Anna Bligh is considering a $3000 boost to the  first-home owners' grant for people buying property outside the southeast.

South-east Queensland already resembles one giant building site, as the State Government spends billions this year alone on bridges, rail extensions and new bus and motorways to help move all these extra people around.

Premier Anna Bligh is not interested in a sustainable water supply for Queensland, but in water to sustain population growth, something that is not fait accompli but socially engineered by immigration and baby bonuses.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh says she has assurances that the town of Dalby won't run out of water. 'If we need to help them truck in water, we'll do that'. She will probably have to!

Canadian sealer about to club a seal pup. © IFAW
harpseals.org

On 5th May 2009, Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of adopting strict conditions for the placing on the market of seal products in the European Union.

The way kangaroo joeys are slaughtered by 'professionals' is comparable to that still inflicted on Canadian fur seal pups. Australian poaching of its wildlife places it culturally backward in the 19th Century, when native animals were vermin and 'the 'bush' regarded as wasteland.

Australian society needs to wake up to what is happening outback and call for immediately bans on wildlife killing including banning the State-sanctioned industrial poaching of kangaroos. The so-called kangaroo 'industry' is no different to the fur seal 'industry' or the whaling 'industry'. They are each shameful practices of immoral brutality. Take a walk through Albany's old Whaling Station (now a musem) in Western Australia to see what we did to whales...not that long ago.

Perhaps this photo should go on all the kangaroo meat export packaging and on The Moscow Times newspaper! Both mother and joey are what the Russians are eating!

Australia's 'National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes' at Section 4. EUTHANASING INJURED KANGAROOS AND WALLABIES permits an injured kangaroo or wallaby...if " shot to either the brain or heart is impractical or unsafe (such as when the animal is moving but not able to stand), [then] a heavy blow to the base of the skull with sufficient force to destroy the brain (see Schedule 2) is permissible."

...and the Code prescribes as follows:
"Small furless pouch young (fits within the palm of the hand):
"Single forceful blow to the base of the skull sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the brain. OR Stunning, immediately followed by decapitation by rapidly severing the head from the body with a sharp blade."

All furred pouch young: "Single forceful blow to the base of the skull sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the brain."

Young at foot: "Single shot to the brain or heart where it can be delivered accurately and in safety using the firearms and ammunition."

And this when the Code is actually being followed. But who polices this? Who is turning a blind eye? Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is even promoting it - flying to Russia to boost the meat sales, so that more kangaroos can be slaughtered!

The above practice is comparable to clubbing fur seal pups by Canadian sealers! Australia should immediately ban poaching of kangaroos and Australian wildlife in national legislation and should apply similar conditions on the kangaroo meat export and hide export markets, starting with Russia!

European Parliament decision to restrict seal fur trade

The following is the excerpt from the European Parliament decision to restrict seal fur trade:

"The placing on the market of seal products should not be allowed say MEPs. It is permitted only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. Otherwise the import is permitted where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers. Furthermore it is allowed to place on the market products that result from by-products of hunting [and] conducted for the purpose of sustainable management of marine resources on a non-profit basis.

Conditions for placing on the market

The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and which contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the time or point of import for imported products.

The legislative report which has been agreed with the Council in first-reading has been drawn up by Diana WALLIS (ALDE, UK). The legislative resolution was adopted with 550 votes in favour, 49 against and 41 abstentions.

The Regulation establishes harmonised rules concerning the placing on the market of seal products. It is therefore without prejudice to other Community or national rules regulating the hunting of seals.

By way of derogation from the above:

(a) the import of seal products shall also be allowed where it is of an occasional nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of the travellers or their families. The nature and quantity of such goods may not be such as to indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons;

(b) the placing on the market shall also be allowed for seal products that result from by-products of hunting that is regulated under national law and conducted for the sole purpose of sustainable management of marine resources. Such placing on the market shall only be allowed on a non-profit basis. The nature and quantity of such products shall not be such as to indicate that they are being placed on the market for commercial reasons.

Definition of (indigenous) Inuit

"Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland – i.e. those arctic and subarctic areas where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have Aboriginal rights and interests – recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and includes Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)

Penalties

Member States will lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Omega-3

MEPs point out that the existence of those diverse legal requirements may further discourage consumers from buying products not made from seals, but which may not be easily distinguishable from similar goods made from seals, or products which may include elements or ingredients obtained from seals without this being clearly recognisable, such as furs, Omega-3 capsules and oils and leather goods.

