(We) can do better

I became aware of scandal in Brimbank Council a few years ago, because I assisted Jill Quirk in the editing of a film where Jill and Gloria O'Connor interviewed Marilyn Canet at length. The film, entitled, The Arcane Battle of Taylors Lakes has never been publicly released, but has been held as a document. Yesterday I recontacted Marilyn Canet and asked her what she thought of the investigations and the parliamentary speech. She said that she had been present in Parliament when Mrs Powell, the Member for Shepparton, had delivered her speech (published below) and that she thought it was very accurate. In addition Marilyn wrote:

"Since 2002 I have submitted more than 130 items of correspondence, submissions, reports to the Premier, Ministers, Auditor General, Attorney General, Victoria Police and other bodies requesting a full investigation into alleged corruption in Brimbank.

. No satisfactory investigations took place in response to those efforts.

. I have issued correspondence to the Victorian Ombudsman since the issue of his report outlining a further 22 issues which I believe his investigation should have included. In other words the recent investigation was narrowly focused and did not serve to present the full breadth of the allegations of irregular/corrupt practices.

. The Ombudsman's office was aware of these further issues from correspondence previously issued to his office. Appropriate actions should have been taken in 2004 when first notified.

. The reasons provided by the Ombudsman's Office for failure to investigate all allegations during this investigation was the limited resources available.

. It is the writers view that this case demonstrates the necessity for the urgent appointment of an Independent broad based Crime and Corruption Body to Victoria."
(Marilyn Canet)

Local government: corruption

[Subheadings added by candobetter editor]
Mrs POWELL [Nationals Victoria member for Shepparton] stated on 10 June 2009 — Today I grieve for the erosion of democracy in local government under this Labor government which refuses to stamp out corruption and thereby fails the people of Victoria, particularly those in the western suburbs.

To show Victorians the type of corruption evident within Labor Party ranks, today a second Ombudsman’s report has been tabled. It outlines allegations that a council building inspector, Mr Peter Anastasi, used information and influence in his role with the council to obtain a personal advantage in the purchase of a property. The Ombudsman has asked that those allegations be referred to Victoria Police for its consideration. This is another damning report on the Brimbank City Council and on this government’s allowance of corrupt practices in that council.

Rally for democracy on steps of Parliament

A rally is being held on the steps of Parliament House today, involving councillors from all over Victoria who are outraged at the government’s removal of planning powers from local government. I grieve because I know how important local government is; it has a vital role.

Members in this house know I have been a local government commissioner, but they forget that I have also been an elected councillor and an elected president with the Shire of Greater Shepparton.

I grieve for the councillors who will lose their jobs around Victoria ...

I understand the roles and responsibilities of a councillor. I grieve for the councillors who will lose their jobs around Victoria not because they have done anything wrong, but because this government has failed to stamp out corruption. It knew about those practices in the Brimbank council; it was warned for years, but it refused to do anything, and now decent, hardworking councillors across Victoria have to decide whether they want to be a councillor or whether they want to work for a member of Parliament.

...Because the government has sat on its hands and allowed corruption to escalate

These councillors have done absolutely nothing wrong, but the government has sat on its hands and allowed corruption to escalate because it does not want to upset the factional warlords and jeopardise their political careers. The factions really run Labor-dominated councils, as we have seen from the Brimbank report, which I will talk about later.

John Cain on Victorian ALP machine

It is not just the coalition or the community that believe there is corruption in Labor councils. An Age article of
16 May is headed, ‘Cain attacks ALP for council abuses.’ It reads:

Former Premier John Cain has called on leaders of the Victorian ALP machine to show some political will and stamp out the alarming abuses of power revealed in the Labor-dominated Brimbank council.

Mr Cain says the appalling behaviour of the ALP figures in the western suburb municipality, exposed in a scathing Ombudsman’s report last week, is an indictment of the whole party and a challenge to its organisational leaders.
The article further says:

It has the rules and processes to do so. All that is needed is the political will.

The article goes on:

Mr Cain, who wrote a damming internal report for the ALP five years ago on corrupt party practices in the western suburbs, says the Labor machine knows how to root out the problems.

… In reference to his 2004 report and other investigations Mr Cain writes: ‘Some years ago the Victorian ALP was shown, by internal inquiries conducted under its rules, what was wrong. It was told quite unambiguously what was needed to be done to remedy these faults. The branch stacking and ghost branch meetings had to stop. (But) for several reasons, it chose not to act.’

That is a damning indictment by a former Labor Premier of this state.

Marilyn Canet

I also grieve for the people of the western suburbs who have put up with these practices for years and have begged the government to intervene. For many years community members have written letters and made submissions to the government and Brimbank council asking them to stop the corrupt practices. I do not have time to go through all of them, but one of the people I would like particularly to speak about is Marilyn Canet, who on 1 July 2005 wrote to all members of Parliament. I have on file a copy of the letter I received from Ms Canet, who was then the Save Our Suburbs municipal representative for Brimbank.

The letter states:

The attached document has been issued to all parliamentary members and relevant planning bodies representing Victoria. It concerns alleged corruption involving the Brimbank City Council, but more importantly, the state government’s refusal to investigate and address those matters.

A letter from Ms Canet of 29 June 2005 says:

A full investigation into Brimbank City Council was recently sought in a parliamentary motion by the Hon. Bill Forwood and the Hon. John Vogels. Six Brimbank councillors (including the mayor of the time) were named in relation to alleged corruption involving a ‘councillor pool of moneys’ contributed by Brimbank developers, real estate agents and other businesses, intended to finance the named councillor’s 2003 election campaign …

Years of letters ignored by local and state government...

Ms Canet goes on to talk about the letters and submissions she has put to this government and to members of the ALP for years, and nothing has been done other than the Ombudsman finally being asked to look into those matters.

The Sunshine Ratepayers Association has written numerous letters, and Darlene Reilly has been to Brimbank City Council. There have been numerous letters and submissions sent to the former Minister for Local Government and to the Minister, for Planning, asking them to intervene and stop corrupt practices at the Brimbank council. A former shadow Minister for Local Government, John Vogels, also raised this matter a number of times in the other house, urging the government to step in and investigate allegations of corrupt and illegal practices by Labor councillors, and again nothing has happened.

Local MPs in the area called for investigations into Brimbank

The local MPs in the area became involved. Mr Bernie Finn, a member for Western Metropolitan Region in the other house, has continually called for investigations into Brimbank. If members read the upper house debates regarding the Brimbank council, they will see how many people have asked for investigations into the Brimbank council, going back many years. In this house the member for Keilor delivered an absolute tirade on the Brimbank council in the grievance debate, and anyone who wants to understand how corrupt he saw Brimbank council as being just has to read in Hansard the debate of 30 July last year. It is a shame that I do not have enough time to put more on record, but those who are interested should read the report of that tirade.

The member for Keilor is the local member. He is also a longstanding Labor member, and in absolute frustration he used the grievance debate to urge the government to investigate the Brimbank council.

Ombudsman's investigation finally occurred

On behalf of the coalition I wrote to the Ombudsman the day after that tirade, calling for an investigation of the serious misconduct of two councils — the Brimbank council and the Port Phillip City Council. I sent the Ombudsman a copy of the Hansard speech of the member for Keilor and his claims of threats, bribery, intimidation, misuse of council funds, mismanagement, improper behaviour and the Brimbank council’s failure to govern effectively. I also sent the Ombudsman a transcript of the ABC program Stateline of Friday, 25 July, which raised some serious issues about the conduct of Labor councillors and Labor members. Mr George Brouwer, the Ombudsman, responded on 7 August last year saying that he was conducting his own investigation into Port Phillip council but had decided to conduct a formal investigation into the Brimbank council following my request.

The Ombudsman’s report was tabled on 7 May, about nine months after it was requested. This report was much-awaited by the coalition, but more importantly it was much-awaited by the Labor government, ALP councillors at Brimbank and all ALP members, because they would have known it would be a damning indictment of the way Labor runs councils — for Labor’s benefit and not for the benefit of communities.

The 208-page document goes absolutely to the cut and thrust of what was happening at Brimbank at the time. I suggest that any member who wants to find out how not to run a council and about the misuse of power by councillors, should read the Ombudsman’s report. I congratulate the Ombudsman on the thoroughness of the report. It was tabled on 7 May and is entitled Investigation into the Alleged Improper Conduct of Councillors at Brimbank City Council, and.

The report states:

Councillors are mandated to represent the interests of the community and to faithfully and impartially carry out their functions to the best of their skill and judgement. They are required to act honestly and to exercise reasonable care and diligence and must not make improper use of their position or information acquired, because of their position, to advantage themselves or any other person or to cause detriment to the council.

It further states:

Sadly, my investigation into the conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council identified that the behaviour of many councillors failed to meet those standards.

Dysfunctional council, influence of unelected persons

The report goes on to detail evidence given to the Ombudsman about a dysfunctional council, the influence of unelected persons who held no elected local government office, including individuals who would be or who were in the past precluded from holding office because of criminal convictions. These are people who are dealing with councillors, talking to councillors and trying to make decisions in their interests rather than in the interests of the people of the western suburbs.

...Conflicts of interest, an improper use of power, bullying and intimidation, misuse of council funds and equipment including pornographic material...

The Ombudsman found there were conflicts of interest, an improper use of power, bullying and intimidation, misuse of council funds and equipment including pornographic material and inappropriate software on the laptops of two councillors, the inappropriate release of information, improper use of electoral information and concerns about the Office of Local Government not being funded sufficiently to carry out the statutory responsibilities of investigating breaches of the Local Government Act. The report goes on and on about the corrupt practices at the Brimbank council.