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The article on conditions for placing on the market enters into force nine months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Debate on subject held 4 May 2009

Diana Wallis (ALDE, UK) rapporteur said: "Seals are very beautiful marine animals – in fact, I have realised during this process that they have great PR – but to some they are the rats of the sea. That is how they are perceived by many fishermen: an adult seal gets through an enormous amount of fish on a daily basis. Therefore, there will remain the need for seals to be hunted to ensure the sustainability of fisheries in some area."

But what we have not done here is to regulate hunting. If people in any of our Member States wish to hunt, they can still continue to hunt. What they cannot do is take commercial gain from the results of that hunt. But it should be the case that the results of the hunt can be used, and I hope particularly that those parts of seals that can be used by the medical community will be able to be used."

Malcolm Harbour (EPP-ED, UK) said: "I think this is a call for action. What people have indicated so far is that this is the beginning of a process and not an end. The issue is the inhumane way in which seals are being killed and the inability of the professional hunters to deal with it. I think the Canadian Government has to reflect on that as well. There are plenty of review clauses built in here to ensure this works. I think the exemptions are well balanced because firstly they reflect the importance of supporting traditional hunting in communities."

Arlene McCarthy (PES, UK) said: "The USA has had a ban for many years, Mexico has banned the trade; in Europe we already have national bans in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy; Germany and the UK are considering ways to ban the trade; bans are now in place in Russia; Hong Kong is planning a ban. This is a political issue that now has it time. After a 40 year campaign against the trade, Europe has the chance to introduce a ban in all 27 states. This year 50 000 seals have been slaughtered that Canadians hunt compared to 220 000 last year. That means that we as citizens have now the opportunity to ban this cruel trade. I know that this will be applauded by the citizens of Europe."

Caroline Lucas (Greens/EFA, UK) said: "Today, nearly one million seals are slaughtered annually in commercial seal kills around the world, and when we vote on this package tomorrow, we will be helping to end one of the most vile examples of animal cruelty."

Avril Doyle (EPP-ED, IE) said: "This has been a difficult debate, often emotional, with the heart ruling the head on many occasions. Great progress has been made in the survival and quality of life of cardiac patients by using the aortic, pulmonary and pericardial tissue of harp seals, the assumption being that they are sustainably hunted or killed and not in a cruel way. I would like assurances on ongoing medical research and bioprosthetic use of products from seals in the context of the compromise".

Background

According to EC proposal, Denmark and Italy are by far the two largest importers of raw fur skin from seal for further processing/sales on the Community market, and will thus also be affected by such regulation. Denmark imports the raw fur skins directly coming from Canada and Greenland (that are not categorised as goods in transit), while Italy imports the raw fur skins from Russia, Finland and the UK (Scotland). Greece also has a noticeable trade in raw skins originating in the two latter range states."


The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) tries to justify the industrial scale slaughter of kangaroos and their young by claiming it's hygienic standards are monitored. Its wesbite boasts 1,076 inspections of 'kangaroo harvesting vehicles' and 621 inspections of 'kangaroo carcass holding chillers' by the NSW meat hygiene authority, Safe Food NSW. Of course if the meat was received contaminated by the abattoirs, then sales and a shooter's reputation would drop off fast.

What is not monitored is the field shooting. Somehow the KIAA believes shooting a kangaroo in the neck is close enough to shooting it in the head. "The vast majority of non-head shots (reported by RSPCA as body shots) were high in the neck at the base of the skull and it appears the result of harvesters deliberately targeting this site." Of course the so-called 'industry' will claim "99.8% of kangaroos are shot in the head". But where are the independent DECC zoological reports verifying the poaching practice including treatment of young is humane as is claimed?

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh should refund the Queensland taxpayer the cost of her junket to Russia last month flogging Kangaroo meat exports.

Stop the theft of OUR public assets!
Picket 4:30-6pm, Tues Nov 10
Outside State Parliament, Cnr George & Alice Sts, City
Speakers: Electrical Trades Union speaker; Delene Cuddihy, (Yungaba
Action Group); /Sam Watson/ (Aboriginal activist); Libby Connors (Greens) + more

Premier Anna Bligh is trying to privatise our publically owned rail (non-passenger), ports, forests and motorways.

Bligh's plan will cost jobs, & mean higher prices for worse services. Bligh's plan is totally undemocratic, ignoring the 85% of Queenslanders who oppose the sell-off.

Now Bligh is spending $2million of our money trying to promote her government's plan!

If the sell off goes ahead - what public asset will be next?

Don't let Bligh get away with the theft of our public assets!

Bring your Bligh Government letter to "return to sender" Bligh's "junk mail"!

Bring "Honk against Bligh's sell-off" signs

Organised by Save Our Public Assets (SOPA)

Ph Paul: 0410 629 088 www.SaveOurPublicAssets.org

Email: SaveOurPublicAssets[AT]gmail.com

Join the Egroup: SaveOurPublicAssets-unsubscribe[AT]yahoogroups.com

See also saveourpublicassets.org and online discussion forums: #comment-248100">"Out of the mainstream" of 7 Nov 09 and #comment-247411">"Bligh’s bad arguments for privatisation" of 29 Oct 09 on johnquiggin.com, #comment-833930">"Quiggin on Bligh’s arguments for privatisation" of   09 on Larvatus Prodeo.

Taxpayers should not be funding handouts to help "restructure" this vile and cruel industry.

How dare John Kelly of the despicable commercial kangaroo killing industry ask for handouts due to the fallout from Russia placing a ban on kangaroo meat imports!

The ban has been in force since August, after the Russian government agency, Rosselkhoznadzor, first voiced its concerns about
possible contamination.

Now the struggling Australian industry is appealing for assistance from the federal government.

There is too much hiding behind the shooters code of practice, and publicity that the action is humane. That deludes the public that it's all done without pain or trauma to the animals being killed.

Kangaroos shot at in the dark are easily traumatized, and they are very stress-prone animals. How could all these shots be "clean" head shots, without near misses? The code of practice is not humane. Who is responsible for setting the guidelines for what is 'humane'?

(art work: courtesy of Carol Drew)

How is butchering joeys in the pouch "humane"? What about at-foot joeys killed by foxes, or starvation? There is nothing "humane" about these massacres of wildlife, and it lies heavily on Australia's reputation as being environmentally and wildlife "friendly"!

This industry is over, and they cannot continue to promote it as "sustainable" or "humane". It is hiding the real cruelty and unhygienic conditions of these killings. These employees need to be retrained and re-educated so that they can be employed in some profitable and ethical industry, such as wildlife officers or tourism.

A Russian government agency says a ban on kangaroo meat imports could be quickly lifted if Australia satisfies Moscow's concerns.
The ABC understands the ban will also be discussed at a meeting of Australian and Russian government representatives in Moscow.

(photo: courtesy of Bernie, from Googong kangaroo massacre, ACT)

The harvesting of kangaroos is being successfully promoted by the kangaroo industry as free-range farming producing a healthy meat alternative to traditional meats.
Kangaroo "harvesting" has even been celebrated by some as having the potential to
restore Australia’s pastoral lands by reducing the numbers of damaging hard-hoofed
livestock such as sheep and cattle on the land. This report demonstrates that the
industry’s claims are only partial truths or outright misinformation. This report exposes
the realities of the kangaroo industry which include extensive and alarmingly
unhygienic practices, unacceptable suffering of both young kangaroos and adults and
the manufacture of false hope that kangaroo harvesting will alleviate environmental
degradation in rural areas.

The kangaroo industry will contend that only one to six percent of adults are mis-shot (depending on the state); when considering the enormity of the harvesting industry this equates to too many breaches of ethical practice. An independent assessment of occurrences of mis-shot kangaroos suggests that the percentages are actually much higher, possibly up to 40 percent.

Dror Ben-Ami, PhD
On behalf of Animal Liberation NSW
2009

Food will also be on the menu in Russia during Premier Anna Bligh’s latest overseas trade mission. She will argue against a ban on kangaroo meat imports.
She told parliament that products such as kangaroo sausages, also known as "kanga bangas", were a favourite in her household where her family dined on kangaroo twice a week.

This woman is clearly no lover of wildlife, and she is representing the people of Australia to promote the wholesale slaughter of our iconic animals! Already koalas in Queensland could be extinct in 7 years, and endangered lungfish will be wiped out by her Traveston Crossing Dam in the quest for population growth!

This atrocity compromises us in directly intervening in Japan's illegal whaling and protests over Canada's seal slaughter. Our kangaroo killing industry is on a much larger scale than these wildlife massacres.