The government has said it will implement all of the recommendations in the report, including having the Minister for Local Government closely monitor the activities of the council and suspending it if the current poor practices continue. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Local Government Act be amended to disqualify persons employed as electorate officers, ministerial advisers and parliamentary advisers, and anyone employed by a federal or state MP from becoming or continuing to be a councillor or nominating as a councillor. As I said earlier, this means that councillors across Victoria who are hard working and are not guilty of any offence will be sacked.

Conflict with Charter of Human Rights and Responsiblities

We have to wonder whether, when this legislation is introduced, it will be contrary to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. I understand the Municipal Association of Victoria is seeking some advice on that issue.

Some of the most damning evidence is that this government is saying it has put in place a code of conduct and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and it talks about the issue of bias and says that councillors must come to their council chambers with an open mind and be able to change their minds.

ALP 'Municipal Caucus rules'

I will read briefly from the ALP’s ‘municipal caucus rules’. These show how members of the ALP — councillors of the caucus — cannot have open minds.

The rules state:

12.6.1 An ALP caucus shall be established in each municipal government area where two or more endorsed ALP candidates have been elected to office, All endorsed ALP candidates who have been elected to office shall belong to the ALP caucus.
…
12.6.6 The vote of an absolute majority of eligible caucus members shall bind all members of caucus and no member shall oppose in debate in council any matter which has been determined by caucus, except by the agreement of caucus.
…
12.6.9 Any member of caucus first wishing to introduce an item in council under general business shall first submit that item to caucus for its consideration.

12.6.10 In the case of a notice of motion which must be submitted before the notice paper is published, permission to submit such a motion must be given by the president of caucus.

12.6.11 The caucus shall determine who shall move and second motions to be introduced or coming before council arising from caucus decisions.
…
12.6.14 Meetings of caucus shall be held in camera. Unless required by these rules, no member of caucus shall divulge any information regarding the proceedings of caucus unless authorised to do so by an absolute majority of eligible caucus members or the administrative committee.

Mrs Powell: Municipal caucus rules not in the public interest

I call on the government to immediately abandon its municipal caucus rules in the public interest and the interests of good local government. People need to have confidence in local government, and they have to respect the office of local government. Victoria needs to stamp out corruption at all levels of government.
Obviously this Labor government has shown that it does not have the will to do that.

It is not just the opposition that says this; former Labor Premier John Cain, the community of Brimbank and councils right across Victoria are saying we should stamp out corruption. They are telling this government to use the power it has, to use the Local Government Act to stamp it out, to stop it before it festers and grows and escalates. Those of us who support local government say, ‘Stop these corrupt practices’.

Call for independent, broadbased anticorruption commission

To stamp out corruption at all levels of government Victoria needs an independent, broadbased anticorruption commission. I believe we are almost the only state without one, so I call on the government to listen to what the opposition is saying. We support local government and ask this Labor government to put in place the Ombudsman’s recommendations and stamp out corruption.

ALP should take the muzzles off the Labor councillors

More than that, we ask the government to talk to its Labor councillors and allow them to speak on behalf of the community, not for members caucus and the ALP who deal with ALP policies and practices. In the interests of local government I urge the government to work with local government, to stamp out corruption and allow local government to get on with what it does best — namely, represent the interests of its community.

Source: Hansard Victoria, 10 June 2009, heading, "Local Government: Corruption"

Mr RYAN (Leader of The Nationals),speaking in Parliament on 11 June 2009, said, "Yesterday, together with the member for Bass and other members of Parliament from the conservative side of politics, I was on the front steps of Parliament House when yet another rally was conducted by Victorians who came to the Parliament to complain about the excesses of the Brumby government.

The organisations involved in yesterday’s rally [10 June 2009] were the Coalition of Concerned Councillors, an organisation called Planning Backlash, and another organisation called Watershed Victoria. I was presented with about 3000 letters in relation to issues to do with the desalination plant. Part of one letter reads as follows:

I am dismayed by Mr Brumby’s intention to build the largest, climate-change-accelerating desalination plant in the southern hemisphere on the pristine Bass Coast. There is no mandate. It is a total about-face to ALP re-election Water Policy of ‘recycling and conservation, that will secure Melbourne’s water supply’

… Desalination uses enormous energy, and is enormously expensive. The Brumby government has spent millions of tax payers dollars attempting to deliberately distort and mislead the community into accepting this disastrous project without openly and transparently evaluating sustainable and superior water alternatives …"

I have undertaken to provide these letters to the Premier, and I will. The people of Victoria are sick of the taint of corruption, issues to do with financial management, taxation, matters to do with the destruction of people’s rights — all things this government campaigned on and is now ignoring.

Source: Victorian Hansard June 11, 2009

In a letter to NSW Premier Nathan Rees, a Pensioner describes how the imposition of a car rally on the people of Kyogle by state Government which does nothing for the area will add to the almost crippling financial burden caused by a combination of removal of rail services and neglect of local roads, and may well endanger his life. We will post any reply from Premier Nathan Rees. This letter was originally posted as a comment to the article "State Government intervenes on behalf of Repco Rally Australia" of 31 May 09. Mr Premier, Your Government has seen fit to supercede council approval of the Repco car rally in my area - Kyogle. We pay rates here and your Govt does nothing for this area bar taking away our train and never replacing it, making us travel by car to Lismore then bus to Casino. We have to put up with no council services and a road that is not maintained bar every 2 years causing me to spend $3000 on car repairs just to able to access my home, I have recently had to take a personal loan of $7000 to buy a car more suitable for the road.On a pension this leaves me near destitute. Now a 2 day car rally event will see the road graded just for this event then destroyed by the same event and we will be left for 3 days unable to access work, medical and the freedom to leave our homes. What benefits do we get? Nothing! No discount or waiver on rates and no improvement for roads. Even less now that the 2 yearly work done will be erased by the rally! I am disabled and suffering from medical problems that may require immediate hospital treatment, I will not be able to get treatment! So could die. This is not acceptable, If the car rally goes ahead I will have no choice but to make a protest that will make national headlines, showing how democracy has no meaning and your Govt and local councils have no care for NSW residents health and rights! Those that vote and pay rates! Peter

Community members of a small green wedge, rural-residential township south east of Melbourne have won their fight to relocate industrial infrastructure for the Wonthaggi Desalination Project to a more suitable location, away from residences and their local primary school.

Unfortunately Wonthaggi itself has lost its battle against the actual desal plant.

Last November as the Environmental Effects Statement (EES) panel hearing began, Cardinia resident Catherine Manning stumbled across plans for a massive Booster Pump Station and possible chemical dosing facility. Horrified, she pulled together a petition and thorough presentation of the impacts to the local community.

Her submission to the EES hearing prompted the panel to personally visit the site. Their visit resulted in their recommending relocation of the Booster Pump Station. This was one of the panel's forty two final recommendations made to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

However, to Ms Manning's dismay, that recommendation was rejected by Minister Madden.

"I had followed what I was told was 'proper process' and felt vindicated when the panel wholeheartedly agreed with our community's concerns, but was alarmed that the Minister had missed the point of our submission and rejected that recommendation', Ms Manning said. 'I felt that the process was flawed and undemocratic, and that as a small community, we were being ignored and our concerns overlooked.'

Delegation to Parliament House

Not to be deterred, Ms Manning contacted Eastern Region Upper House MP Johan Scheffer. She requested a meeting with Minister Madden's office and the head of the desalination project Peter Sammut, to outline her concerns. Local primary school principal Allan Armstrong, and adjoining landholder Udyta Clark helped form the delegation to Parliament House.

'Having not been consulted properly in the first place, then feeling let down by the process, this final result is a real victory for us and an example of what can be achieved by ordinary people determined to seek an appropriate outcome,' said Ms Manning.

Source: Media Release from residents of Cardinia township. Thu, 11 Jun 2009
Contact: Catherine Manning by contacting us at candobetter.org

On 21st May I wrote the following email to Mayor Joan van Lieshout: Dear Joan I read in a local paper recently that you have not yet made up your mind about the Repco Rally. Perhaps you may like to consider that the councils of Auburn, Parramatta and Ryde have all rejected a similar race in their area (see http://www.tec.org.au/images/council%20resolutions.pdf (25K) ) You can read more on this race here:- http://www.tec.org.au/index.php?Itemid=291&id=693&option=com_content&task=view It seems to me the Tweed Shire would have even more reasons to reject it as there are a) more endangered species to protect (especially as it's in breeding season) b) more of an eco-tourism reputation to protect c) more rural residents likely to be negatively impacted as the course is much longer On the subject of economic benefits, I am attaching a 35 page document which is a literary review titled Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events? by Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys It analyses benefits of subsidising sport franchises in terms of economic benefits (jobs, income, tax revenue). In case you would prefer to read an abbreviated version I have also attached that (3 pages) - titled 'Survey Sports Benefits.' The proponents, V8 Supercars Australia, also want a $30 million subsidy from taxpayers funds. Economic assessment of similar races in the ACT has shown significant negative economic results. I think it's important to note that the benefits claimed by RRA are most likely to be hyperinflated. Their claim that it will 'showcase the Tweed' are also likely not to be true. I see only one picture of the Tweed Shire on the Repco website. Repco claims to be working with Landcare yet this is emphatically denied by Adam Heggie of Pumpenbil Landcare who has spoken to key members of landcare. Repco claims to have interviewed local residents and that 85% support the rally. Where is the independent social survey? The vast majority of people I speak to are opposed to it. People have been flocking to sign petitions against this rally. Please I encourage you to look more deeply into this. Things are not as rosy as they seem. Thanking you, Ten days later I wrote another letter:- Dear Mayor Lieshout To follow on from my speech on Biodiversity at community access last Thursday night, I thought you might like to see the following video (of a Western Australian program to preserver the Black Cockatoo). Since two thirds of fauna in the Tweed Shire are threatened/endangered, why isn't a program like this one in West Australia happening here for all our at risk species? Are we so far behind the times that we can't even see the importance of species protection? How else are we to remain on the iconic landscapes program if we lose our fauna? Council has money to throw at an independent car rally, so why not something of far greater importance such as this? Sincerely, So far no replies have been received to my emails from the Mayor. Perhaps biodiversity is not important enough a topic for her to be bothered paying attention to? Or maybe it's easier to stick her head in the sand or put this in the 'too hard' basket. Some weeks ago in the Mayor's column of the Daily News, Mayor van Lieshout wrote in support of the opportunities for eco tourism in the region. Does she think she can have her cake and eat it too? Apparently .... or maybe she just still hasn't made up her mind about the rally. Since that time it looks like special legislation may soon be enacted taking the DA out of council's hands. Nevertheless, Tweed Council could still vehemently oppose the Repco rally as do Parramatta, Auburn and Ryde oppose the V8 rally. Or could it? With Mike Raynor, General Manager, on the board of Directors of Repco Rally Australia? I have heard that Mayor Lieshout and Cr Katie Milne asked Raynor to step down from his position on the board but that unless the majority of Councillors agree, it won't happen. Perhaps it's time to contact them? Joan van Lieshout (Mayor) (p) (02)66702402 (e) jvanlieshout[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Barry Longland (Dep. Mayor) (p) 0458 525 372 (e) blongland[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Dot Holdom (p) 0437 037 069 (e) dholdom[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Katie Milne (p) (07) 55909622 (e) kmilne[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Warren Polglase (p) 0428 961 30 (e) wpolglase[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Phil Youngblutt (p) (02) 6677 9323 (e) pyoungblutt[AT]tweed.nsw.gov.au Kevin Skinner (p) (02) 6674 1660 (e) KSkinner[A]tweed.nsw.gov.au. LATEST UPDATE On 13th August I contacted Mayor van Lieshout with a summary of the Ambrose Ecological report which was very damning of the Repco rally. It was deleted without being read on 9th September, 2009. This mayor accused Cr Milne of My understanding is that in the Code of Conduct councillors must reply to all mail. So far Cr Katie Milne and Cr Dot Holdom are the only ones who have ever replied to my mail.

Five weeks after I made my complaint, the ABC has responded. The reponse defends the ABC Brisbane local Radio journalists' failure to hold to account the Queensland Government over these issues: privatisation, encouragement of runaway population growth, housing unaffordabilty, plans to triple our coal exports as the polar ice caps melt, and the devastation of agricultural and wilderness areas by open cut coal mining, etc. The ABC deems these issues not to be newsworthy.

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

Five weeks after I made my complaint, the ABC has responded. The reponse defends the ABC Brisbane local Radio journalists' failure to hold to account the Queensland Government over these issues: privatisation, encouragement of runaway population growth, housing unaffordabilty, plans to triple our coal exports as the polar ice caps melt, and the devastation of agricultural and wilderness areas by open cut coal mining, etc. The ABC deems these issues not to be newsworthy. The full text is included below.

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

Dear Mr Sinnamon

Thank you for your email of 1 May concerning 612 ABC Brisbane's coverage of independent candidates during the 2009 Queensland State election, and your email of 27 May concerning talkback on the 612 ABC Brisbane Morning program with Madonna King of the same day. In keeping with the ABC's complaints policy, your emails have been referred to me for investigation and response. Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.

With respect to your concerns about the ABC's coverage of independent candidates, including yourself, during the 2009 Queensland State election, we note you raise a number of matters in your blog post of 30 April on the website http://candobetter.org, and have responded to your substantive concerns in turn below. However, by way of context, please note that the editorial principles fundamental to the ABC are articulated in the ABC's Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. Complaints made in respect to ABC content are assessed against these editorial principles. The ABC's provisions in respect to political and election broadcasts are outlined in section 12 of the Editorial Policies. Copies of both the Code and the Policies are available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/charter.htm.

The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view. Whilst not discounting the views or policies of the other parties and independent candidates, coverage in respect to such parties and candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. The Policies also note that the ABC reserves the right to withhold free broadcast time to political parties, including those not currently represented in the Parliament concerned, on the basis of the measure of demonstrated public support for the party.

Whilst we note you refer to a number of specific broadcasts of concern, which are addressed in further detail below, we believe that the 612 ABC Brisbane coverage of the Queensland State election was consistent with the ABC's approach to election coverage, as outlined in the Editorial Policies. By way of illustration, external monitoring of 612 ABC Brisbane's coverage of the first week of the election campaign by Media Monitors showed the 'share of voice' coverage to be 43.3% ALP, 38.3% LNP, 13% Greens and 5.4% Independents. We note your view that listener dissatisfaction with the major parties should encourage a greater level of coverage of non-ALP and non-LNP candidates; however, we cannot agree that this changes the ABC's editorial obligations as stipulated in the Policies, or that the ABC's level of coverage of independent candidates was discriminatory.

We note you raise concerns that the ABC failed to cover the issues of privatisation and population growth during the campaign. Whilst we do not dispute that such issues may be of some interest, and we note they were platforms on which you conducted your campaign as an independent candidate in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha, we believe that the two issues were not raised as significant election issues and hence were not afforded detailed coverage on the basis of newsworthiness.

ABC Radio notes that the Morning program took hundreds of talkback calls during the campaign on a variety of issues and the matter of privatisation was only raised by you. We further note that your question on the topic was put to State Treasurer Andrew Fraser by Ms King on 13 March and answered on-air. Ms King was clear in putting the question to Mr Fraser that it was submitted by you, noting you were an independent candidate for the seat of Mout Coot-tha, and that you had previously written directly to Mr Fraser on the matter. This was as part of a weekly segment on the Morning program during the campaign in which Mr Fraser and his LNP Opposition counterpart Tim Nichols discussed the big political issues of the week. The segment covered a range of topics that day including preference deals, uranium in north Queensland, the mood of the electorate in key Brisbane seats and the Leaders debate.

We note you raise concerns that Mr Fraser's on-air response to your question concerning privatisation appeared contrary to the written correspondence you received from Mr Fraser on the matter, and that you were 'entitled to air-time... to rectify that misinformation'. Having reviewed the broadcast, we note that Mr Fraser's on-air response to the question 'yes or no: are there any assets you plan to privatise' was 'no, and I've written back to James and we don't have an ideological commitment to pursuing privatisation'. We cannot agree that further correction or clarification was required by you; the statement made by Mr Fraser on-air was not presented as factual content by the ABC but clearly were the views of Mr Fraser and the ALP. Accordingly, we believe that if you have any concerns as to the level of assurance Mr Fraser provided in his written correspondence with you on this matter is most appropriately raised by you directly with Mr Fraser.

With respect to the interview with Mr Fraser by Ms King on 13 March, we note you raise specific concerns of 'lightweight' treatment, when compared with Ms King's treatment of Ms Bligh in an interview on 18 March, most notably in respect to the issue of privatisation. The Editorial Policies state that, with respect to interviews, it is a matter of editorial judgement as to how, if and when the completed interview will be broadcast or published. Accordingly, we assess each interview for compliance with the ABC's editorial principles. In respect to the two interviews to which you refer, we can find no evidence to suggest they were not in keeping with the ABC's editorial standards.

We note you raise concerns regarding the interview with Ms Bligh's husband, Greg Wither, on 17 March on the Morning program. ABC Radio advise that the interview intentionally focussed on Mr Wither's experiences as the spouse of the leader of a political party, not policy information. ABC Radio also note that the Morning program sought an interview with LNP leader Lawrence Springborg's spouse, but this was not granted. Having reviewed the interview, we consider it to be appropriate and relevant in providing a different human interest angle to the current major news event of the time - the election - and of interest to the listening audience.

As indicated above, coverage in respect to the non-major parties and independent candidates during election campaigns is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. Whilst we note you provided information in respect to issues you considered to be worthy of coverage - including population growth, privatisation, and a survey being conducted on your website - the ABC determined, consistent with the principles outlined in the Editorial Policies that note staff are responsible for exercising editorial judgement, that these issues were not of news value at the time, and hence detailed coverage was not warranted. We further note that it is not the ABC's role to 'use its influence to prevail upon the major parties to respond' to the survey you were conducting on your website.

In addition to your question concerning privatisation being put to Mr Fraser on 13 March, you spoke on-air on the Breakfast program with Spencer Howson on 10 March. ABC Radio advise that Mr Howson had asked if community members were willing to pay $130 for a ticket to attend the Leaders debate. We note that your talkback call on the matter was put to air, you were identified by your full name and as an independent candidate for the Mount Coot-tha electorate. In addition to expressing your views on the Leaders debate ticket pricing, and concerns that the media and the debate would not address a number of important issues, you advised that you were participating in a free public debate in the Mount Coot-tha electorate and advised the date, time and location.

We regret you feel that the ABC demonstrated disdain for independent candidates in the Queensland State election, based on your experiences and those of fellow independent candidate Dave Zwolenski. However, we again point out that ABC coverage of independent candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness, consistent with our statutory obligations.