The commercial kangaroo killing industry is the largest on-going slaughter of terrestrial wildlife in the world!

“It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products.”

~ Steve Irwin

No kangaroo meat website
Learn more at Stop kangaroo killing

PETITION

State-sponsored human population growth is doing more harm to Australian wildlife and the environment than the dreaded cane toad!

(Illustration:Canetoad Anna B by Sheila N)

Anna Bligh's policies are turning the human population in Queensland into the equivalent of canetoads. Native habitat is being sacrificed to continuous development and humans are overwhelming indigenous species, just like the imported canetoad. We have far less excuse though, since we are able to control our population and we are supposed to be living in a democracy - not a developer-led dictatorship.

Canetoads

Cane toads, which produce large numbers of offspring, are colonising northern Australia at an increasingly rapid pace. Cane Toads are likely to colonise almost every habitat type before eventually moving further south.

In Australia it is officially recognised that the cane toad is a pest and an invasive species in many regions where it has been introduced. A particular concern is that its toxic skin kills many animals—native predators and otherwise—when ingested. The kinds of native animals that are most likely to be affected by toads are predators, like quolls (marsupial carnivores), large snakes, and goannas.

Humans just as out of control as toads, but with less excuse

Our iconic koalas, however, are under threat from a runaway human invasion! In fact, all native species have been impacted by the growth of human populations, and as koalas are competing with the same locations, they are losing out badly. This is not properly acknowledged officially; human development impact is being dealt with piecemeal, project by project, without reference to the total impact of total human development in the total koala habitat. This is either incompetent planning or a depraved policy to wipe out koalas by simply erasing their habitat in a patchwork approach.

(photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Southeast Queensland typically supports the highest densities of Koalas in the State, but rapid human population growth there is accompanied by loss of native vegetation and koala numbers are plummeting towards zero! A conservative estimate indicates a further loss of 23-25,000 ha of native vegetation, much of it koala habitat, in the next 20 years as human population burgeons. An upper estimate is 30-35,000 ha loss of native vegetation, further accelerating the decline of koala and other wildlife populations. Long before that, the koalas will all be gone!

The bulk of remaining koala habitat is legally unprotected

An estimated 80% of koala habitat has probably been destroyed since European settlement. Most of the habitat that is left is private land – almost none of it protected in law.

Extreme drought, ferocious bushfires and urban development could make koalas , extinct within seven years environmentalists are warning.

Erna Walraven, senior curator at Taronga Zoo, sees the koala as a flagship species , with the health of their populations serving as an indicator of the wider health of the wildlife of the bush, including bandicoots and wallabies.

Stress causes illness in koalas. Stress is another word for hardship. Stress is caused by loss of habitat and subsequent overcrowding. The majority of koalas in Queensland are believed to be infected with Koala retrovirus (or KoRV). This retrovirus can cause suppression of the immune system in koalas, leukaemia and lymphoma

The Queensland Government has announced it would protect 5.6 hectares of state-owned koala habitat at Alexandra Hills

Govt land handover for koalas a "shocking joke"

(Photo source: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/about_the_epa/public_reporting/epa_bulletin/issue_48_june_2009/index.html)

State Climate Change Minister Kate Jones said the land, located on Windemere Road and of high commercial value, would be handed over to Redland City Council.

Honorable as this handover is considering the land’s commercial value, it is a drop in the ocean. The solution needs a more holistic approach. In fact there should be no more development in the vulnerable area at all.

We should be looking, not at what Minister Jones is 'sparing' but at what she is allowing to be taken and destroyed.

Koalas like to move about, and being surrounded by roads and developments, saving 5.6ha of key habitat will have little effect ultimately on saving the species.

The small Koala populations that remain cut off in fragmented areas of bushland are at great risk of localised extinction because a single fire may wipe out an entire habitat. Bushfires are extremely common in the summer months. Below habitat threshold points, a rapid decline in koala occupancy is likely. Fences, roads and cleared land can all create barriers to koala movement. These factors alter population dynamics, impede gene flow, and limit the ability for populations to recover from insult and depletion.

Without interlinking and continuous wildlife corridors and crossings, habitats remain fragmented.

According to Australian Koala Foundation chief executive officer Deborah Tabart, 25,000 koalas have died from dog attacks, cars and disease in the last 10 years in South East Queensland and that's because leaders have failed to plan effectively which land should be developed.