We note you make specific reference to a comment by either Ms King or Kellie Higgins-Devine on 20 March that noted an independent candidate was very late in releasing their policy statement, some two days before the election. On the basis of the information you have provided, we have been unable to identify the comment in the broadcasts of that day.

In both your blog and your email of 1 May, you allege 'shabby treatment' by 612 ABC Brisbane Program Director Kellie Riordan. ABC Radio advise that Ms Riordan telephoned you in March to assist you in understanding the process by which stories should be pitched to program teams, and also provided to you contact emails for those program teams. Ms Riordan explained that stories are judged on newsworthiness and relevance to the listening audience. We understand Ms Riordan noted you had already appeared as a talkback caller on the Breakfast program once, and had your question concerning privatisation put to Mr Fraser, and considered you had been provided sufficient coverage. We note that following this telephone conversation, you emailed Ms Riordan on 20 March regretting having argued so heatedly with her for so long, and reiterating your concerns that 612 ABC Brisbane was serving Brisbane voters very poorly.

Having reviewed your exchanges with Ms Riordan, on both the information provided by you and ABC Radio, we cannot agree that you were treated disrespectfully or inappropriately. Instead, we note that Ms Riordan articulated the ABC's editorial principles with respect to election coverage, and provided you with appropriate means by which to pitch stories to program teams to enable opportunities for coverage.

In your email of 27 May, you raise concerns that Ms King deleted two blog posts you submitted to the Morning program website. Please note that the ABC publishes blog posts based on numerous criteria including their relevance to the on-air program, their coherence and focus. The ABC is under no obligation to publish all blog posts submitted, and the moderation principles for user-generated content are outlined in section 9 of the Editorial Policies.

Unfortunately, the two blog posts you submitted are no longer available. However, ABC Radio advises that the Program Director, Ms Riordan, recalls that they articulated a general view as to why the Government should be opposed to privatisation and, on the basis of lack of relevance to the matters being covered on the program, were not published. Further, Ms Riordan advises that she cannot recall any posts that were critical of Ms King being submitted by you, but notes that posts that are critical of the program are routinely published on the blog.

I wish to assure you that the ABC is committed to editorial independence, and to coverage of election campaigns in accordance with its editorial principles outlined in the Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. The ABC establishes, for each election, an Election Coverage Review Committee which monitors and reviews the ABC's performance, balance and fairness in accordance with the editorial principles. Having reviewed the ABC's coverage of the Queensland State election, the Committee found it to be in keeping with the editorial principles. By way of illustration, 612 ABC Brisbane's cumulative coverage during the election, which closely matches polling, was 5:01:31 for the ALP; 4:53:59 for the LNP; 0:30:09 for the Greens; 0:46:59 for independents; and 0:20:45 for other coverage.

In summary, and having reviewed all the matters which you raise in your email of 1 May and blog post of 30 April, we believe that the 612 ABC Brisbane coverage of the Queensland State election, and the treatment of you as an independent candidate, was fair and appropriate, and in keeping with the editorial principles for election coverage and news and current affairs content as outlined in the ABC's Code of Practice and Editorial Policies.

With respect to your email of 27 May, we note you raise a separate concern as to whether you were deliberately cut off when you phoned in to the 612 ABC Brisbane Morning program that day to participate in talkback during a segment featuring Ms Bligh that covered, amongst other issues, privatisation. You also seek advice as to whether you are welcome to express your views on 612 ABC Brisbane, in particular the Morning program.

ABC Radio advise that you did not identify yourself by name when calling the program for talkback that day, and hence your call could not have been deliberately screened with the intention of not putting you to air. As is often the case with talkback, the volume of calls and time constraints were the likely cause of your call not being put to air. In this case, the Morning program producer, Simon Scoble, notes that callers telephoning after approximately 10:23am that morning were thanked for calling and advised there was no further time available for calls.

I understand Mr Scoble telephoned you on 28 May to explain the talkback process and your concerns in respect to this matter. As Mr Scoble advised, talkback calls are put to air at the producer's discretion and are judged on a number of factors including, but not limited to, relevance to the topic being discussed, whether the point to be made by the caller has already been sufficiently covered, and whether the point to be made will be of interest to the audience and can be made clearly and succinctly. Where possible, programs endeavour to give as many people as possible an opportunity to contribute to talkback, within the context of putting to air a diversity of voices and views, and other programming constraints and considerations.

I am assured by ABC Radio that you are welcome to contribute to 612 ABC Brisbane talkback, as is the case for all members of the community, noting that all calls will be assessed in respect to the editorial talkback considerations described above. In the case of your call on 27 May, we do not believe you were deliberately cut off or not put to air, and instead note that the management of the talkback session with Ms Bligh was in keeping with the ABC's editorial principles.

Nevertheless, please be assured that all of your concerns with respect to both election coverage and talkback on 612 ABC Brisbane have been conveyed to ABC Radio management.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for providing us an opportunity to respond. Please note, for future reference, that complaints about ABC editorial standards are best submitted via our online complaints form at: http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm.

Yours sincerely

Kirsten McLeod

Audience & Consumer Affairs

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

What kind of incompetent government cannot even keep small creatures like bandicoots from extinction? Wildlife ecologist and forensic animal hair identification expert, Hans Brunner, says politicians and greedy planners have seriously watered down and misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'reserve'. Parks Victoria complain about the lack of money, but spend money on infrastructure for people leaving no money for the protection of plants and animals, or for weeding, predator control and fencing, which should be their first and only priority.

by Hans Brunner

Obvious role of Nature Conservation Reserves

Nature Conservation Reserves are meant to be primarily secured for the protection and enhancement of indigenous plant and animals. These reserves must be strictly only used as a refuge for the plants and animals that have been destroyed everywhere else. Outside these reserves people have taken up over 95% of space available. This includes the many sports grounds, schoolyards, golf courses, botanical gardens, beaches and similar open spaces where people can enjoy open air activities.

Obvious role of Nature Conservation Reserves ignored and exploited for other reasons
Unfortunately, insensitive politicians, greedy planners and most of the selfish public have seriously watered down and misinterpreted the meaning of the word reserve. Why then call them 'reserves'?

It is obvious, when people already occupy 95 % of all the other space that the reserves are there to keep people out from what is clearly reserved for our unique plants and animals.

Offsets do not replace habitat
Whenever Nature Reserves are compromised and mutilated with infra structure, we are even hoodwinked to believe that offsets will replace lost habitat. But offsets are really only as good as criminal money laundering is. They are fake!

Humans do far more damage than the foxes, cats and dogs that get the blame
There is also no argument that in environmental terms, it is not foxes, cats and dogs, but us humans, who are the most serious pest species on earth. So, why are humans always given preference?

Yet humans are always given priority in 'Nature Reserves'
Whenever a master management plan is created for a Nature Reserve, it is always people that get the first consideration. The animals and plants have to suffer the consequences of these unbalanced decisions, which result in ongoing local extinctions, and in serious loss of biodiversity.

Parks Victoria cries poor but spends up big on humans

Parks Victoria is always complaining about the lack of money and we know why. They spend all the money on infra structure to accommodate people and then have no money left for the protection of plants and animals and for weeding, predator control and for fencing, which should be their first and only priority. A Nature Conservation Reserve is very much cheaper and easier to manage when people are mainly kept out of it. It becomes affordable.

...and fails to adequately monitor, mitigate and repair indigenous fauna and flora decline
Why doesn't Parks Victoria make plans to regularly monitor the presence of native plants and animals and to act when there is a decline or possible loss of a species? Have they ever made plans to re-introduce previously lost species?

Incompetent treatment and skewed priorities damage Pines Flora & Fauna Reserve

An area of prime habitat for the Southern Banded Bandicoot

A typical example is the near demolition of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve. Only a very short time ago this reserve has been doubled in size to 220 ha in order to protect and enhance the nationally endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot. Now it is going to be bisected by a four line freeway taking away a large area of prime habitat for bandicoots. As if this is not damaging enough, further plans are for a cycling and walking track, as well as lots of other walking tracks and a primary visitor node, involving lots of infra structure and parking space, all for the people at the expense of the plants and animals that are supposed to be protected. In the ex-Dara land, where bandicoots were most prevalent, a large area has also been taken over by a school, surrounded by several ha of open space. And this was not the end. To cap it all, a large housing estate has been placed exactly where bandicoots used to roam. DSE admits that because of all this habitat loss and disturbance caused, the Southern Brown Bandicoot may become lost in the Pines, but nothing is done to stop it.

And now the miserable history of the bandicoots.

When the Dara land was occupied by the Dept. of Agriculture and Vegetable Research, hundreds of bandicoots lived in the unused heath land. They were incidentally protected by regular poisoning programs of foxes and rabbits which did damage to the vegetables. In 1970’s, I (Hans Brunner) carried out a bait acceptance trial on bandicoots in the Dara land where I trapped twelve bandicoots. In the 1980’s I collected 18 bandicoots for the La Trobe University within two trap nights. They were still plentiful then.

Brunner indicating bandicoot diggings

Again in the Dara land, in 1997 Sally Kimber studied the bandicoots near whereI had earlier carried out the bait acceptance trial. Sally's supervisor was Peter Brown from Deakin University. I was also involved and inspected the trap lanes with Sally and Peter to examine the trapped bandicoots. In 1999, the Pines population of bandicoots were described again to be the largest on the Peninsula, ( Taylor ).

In 2005, about two years after the Dept. of Agriculture left the Dara land, a number of people including Dr.Terry Coats and I inspected the whole of the Dara land for the presence of bandicoots. No signs of bandicoots were found. The land has been opened to the public by installing gates to allow people with their dogs to roam freely throughout, what should have been a reserve for bandicoots.

Parks Victoria was now in charge and I blame them totally for the loss of these bandicoots. Fox control has stopped and rabbits have increased in numbers, all to the detriment of the bandicoots.

Shortly after Sally's study, her study area was burned for fire reduction without consulting ecologists to assess the possible danger to bandicoots. To rub salt into the wound, another, huge area of bandicoot habitat was also burned just next to it, long before any remaining bandicoots would have been able to have recolonise the previously burned area.

What else could be expected from Parks Victoria?

Really silly plans for a Primary Visitor Node must be stopped to save what is left

And now, the plans are to construct a “ Primary Visitor Node”, again just for the people, in the same Dara land with more visitor tracks that will meander throughout prime bandicoot habitat. Another part will be occupied by a cycle trail. Who knows what else will be added for human use at the expense of natural habitat?

This 'primary visitor node' must never be built anywhere within a reserve. Instead, this money should be spent on fox and rabbit control and on fencing.

Coming back to my opening remarks about the purpose of Nature Conservation Reserves, it is imperative that the whole of the Dara land (half of the total the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve), be locked up and used for the urgent recovery of the nationally endangered bandicoots and all the other iconic native plant and animals that will benefit.

In the absence of people and dogs it will then allow for the unhindered control of foxes and rabbits. The area is already fenced with a type of fence that allowed bandicoots to flourish as they did when this area was managed by the Dept. of Agriculture.

There can be no more excuses! The other half of the Pines should also be used only for very passive recreation such as walking but without dogs!!

The four lane bypass and the cycle trail will always remain a shameful monstrosity which causes enormous damage, not only to the Pines, but the whole region.

Hans Brunner

The closing date for submissions to the Human Rights Consultation process established by the Federal Government is June 15th 2009.

The following is a draft of a submission prepared by the Australian Water Network, in consultation with FWU. We encourage all supporters to submit their concerns with respect to Australia's water future, via the link posted to the "NEWS" page of the FWU site.

Rationale for inclusion of reference to right to water within a proposed bill of rights.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its 22 May, 2009 report expressed concern about the negative impact of climate change on the right to an adequate standard of living, including on the right to water, affecting in particular indigenous peoples, in spite of the State Party’s recognition of the challenges imposed by climate change.

“It needs to the recognised that sooner or later the Federal Government will need to (or be forced to) take on the role of conservator and distributor of water without fear of favour. Corrupt and parochial state and local governments can have no part in such undertakings and neither can cashed up private companies who have shown an inclination to feed corruption for their own ends”. (Bruce Haig and Kellie Tranter. courtesy ABC Online, May 27, 2009)

“National Water Plans and Senate Inquiries offer little hope of prescribing the empirical rethink that is manifestly required. The implications of "getting it wrong" are quite simply too momentous to leave the task in the hands of those who happen to be charged with governmental responsibility at this time” (Ian Douglas, Fair Water Use (Australia): courtesy ABC Online, Sept 16, 2008)

In his concluding notes on the Right to a Pristine Environment, (Statute of Liberty pp 205/6) Geoffrey Robertson says,

'there are repeated references in international treaties and resolutions to the human right to a healthy environment. It has been recognised in the South African Constitution and by the Supreme Court of Canada. Australians proudly sing “our land abounds in nature’s gifts in beauty rich and rare”, so why not provide nature’s gifts with a measure of legal protection against being given away.'

This must include the essential right to water as a global commons. (Article 31, United Nations, Maude Barlow Blue Gold /Blue Covenant)

Proposed text

The Right to Water and a Healthy Environment

The Federal Government of Australia will use its vested powers to ensure that its citizens are vouchsafed the fundamental human right to water for sustenance and all reasonable use.

The governance of the nation’s water, including determination of “reasonable use”, will fall under the sole jurisdiction of a fully independent body accountable, via federal parliament, to the Australian people. The structure and independence of this water authority will be analogous to that of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The right to water will be declared an essential human right as a global commons. Under this definition, the right to water will be given precedence and advantage, in international and local law, over any other interests. Access to water will not be subject to market forces or to private or corporate interests. The precautionary principle of ecosystem protection must take precedence over commercial demands on water.

The carriage of this right will always be within the public domain. Any dilution of this right or interference in its carriage will be declared an offence under Australian Federal law.

These fundamental rights are contained within, and hold self-evident, provisions pertaining to the right to a pristine and healthy environment, namely:

The right:

(i) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being of citizens

(ii) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that:

- prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
- promote conservation; and protect native flora and fauna, and areas necessary to maintain biological diversity and ecosystems;
- secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development;
- establish a planning system that ensures encroachments upon areas of natural beauty or heritage value and species and ecological communities of National Environmental Significance are not approved unless by fair, transparent and non-corrupt process, which takes that value into account.

(iii) to timely and adequate assistance in the event of fire, flood, cyclone or other natural disaster or catastrophe.

Distilled is the monthly newsletter produced by the National Water Commission, the government-appointed national body ostensibly responsible for "driving progress towards the sustainable management and use of Australia's water resources" - a gloriously vacuous aspiration, even by institutional standards. An extract from the current issue is revealing:

"Stakeholders urge more action on water reform:

Water industry stakeholders have urged the Commission to continue to fearlessly identify areas where further and faster reforms are needed to get water reform "back on track". The Commission's stakeholder forum has underscored the importance of collaboration as part of a renewed commitment to national water reform by all governments, industry partners and private sector stakeholders."

Water privatisation agenda dominates 'commission'

Cursory inspection of the membership of the National Water Commission's 2009 Stakeholder Forum reveals a clear predominance of groups, governmental and private, which, behind the scenes, are passionately pushing the water-privatisation agenda.

Australian citizens excluded from representation on Commission

Moreover, notable by their absence in the extensive list of entities considered to be worthy of forum membership are groups representing Australian citizens, or customers - the term most of the members would no doubt prefer to use.

Thankfully however, in the cities and on the land, communities Australia-wide are increasingly aware that the definition of "reform" has been corrupted by those advocating removal of water from public control and by the accompanying flotilla of large-scale investors who view our water as a tradeable commodity rather than a vital national resource.

Fair Water Use demands that, collectively and individually, the current membership of the NWC Stakeholder Forum ceases hiding behind the banner of "water reform", states their position on water privatisation and explains to all Australians precisely what “track” they would like to “get back on”.

MEDIA RELEASE: 6th June 2009 from Fair Water Use Australia [email protected]

The following has been adapted from a leaflet (see attached as pdf file, 48K) handed out at the protest against privatisation outside the Queensland state Labor Party conference on Sunday 7 June 2009.

In what sort of 'democracy' can the clear wishes of the public be repeatedly ignored as they have by the Queensland 'Labor' Government since 1998?

Since Labor won office the following assets have been sold:

• The SGIO (1998);
• The Totalisator Agency Board (TAB) (1999);
• The Dalrymple Bay coal loader (2001);
• The retail arms of the Energex and Ergon electricity companies (2006);
• The Golden Casket state lottery agency (2007);
• Cairns, Mackay and Brisbane airports(2008);

Except where Peter Beattie broke his election promise to retain half ownership of the the SGIO (State Government Insurance Office, now known as SunCorp) the public were never consulted.

In the 2009 state elections, Queenslanders were once again denied their democratic right to decide the issue of privatisation by Anna Bligh's silence.

Public outcry against privatisation ignored

In recent weeks, the Queensland public has resoundingly rejected privatisation in letters to the editor, on talkback radio and online forums. 91% of respondents to a poll run by the Courier Mail answered 'no' the question "Should public assets be sold to balance the budget?'. Workers, threatened by privatisation, have protested, some even going on strike.

Anna Bligh has disregarded this outcry and, instead, obstinately pushed ahead, stating her intention to ignore the State Labor Party Conference should the vote go against privatisation.

Why privatisation can be stopped

Anna Bligh is not (yet) the ruler of a police state and can be stopped. However, for this to happen, we must be every bit as determined as she is. Many unionists and ordinary members of that public have shown that they have that determination:

"It is clear that successive Labor governments since Goss have grossly mismanaged this State's finances. It has no mandate to sell State Assets, The Government holds these as trustees for the people of Qld. It is time for The People; nearly 50% of whom did NOT vote for Labor to take to the streets and, dare I say it, support the Unions in their fight against this corrupt Labor Government."

"I hope you can sleep at night Ms Bligh and Co. as people that will be effected by this won't. And if the unions don't oppose this they will be doomed as well."

"... these assets belong to the QLD public and she has no right to sell any of them. Money hungry private sector companies will snap up our assets and then make us pay dearly. The unions need to try everything in their powers to stop these sales and as a GOC worker I will be more then happy to strike over this."(previous comments from Courier Mail online reader's comments page.)

"I'm not a union man, but if they are seriously planning to stop privatisation, they have my support." (from Courier Mail letters page, 5 Jun 09)

A prolonged campaign ...

Clearly many are looking to the unions to act decisively against the privatisation threat, yet, instead, some union officials are talking of a drawn out industrial campaign that could last up to two years.

This is insane!

If the union movement cannot win public support now, then when can we ever hope to win?

If decisive action is not taken early and, instead, the industrial campaign is drawn out, this will surely only make our fight harder.