South East Queensland’s excessive population growth is no doubt stimulating economic growth - albeit debt-funded. Our leaders worship growth, but they fail to appreciate that koalas and other animals have indigenous rights and that to treat them in this way is depraved. Unless there is a stop to developments and housing and cap on human population numbers, the Bligh government’s greed will destroy Queensland’s natural wealth, including its biodiversity, and create a crowded, sterile and cruel wasteland!

Is Premier Anna Bligh happy to create, manipulate and profit from a human population explosion at the expense of wildlife habitat and to willingly make human invasions a greater threat to Queensland than those of the unwitting cane toad?

Any introduced species, with unchecked population growth, can become a “pest” species! The Economy should not over-ride our moral and ethical duty to protect the species that have a rightful existence in their land and whose survival dignifies our own.

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

Contact Premier Anna Bligh and let her know how you object to her Government making the plight of our endangered koala worse. Please send us any copies of correspondence to or from the Premier.

Her contact details are:

South Brisbane Electoral Office

E-mail: South.Brisbane[AT]parliament.qld.gov.au

Phone : (07) 3255 3615
Fax : (07) 3255 3627

Suite 1/90 Vulture Street
West End 4101 Qld

PO Box 5822
West End Qld 4101

Ministerial Office

E-mail : premier[AT]ministerial.qld.gov.au

Phone : (07) 3224 4500
Fax : (07) 3221 3631

Level 15 Executive Building
100 George Street
Brisbane Qld 4000

PO Box 15185
City East QLD 4002

ETU's campaign against privatisation of State Govt assets - update

How can it be about chatting with locals,
if the locals don't know where you are going to be?

Premier Anna Bligh's secret hard-hat tour, aimed at convincing Queenslanders of the need to sell profitable government assets, is the oldest trick in the book and will not fool Queenslanders into changing their strong opposition to the proposed sale of public assets, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) said today.

The ETU also called on the Premier to release the full itinerary for the tour so Queenslanders can get to meet her in an informal way and not just through carefully planned stunts.

ETU secretary, Peter Simpson, said the fact that no itinerary for the four days has been released proves it is just a political stunt and another attempt to hoodwink Queenslanders.

"It is reminiscent of the early election called this year, during which no mention was made of the plan to sell a number of profitable public assets, including large sections of Queensland Rail. In fact, the secrecy surrounding the itinerary is similar to an election campaign and means the trip has little credibility as a genuine meet-the-people exercise.

"The Premier says 'I am looking forward to getting out there and chatting with locals', well why not give 'locals' plenty of notice so they can get along to wherever she will be? What is the State Government scared of?

"The government is also seriously mistaken if it thinks people will be fooled by a simplistic either/or message about the sale of assets and infrastructure spending. The people of Queensland are strongly opposed to the sale of these assets. They believe it is an unnecessary, simplistic plan being driven by credit ratings companies like Moody's.

"Research of voting intentions in five State electorates, conducted in July by UMR Research for the ETU, shows an average nine per cent swing against the Bligh Government with the decision to sell a number of State Government corporations the main reason for the swing. UMR Research has done a lot of research for the ALP itself.

"The $18 billion infrastructure spending is a great initiative. However, we do not need to sell profitable government assets to fund it. Saying that we do is akin to selling your house, but keeping the land, and then using the money from the sale to put in a bigger driveway," Mr Simpson said.

The ETU anti-privatisation campaign is being run, in conjunction with the Queensland Council of Unions, until, at least, the next State election to stop State Government plans to sell a number of State Government entities, including profitable sections of Queensland Rail and our massive State forests, which contribute to national and international sustainable logging practices.

Media inquiries:	Peter Simpson 0419-721 041
	John Moran 07-3366 9010; 0410-603 278

Also published on Save Our Public Assets. See also: Bligh defends asset sales, works program by David Barbeler in the Brisbane Times of 24 Aug 09, Anna Bligh to tour state projects in defence of asset sales by Steven Wardill in the Courier Mail of 25 Aug 09, Bligh begins whirlwind tour to justify asset sales by Chris O'Brien on the ABC on 25 Aug 09.

In article in the magazine Christian Science Monitor article "Is population growth a Ponzi scheme?" of 17 Aug 09 by David R. Franks, Joseph Chamie, former director of the population division of the United Nations labels the notion that population growth is a boon for prosperity --- the same notion that is used to justify the Rudd Government's current record high immigration program and the state of Queensland's own pursuit of population growth of "Ponzi Demography".