If the privatisation legislation is carried by Parliament and the the Government has entered contracts with private companies, financial advisers, investment brokers, banks, etc, are we more or less likely to change the Government's mind with industrial action?

And how are we expected to maintain our drive and enthusiasm for two years?

... or decisive action now?

In fact, it should be possible to win the fight against privatisation without a single union member needing to down a tool for even an hour.

The Queensland Union movement could deliver to the Government a simple ultimatum: Either (A) withdraw completely the privatisation legislation or (B) agree to put the privatisation legislation to the people of Queensland through a referendum, or else face an immediate sustained campaign of industrial action and public protest until the legislation is withdrawn.

The union movement should also demand that Fraser and Bligh justify privatisation in a televised debate before the Queensland public.

Could any Government other than, possibly, the Burmese military junta dare proceed in the face of such an ultimatum?

What you can do

• Attend protests against privatisation outside Parliament House at 9:00am on Tuesday 16 June, the day that the Budget that is to contain the privatisation legislation, is to be put to the Queensland Parliament. Note: not on Monday 15 June as previously advertised;
• Contact your member of state Parliament, Labor, LNP or independent and ask him/her to vote on the floor of Parliament for a bill requiring that the privatisation be put to a referendum;
• If you are a member of the Labor Party, demand the disendorsement of each and every MP who votes against the Labor Party's anti-privatisation policy;
• At election time vote for candidates opposed to privatisation;
• Attend union meetings and support any industrial action against privatisation
• Write letters to the newspapers, phone talkback radio and state your support for this campaign on online forums.
• Stay in touch with others opposed to privatisation, including the author of this leaflet.

About James Sinnamon, the author of this leaflet

I am a community activist, concerned about democracy, workers' rights, economic justice and, above all, the parlous state of the world's environment.

I stood as an independent candidate in the state elections in order to give voters an opportunity to oppose privatisation at the ballot box, but was ignored by Queensland's pro-privatisation newsmedia, including even the ABC.

I administer web sites and write articles for those web sites about my concerns. These include candobetter.org and citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com. I encourage others, who share my concerns, to also contribute to those web sites.

I can be reached by e-mailing james[AT]candobetter.org of by phoning 0412 319669.

What you can do to prevent the theft of your property:
Sign the petition against privatisation;
Attend protests against privatisation at 9:00am on on Tuesday 16 June, the day that the Budget that is to contain the privatisation legislation is to be put to the Queensland Parliament. Note: not on Monday 15 June as previously advertised.

06/06/09 PERU, At least 31 people have died in clashes in Peru between the security forces and indigenous people in the Amazon region.

Those killed included at least 22 tribesmen and nine policemen. The violence took place as security forces tried to end a road blockade. Demonstrators also were threatening to set fire to an oil pumping station of state-owned Petroperu unless the government told police to halt efforts to clear weeks of blockades of roads and rivers that have hurt food and fuel supplies.

The local indigenous population is upset at Government plans to open up much of the land in Peru's Amazonia region to oil and gas and to mineral exploration, even though much of the land is officially protected.

Local people say new laws will make it easier for foreign companies to exploit their land for natural resources.

President Garcia said that the protesters had threatened to cut the lines carrying natural gas out of the region. "What else can the government do but act with energy to impose order," Garcia said.

Alberto Pizango, the main indigenous leader, denied that Indians killed police, saying the protesters were unarmed. He called for international human rights groups to intervene.

The protesters want decrees signed by President Alan Garcia in 2007 and 2008 easing restrictions on mining, oil drilling, wood harvesting and farming in the Amazon rainforest overturned. A Duke University study published last year said contract blocks for oil and gas exploration cover approximately 72 percent of Peru's rain forest.

Critics say President Garcia’s policies favoring free-markets and foreign investments mainly benefit elites in cities and that the economic boom has not decreased poverty levels of the poor.

Over the past weeks protesters have taken over airports, blocked bridges and highways, prevented navigation along several rivers, and stopped oil extracted from the Amazon from being shipped out of the region.

This violence also has exposed the central government's lack of control over remote regions of the country. Indigenous land rights are being violated.

The indigenous groups were backed by the International Federation of Human Rights, which groups 155 human rights organisations from around the world.

Please take action to support indigenous people in Peru.

Visit Rainforest Portal

See also: "Thousands of indigenous Peruvians protest invasion of Amazon by oil, mining and agricultural companies" of 1 Jun 09, Resource boom threatens indigenous people, EcoEarth newsdesk.

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.

Dr Gordon Moyes, a member of the NSW Legislative Council describes the environmental, social and economic harm that will result if the NSW Government proceeds with its plan to convert the Sydney Olympic Park into a V8 Racing area against the wishes of local residents. Nathan Rees, the Premier of NSW, who has a personal fetish for the ecologically destructive sport of motor racing, is also threatening to impose the World Rally motor race on the Kyogle and Tweed Shires, also against the wishes of local residents.

See also: "Repco Rally... driven by Rees' selfish 'Red Hot Go!'" of 18 May 09.

The Sydney Olympic Park is a wonderful development of which the citizens of Sydney and the whole state are justly proud. It is a jewel in the New South Wales crown, and it took a lot of time and tax dollars, very careful design for the creation of a green and sustainable site, and effective implementation to bring to life the dream of so many.

Now it is thoroughly established and thriving, a masterpiece of excellent planning, enjoyed by over 8 ½ million users annually, as a place to take one's family for picnics, for jogging and walking, exploring the historical sites, attending various cultural events, an excellent facility for bird watching, riding bicycles, and other healthy activities – the kind of activities we have health promotion campaigns to convince people to participate in – and they have responded whole heartedly and taken up these activities at the Sydney Olympic Park. The people of Sydney and New South Wales love their Sydney Olympic Park, and make excellent use of it.

Changing the essential character of the Sydney Olympic Park by converting it into a V8 Racing area is not just a local issue; it is an international one, which may surprise you. Let me explain: Australia has trade treaties with many nations in Asia who are in danger of over-developing every single metre of natural space within their borders, even those wetland areas that have been used for millennia for annual migratory purposes by the species of migratory birds that live in all our nations.

Most bird species are seasonal in their habits, and spend the winter in the warmer climes and the summers in the cooler ones. They are trans-national citizens, seeing the stretch from Australia up the flyway to Korea and Japan as their home. They deserve acknowledgement from us, and access to their habitats. If not they will die – because this land is where they rest, feed, raise their young, and prepare to return north when it is time. If this parkland is destroyed or made uninhabitable by pollution or noise, they have nowhere else to go to perform the basic activities of life. In Asia it is reported that many birds simply drop dead from the sky, starved and exhausted while trying to fly farther in the search for appropriate sites when theirs have been built over.

To prevent this terrible scenario from coming about here, Australia has entered into Trade Agreements with these Asian nations, with all signatories agreeing to protect the environments of the migratory birds that use their areas. Such agreements include provisions that expressly state that the Government shall "seek means to prevent damage to such birds and their environment". Well these are those birds, and this is their environment here at the Sydney Olympic Park.

We owe it to the nations to which we pledged this, to the people who live there, and to the birds themselves, not to destroy this place for any reason. To breach those agreements would be very bad form, internationally, and would give the other nations carte blanche to, in turn, do the same. We have to do the right thing, not only because it is right but because of our responsibility to meet and model the highest standards of international citizenship regarding such treaties. So, you see, it is an international environmental issue. Pointing out that fact should be enough to change the nature of this debate, but it may not, so I shall point out several other drawbacks of the plan to convert the Sydney Olympic Park into a raceway.

There are so many other environmental reasons, in addition to the migratory bird treaties, that on the environmental basis alone it should never even have been considered. The removal of hundreds of beloved and beautiful trees is a terrible thing – every tree in the urban environment is a blessing, and each one works hard to filter our pollution-filled city air of car exhaust and industrial fumes, making the air breathable, making the city liveable. The preliminary estimate of trees destined to be destroyed to make way for concrete barriers and racing roadways is in the many hundreds. Let us think about this for a moment: trees are the precious home and habitat for birds and creatures, and a soothing, welcoming, lovely landscape for the people who live in and visit the area.

With so many absolutely barren places in this brown land why would we even consider the destruction of a beautifully treed area that is called a Green Precinct? Race organisers' promises to replace the trees later mean nothing. A living tree now is worth more than all those promises of future activity that may or may not be honoured. The air filtering which provides a healthy atmosphere, the shade, habitat, beauty and pleasure they provide now is needed and desired by the affected animals and humans alike, on an ongoing basis, more than ever. Trees are not to be treated so lightly, they should not be so easily expendable. This is genuinely a significant quality-of-life issue for the surrounding population.

Besides the 140 species of birds living in the Sydney Olympic Park area, many of which are considered threatened or endangered, there are endangered frogs and plant species. Worldwide the health of frogs is used as an ecological indicator of environmental health, and these creatures are already under threat from human activities. That they have found some refuge and are able to live in this area attests to its success as a green and sustainable environment. Destruction of their habitat, the Sydney Olympic Park, will only be exponentially worse for them. All of them are under further threat from this proposed Bill.

The State and Federal Governments have a plan in effect until the year 2010 to protect the habitat of the Green and Golden Bellfrog. The Frog is listed as a vulnerable species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; also listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act. These frogs breed mostly in the brickpit, but the runoff from the proposed racecar pit area – which is slated to be located next to the brickpit – will potentially damage this environment with ethanol, oil and gasoline waste. No technology exists which can prevent that entirely, despite assurances from organisers that environmental socks will be placed to soak up these wastes.