The article continues:

"The profits of growth go to the few, and everyone else picks up the tab.

"Growth, whether through immigration or natural increase, is a plus for some groups. For business, it means a boost in the demand for products. It also means a surge in low- and high-skilled workers, which can keep a lid on wage pressures. Religious and ethnic groups want more immigrants of their own faith and ethnicity to raise their political and social clout. The military regards young immigrants as potential recruits.

"But the public pays a cost for a bigger population.

"Mr. Chamie speaks of more congestion on highways, more farmland turned into housing developments, more environmental damage, including the output of pollutants associated with climate change."

The article acknowledges that there are costs associated with declining populations as Australia's own population growth pushers never pass up an opportunity to remind us:

"They will need to spend more looking after older citizens and, yes, some industries like housing will shrink. But governments won't have to spend as much on children. And any labor shortage would fade if increasingly healthy older people worked an extra year or two before retiring to maintain their standard of living."

That Queensland's own pursuit of population growth is indeed a Ponzi scheme as Joseph Chamie claims, has been confirmed recently by none other than Queensland Anna Bligh, herself.

In a letter to me in which she justified her Government's fire sale of our ports, roads, forests and railways (see http://saveourpublicassets.org), Queensland Premier Anna Bligh stated: "... a State with a rapidly growing population can't afford to ease off building the infrastructure that supports our economy and community".

In April 2007, Anna Bligh, then deputy Premier defended population growth, stating:

"The only way we could really do that (stop population growth) is to put a fence up at the (Queensland) border, or to cancel or freeze all new home building approvals. That would have a very serious impact on the construction industry that a lot people rely on for jobs." (see "Qld govt rejects population cap")

In other words, according to Anna Bligh, we are selling the family silver, being made to pay ever higher council rates, water, electricity and gas charges, endure traffic congestion, crowding, threatening the Koala, the lungfish, the Mary River Cod, and the Mary River Turtle, etc. with extinction, etc., etc. in order to keep construction workers employed.

Clearly this is plain stupid and any teenager should be able to understand that, but our highly paid political leaders and their advisers would have us believe that they cannot.

The Queensland Government and the minority whose interests they serve, are clearly cynically corrupt beyond anything that I could have, until recently, been able to conceive of in a supposedly enlightened and advanced society such as Australia.

They are not only conspiring to transfer wealth from the majority to themselves, but they are also making each member of our society on average necessarily poorer and therefore causing there to be even less to go around for the rest after they have grabbed their own increased share. On top of that the many are made to bear the cost of the inevitable economic inefficiencies of adding extra people well beyond what is our society's optimum population level. They are knowingly causing additional environmental destruction and additional consumption of non-renewable resources that rightly belong to future generations as well as our own.

And in the meantime, we are also required to lose control of ever more of our own assets often to foreign corporations to sustain popuation growth.

Note: much of the above article was adapted from a #comment-35549">comment of mine, which was published on that site.

See also: "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 24 Jan 09 republished on Online Opinion.

The newly formed "Billionaires for Privatisation", featuring luminaries from recently bailed-out banks through to coal company fat cats will walk arm-in-arm with "Anna Blight" tomorrow morning at an anti-privatisation rally in West End.

"We will be there to thank the Bligh-er for letting us get our hands on Queensland's public assets," spokesperson Phil T Rich explained. "While these assets might currently bring in hundreds of millions every year for public use on trivial things like schools and hospitals, by privatising the assets that revenue can go straight to people like me for important things like my fifth yacht!"

"And we want to thank Bligh for ignoring the fact that we had to be bailed out recently and still appointing us advisors to the sale" Col Usion from the Royal Bank of Scotland chuckled. "Yep, we can hardly believe that after failing so badly, we will get a 200million dollar 'advisory fee' from the Bligh Government," S Windler from Merrill Lynch, also recently bailed out with public money, chortled.

The Coal Industries Paul Ooter added gleefully "we can scarcely believe that now, not only can we own all the coal in this state, we can also control all the coal infrastructure too! We had been worried that with the global warming hoo-ha we might be slowed down by a push to renewable energy - but now we can buy up everything, that will never happen!"