Speaking of animals, there are also many hundreds of companion cats, dogs and birds living in the homes in this area. Such creatures are exquisitely sensitive to noise and many are terrified by loud screeching, careening and unpredictable noises. It will be very harmful for them to be bombarded with the high decibels expected. Reacting in alarm to it the pets may try to escape, injure themselves in the process, be hit by cars or lost, or even just fly into the walls in terror. But even if they stay safely indoors they will still be at the mercy of the noise, which will be perceived as threatening. Such noise permeates and penetrates residential walls as if they were not there. This kind of noise should be isolated – away from population centres.

The inevitable spillage of oil, petrol and other wastes that will seep into the ground or down the gutters will make its way into the Recycled Water Plant causing problems that may potentially cost the taxpayers millions of dollars to fix. This pollution of water is unconscionable in our drought-affected state!

The air pollution generated from the use of ethanol is unhealthy for people living in close proximity to the track. In this era of climate change, in response to the deadly global threat of increasing greenhouse gases, it would be far more sensible to discourage all human activities that produce massive amounts of pollution. Motor racing should go the way of the Roman gladiatorial games, as belonging to another age, one that we look back upon and shake our heads in wonder and dismay.

Excessive noise pollution will be imposed on the population – upwards of 95 decibels from 300 cars for 3 days as well as the 1200 odd semi-trailer movements in and out of the park to set up and dismantle the track. Exposure to excess noise is known to raise the heart rate and blood pressure and contribute to anxiety; it should not be inflicted on populations as if it is of no importance. Earplugs from the chemist are of no use in such situations.

There are additional concerns reported to me in letters from other people, such as the issue of problem driving and street racing. Our city and suburban streets are already deadly to the innocent drivers killed regularly by uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable car racers. But instead of discouraging racing we turn around and set up an activity that will lionise racers – do we really want to inspire more of them? The answer from the public is a resounding "NO".

There are also aesthetic reasons when you consider that seven kilometres of concrete barriers and fencing are to be erected every year (and then dismantled, as they are to be there temporarily). However in other states that were promised the same thing the concrete barriers were eventually made into permanent fixtures since it was too expensive and too much trouble for race organisers to bring them in and remove them every year. Those guarantees had been in writing stating that this would never occur – but it did. The same empty promises could be entered into here.

There are also all the prudent economic arguments that many of my constituents have pointed out. The expenditure of up to $30 million on any activity with no guaranteed economic return at an unprecedented time of international monetary meltdown, when the state hospitals are desperate for money – women in labour being turned away from understaffed hospitals, education suffering, the Sydney transport infrastructure creaking under the weight of an expanding population, unemployment on the rise and public servants (police, fire fighters, nurses, teachers and ambulance officers) refused real wage increases – this is not good stewardship of the taxpayers' resources entrusted into our hands.

It doesn't make sense on any level, particularly the economic. The history of the V8 Supercar Race in other states has been abysmal, leading to large losses by taxpayers over the years – just ask the people in Victoria about their experience with Albert Park.

Assurances that there would be a "cap" of government contributions at $30 million do not take into consideration the other costs, and there are many – such as provision of security services, the major advertising campaigns attracting people to the event, infrastructure upheaval such as re-siting over 100 light poles and the electrical cables for street lighting and domestic supply, as well as the removal and re-placement of bus shelters.

The people who write to me are appalled at the way their concerns are being ignored and belittled by both the Premier and the Minister for State Development, Ian MacDonald. Their quiet neighbourhoods are being threatened with an inundation of unbearable motor noise, road chaos, crowds and the usual antisocial behaviours that accompany such spectacles especially when there is alcohol.

Up to 10 weeks of the year there will be limited or no use of the park by the citizenry who have incorporated it into their daily lives – six weeks before the event to set it up and four weeks afterwards to pull it all back down.

Residents are also concerned that they will not be able to park outside their homes when the crowds pour in, and that the Olympic Park Station will not be able to cater for the influx of estimated 100,000 people at the race – the station is too small and not enough trains run in and out of there. If buses are to be provided they will be yet another cost to the taxpayers. There has also been no indication from the government whether buses will provide regular commuters a vital link to Parramatta and Strathfield/Burwood Stations during the event.

Others are very concerned that property values will decline sharply in surrounding suburbs if this goes ahead because most people do not want to live next to a racetrack. Residents want to know if they will be compensated for this fall in value?

And it was actually suggested to them by the Minister that if they didn't like it they could just rent their place out during that time and leave the area like many people in Queensland apparently do! At least he was admitting that people do want to get away from these events, if they can manage it. But that ease of mobility is just not how most people's lives work. This is not an attitude respectful of the lives of people and their families in these areas. This is not social justice. There has been no public consultation and the residents have a right to know all the details, and the right to be heard when they say they don't want it.

The Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act has strong environmental protection measures that will require special legislation to be enacted to bypass it and allow the race to proceed. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) has already voted on the issue, and rejected unanimously the idea for this race happening there, but their stance has been ignored. How can this happen? They are the authority responsible for managing and maintaining the Park as a lasting legacy for the people of New South Wales, and this decision that will devastate the Park is being completely taken out of their hands.

The Local Councils around the Sydney Olympic Park, those of Parramatta, Strathfield, Auburn and Ryde have also whole-heartedly opposed the plan.

My understanding of the very basic, foundational premise of the concept of democracy is that the people get a voice both directly and through their elected representatives, in what happens to them, to their tax dollars, and to their environment, as well as the actions taken by their leaders. Is that what we are observing here? To me what we are seeing sounds more like this definition of bullying: "To force one's own way aggressively or by intimidation without regard to the feelings of the person or people on the receiving end."

My constituents are NOT against V8 Racing nor am I, although I must admit that I have never seen the appeal – my constituents are just against holding it at Sydney Olympic Park especially when there is a purpose built track for this at Eastern Creek International Raceway, where the population density is much less.

I believe that the Eastern Creek site is far preferable for this event for a number of reasons. It is an excellent facility that is already owned by the Government, so that any monies spent will be an investment – improving a facility already owned by the people. It is a specialised motor racing area already booked throughout the year by commercial organisations, trade shows, driver training, etc. It operates at a profit, and the accumulated surpluses are enough to contribute to the funding for the desired re-surfacing of the track. There is easy vehicle access from both the M4 freeway straight into the car park, and from Wallgrove Road. Having this site will enable a variety of motor races in different configurations without any set up or dismantling costs involved, and lastly it inconveniences a much smaller number of residents.

I will not support any plan or Bill that allows V8 Supercar Racing at Sydney Olympic Park and I will encourage all other MPs who have a social conscience to also refuse to support it.

Rev Hon Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC
Research Officer: Leslie McCawley BS MPH

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

Australians are losing their human rights to power, water, affordable housing, agricultural land, wild healthy biodiverse landscapes, self-government, education, and sustainable population very very fast.

Do you all know about the current Human Rights Consultation in Australia? You can register your concerns. Deadline is 15 June. Format is not limited to filling out the form; you may express yourself freely.

Please strongly consider writing your concerns about what is happening to human rights in Australia through commercially driven population growth, development, media and government. Circulate this article as widely as you can. Print it out and help elderly people, homeless people and others not able to access the internet to contribute to this consultation. The mailing address is lower down in this article.

This consultation provides avenues for people to record their concerns about the government's big population policy and its effect on human rights.

Examples of rights impacted and diminished by government policy and its coalition with the commercial Growth Lobby include:

- safe clean natural affordable water
- healthy river and soil and forest systems
- beautiful natural landscapes
- a healthy wild biodiverse envelope
- a kind and respectful treatment of farm animals and wildlife, with land-use planning for their welfare
- functioning democracy not overwhelmed by commercial interests fed by population growth
- the right to local self-government
- affordable housing

Towards protecting or retrieving these rights, we suggest that you demand:
- an end to the tendency towards monopoly of ownership, outlets and delivery by the mainstream press
- an end to commercial representation on the boards of the ABC and other public media
- the right to demand that the owners of the commercial press daily declare their commercial and corporate interests and associations to the public in an accessible manner
- public ownership of institutions and assets
- proper consultation about privatisation
- limitation of corporate rights
- add your own (The highlighted areas above may give you some ideas and material.)

The National Human Rights Consultation is seeking views about human rights in Australia on the following, but not limited to the following:

1. Which human rights and responsibilities should be protected and promoted?
2. Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and promoted?
3. How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?

You can send an electronic submission via the submissions page or send it by mail to
National Human Rights Consultation Secretariat
Attorney-General's Department
Central Office
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

or register to attend a community roundtable discussion in your state. The Consultation will run from 10 December 2008 until August 2009. The last date submissions can be accepted is 15 June 2009. After listening to the views and ideas of the Australian people, the Consultation Committee has been asked to report to Government on what they have heard by 31 August 2009.

Help http://candobetter.org to amplify your concerns and help you organise

We here at candobetter.org would also appreciate your contributing your submissions or to discussion at http://candobetter.org where we can amplify any ideas. There is no guarantee that the people appointed to represent the submissions will do this adequately without public pressure. Please help us to stimulate and organise this public pressure by sending your submissions to us as well, via the comments section, so that we can keep a public record and promote your concerns, show where others shared your concerns, and publish your views.

Sheila Newman
Population, Environment and Energy Sociologist
Sheila Newman (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008

This moving 50-second piece released by New York City Coalition for Accountability Now features 9/11 Family Members Jean Canavan, Bob McIlvaine and Manny Badillo asking the unanswered questions and calling upon all New Yorkers to "Vote For Answers" in order to set up a new, independent 9-11 commission. For more information go to www.NYCCAN.org Please help them to find the answers they seek by spreading this video far and wide.