Receiving the plaudits, Anna Blight grinned "well, we were never really going to listen to the 90% opposed to privatisation were we?" Blight explained that some of her best friends are 'connected' to the Billionaires alliance. It is rumoured that even Gordon Nuttall may make a special guest appearance. Nothing has been confirmed, but large paper bags with dollar signs have been spotted in the vicinity of Bligh's Vulture Street office.

Billionaires for Privatisation will carry placards declaring "profits not the public good!"; "forget jobs and services, remember the bottom line"; "Ports, rails, forests and motorways - a good start, keep it coming Anna!"

The rally will commence at the Lizard statue in Boundary street, hearing from speakers representing the tiny 90% who oppose Bligh's sell off plan. Speakers will include Scott Wilson from the Electrical Trades Union and Dave Matters from the Rail Bus and Trams Union, both of whose members are in the firing line; Ray Ferguson from the Pensioners League; and Libby Connors from The Greens.

The rally will march to Anna Bligh's office in Vulture street, where an auction of Vulture Street and West End will occur. "Why stop now?" Blight chuckled.

Time/Date: 11am Sat Aug 15, Meet @ Lizard Statue, Boundary St, West End
March to Bligh's Office (90 Vulture St).

Original article by Paul Benedek published on saveourpublicassets.org.See also: Stop Thief! Rally on 15 August to stop theft of Queensland's public assets.

The rally is organised by the Save Our Public Assets (SOPA) campaign group. For more information and comments contact:

Paul Benedek on 0410 629 088
Mark Gillespie on 3891 5385

Media Release: 3 August 2009

In response to today's news that the Queensland government is still considering activating sleeper licences to the Cooper Creek system, the coordinator of Fair Water Use (Australia), Dr Ian Douglas, is today reported as saying: "The Rudd Government stands condemned for its failure to put an end to the dysfunctional and conflicting governance arrangements that have brought the Murray-Darling to its knees."

He went on to say that "State premiers and water-ministers show no interest in looking at the big-picture and addressing the ever-increasing threat to Australia's water future."

Dr Douglas indicated that the evidence of the chaos continues to build chronologically:

• The Victorian Government's imposition of a 4% cap on the trading of
  water licences out of the state
• Commencement of construction of the North-South Pipeline by the Brumby Government, a project described by the Senior Advisor on Water Issues to the President of the United Nations General Assembly as "about the stupidest idea that has ever been conceived"
• The decision of the Rann Government in SA to pursue High Court action against the Victorian cap
• The declaration of an NSW embargo on trading of water licences to prevent further purchase of environmental water by the Federal Government
• The statement by NSW Premier Rees that his government may join its SA counterpart in the High Court challenge
• The announcement by Victorian Premier Brumby of a slow and partial phase-out of the 4% cap in return for a $ 300 million cash pay-out from the Commonwealth
• Confirmation by SA Premier Rann that his government intends to persist with its High Court challenge
• The NSW government's auction of water rights to the groundwater of the Great Artesian Basin, in direct conflict with the Federal Government's Cap-and-Pipe initiative
• The environmental havoc being wreaked as a resul t of the Rann Government's construction of water-regulators in the Lower Lakes
• The Queensland government's reported intention to activating sleeper licences to the Cooper Creek system, which may have major environmental consequences and threaten the public water supply to the South Australian outback community of Innamincka

Dr Douglas' statement concluded: "Fair Water Use will continue to lobby Mr Rudd until he supplies answers to vital questions that we and the senior water advisor to the United Nations have been asking him for many months; questions that all concerned Australians are entitled to pose", namely:

1. Whether his Government is giving urgent consideration to the declaration of a State of Emergency to enable it to override the self interest of the States and allow meaningful action to be taken to address the multiple, non-drought, causes of the crisis?
2. Whether his Government is giving urgent consideration to the establishment of a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the management and governance of the Murray-Darling Basin: past, present and future?
3. If he is not contemplating the above actions, would he please detail the reasons why he believes that the crisis does not warrant such an approach?

See also: "Qld Govt told to keep hands off SA water" on the ABC on 3 Aug 09, "Artesian basin water auction sells out environment and farmers" of  Jul 09, "'Last undefiled waterway' threatened" by Asa Wahlquist in The Australian of 13 Jul 09, fairwateruse.com.au.

Contact: Ian Douglas (National Coordinator)
+61 (0)416-022178

Authorised by: Ginny Brown
Media Coordinator media[AT]fairwateruse.com.au

Fair Water Use (Australia)

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