Copied and adapted from 911blogger.com. Original YouTube broadcast here.

Thousands of indigenous people have protested in Peru's Amazon for much of the past 40 days, hoping to pressure President Garcia to modify or strike down a series of laws he passed last year that encourage oil, mining and agricultural companies to invest billions of dollars in the mostly pristine region.

Indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon are protesting investment laws passed under a free-trade pact with the United States and against concessions granted to foreign energy companies. Some 30,000 indigenous people have blockaded roads, rivers and railways to demand repeal of new laws that allow oil, mining and logging companies to enter indigenous territories without seeking consent or even any consultation. Indigenous communities complain that some 70% of Peruvian Amazon territory is now leased for oil and gas exploration, putting at risk their own lives and the biodiversity of the Amazon.

Peruvian state-run producer PetroPeru said earlier that protesters impeded work at pumping stations on the government-run North Peruvian oil pipeline, cutting shipments of crude oil.

The indigenous groups started the demonstrations in April, asking that Congress revoke a series of decrees they say will open their land to mining, logging and oil drilling without consent.

Officials in Peru are quick to point out that this was one of the first Latin American countries to establish local government strategies to curb the loss of biological diversity. "We made it possible in 1999, even before Brazil," María Luisa del Río, the Environment Ministry’s director for biodiversity, told Tierramérica. (www.tierramerica.info)

But experts and critics assure that the biggest problem is implementing those plans in Peru, considered one of the world’s leaders in natural wealth of ecosystems, species, genetic resources and indigenous cultures.

Scientists estimate that Peru is home to some 25,000 plant species, that is, 10 percent of the world total, and to 1,816 bird species. But this great natural heritage has been threatened in recent decades by the extraction of natural resources, and hundreds of species are in danger of extinction.

Between 2002 and 2007, mining concessions grew more than 70 percent due to incentives for foreign investment and high international prices for metals. Meanwhile, protests by indigenous and peasant communities about mining-based pollution also increased.

Indigenous leaders saying President Garcia has disregarded a U.N. declaration that protects their rights to control land and natural resources.

The protests, which have already shut Peru's pipeline that carries oil from the Amazon to the Pacific Ocean, underscore the risks of investing in a country with a poverty rate of 40 percent and a history of discord between wealthy elites in Lima and poor indigenous groups in the countryside. Despite this reality, the President declared that:

"The lands of the Amazon belong ... to all Peruvians and not just a small group that lives there," Garcia said over the weekend. "The riches of Peru belong to all Peruvians."

Garcia decreed most of the laws in question last year using special powers Congress gave him to bring Peru's regulations into line with the requirements of its free-trade pact with the United States.

Garcia, a former leftist who now fervently supports foreign investment, has sold dozens of concessions to foreign energy and mining companies since taking office in 2006. More auctions are planned in a country where mineral exports drive economic growth and the government is working to become self-sufficient in oil production.

The Peruvian government has sent troops into its Amazon region to quell protesting indigenous people. (May 16)

(May 31) Truckers burned a weigh station and an official vehicle in northern Peru on Friday to demand government action against Amazon Indians who have been blocking highways in a protest against laws they say threaten their control of ancestral lands, CPN Radio reported.

Truckers Protest

The reality is that indigenous people will lose their natural heritage to the President, foreign investors, the business elite, but they will end up with nothing!
The Indians have refused to end their protests, despite the initiation of talks with the government on resolving the dispute.

Please add your voice in solidarity with the tens of thousands of indigenous people and their international supporters mobilizing to protect the Peruvian Amazon.
Click here to open rainforestportal to send automated letters of protest.

latest crisis
Environment Peru's biodiversity under threat
production reduced due to protests

Australians receive little useful coverage in the mainstream media about new laws which are constantly being brought in to privilege overpopulation and overdevelopment in various states. Candobetter tries to publish information to fill this gap. The Bill discussed below, if passed, will make Victorians slaves to developers. They will not be able to influence most of what happens in their state and they will be punished if they try to stop developments by other means.

The comments below were on a debate (in an ALP-dominated parliament) was on the second reading of a motion by Mr Batchelor, The Minister for Community Development, for the Victorian Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.
Labor Ministers who spoke in support of this bill were Mr Brooks of Bundoora, Victoria and Ms D’Ambrosio, of Mill Park, Victoria.

Mr Clark of Box Hill and Mr David Morris (in the Liberal Opposition) spoke against it. Here is Mr Clark's speech. We present Mr David Morris's speech in the next article, to be published shortly, "New Vic Planning Legislation Bill "a blatant, naked grab for power"

Criticism in Parliament of the Victorian Planning Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr CLARK (Box Hill) —

The Planning Legislation Amendment Bill has five main purposes. It makes amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 so that any area of Victoria may be deemed to be a growth area, it creates a regime for the establishment and operation of new development assessment committees (DACs), it increases penalties in the Heritage Act 1995, it amends the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust Act 1996 to remove the limitation requiring that the trust only operate within the city of Port Phillip and the city of Melbourne, and it amends the Docklands Act 1991 to allow VicUrban to continue its involvement in projects in the Docklands development beyond 31 December 2005. The last of these purposes is effectively a tidy-up amendment, because VicUrban is already continuing its involvement in such projects.

I would be interested to hear the government’s reasons for removing the limitations on the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust so it can operate beyond the city of Port Phillip and the city of Melbourne. The increased penalties in the Heritage Act continue policy initiatives started in previous legislation.

The bill proposes to give the Governor in Council the power to declare as a growth area any part of Victoria that the Governor in Council sees fit

The two main provisions of the bill are the first ones I referred to. The bill proposes to give the Governor in Council the power to declare as a growth area any part of Victoria that the Governor in Council sees fit, and the bill contains extensive mechanisms for the constitution and operation of development assessment committees.

The government has announced that the initial development assessment committee areas will be the activity areas of Camberwell, Doncaster, Geelong, Preston and Coburg, but they can go much further than that. They can basically be extended as the government sees fit.

Once created, the new DACs will act in lieu of the responsible authority for all developments within their deemed operational areas, as determined by the ministerial order. The order will specify the class of development to which it applies and the areas it covers.

Each DAC will consist of five members. Three, including the chair, will be appointed by the Minister for Planning, and two will be nominated by the relevant municipal council from a group of five persons who are councillors or members of staff of that council.

There are provisions in the bill relating to the disclosure of membership of the DAC, provisions relating to conflicts of interest and disclosure of those conflicts, and provisions empowering removal of DAC members in certain circumstances. The bill specifies that the DAC will have the powers of the responsible authority in relation to the matters it considers. The decisions it makes will be treated as the decisions of the responsible authority. The relevant municipal council is required to provide documents, information and assistance to the DAC and to reimburse all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by a DAC other than the remuneration of the three members nominated by the minister. Once a decision is made by the DAC, it is treated as if it were effectively the decision of the council itself. For example, it is liable to be appealed at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). This is the scheme of the bill. In putting forward the bill the government has said it is partnering with local government in seeking to improve the operation of the planning system.

I have to say that I have been struggling to think of an initiative announced in the planning sphere, or indeed in any other sphere of government, that is as stupid as the provision contained in this bill in terms of achieving the objectives for which it is said to be put forward.

There has certainly been other legislation that has been more damaging to the community than this, but in terms of its sheer illogicality, this bill is hard to beat.

The argument in favour of this legislation effectively says — and perhaps I will put some words in the government’s mouth — the current planning system is not working properly. There are long delays and interminable arguments.

Bill won't help create jobs

The government may claim councils cannot make timely decisions and that this is inhibiting the capacity to get on with developments and create jobs and prosperity for the state. Taking that argument as a given, this bill does absolutely nothing effective to overcome the bulk of the problems that exist in the system on that account. It simply creates a new decision-making body, the DAC, to make a decision in lieu of the councillors of the municipality sitting around the table in the council chamber.

Every other element of the process remains as it is.

Problems with the adequacy of zoning, planning scheme definitions, flawed criteria for deciding about the issue of planning permits and local government planning departments that are short staffed or where staff are slow, lacking in ability, pedantic or unaccountable — or any of the other accusations that are made from time to time — continue. Exactly the same group of council officers will be servicing the DAC as are currently servicing the councillors.

Beyond the point of a decision being made, if people object to a decision, they can appeal to VCAT against the decision of the DAC, just as they can appeal to VCAT against the decision of the council. The potential for this measure to overcome perceived problems in the planning system is extraordinarily limited. Those who hold out hope that once the DAC makes a decision the development can proceed ignore the fact that if there is strong resident opposition to a proposed planning initiative, that decision can go off to VCAT just as it can in the case of a council decision. If we assume the council would have rejected an application and the DAC would approve it, nonetheless the residents who were opposed to that application could still take it to VCAT. Any potential improvement to remedy the current problems of the planning system is extraordinarily limited. I fear those who were hoping to get great benefit out of this scheme, if it is enacted and implemented, will be sorely disappointed.

But that is only half of the problem with this bill.

The even greater half of the problem is the extraordinary price at which it comes in terms of intrusion on local communities, the diminution of the capacity of local communities to have a say in their own destiny, and the undermining of the role of local government councillors. The government appears to be treating local government councillors with disdain and disregard.

The government has the nerve to call this bill a partnership with local government, whereas in fact it will take away the existing responsibilities of local government to make decisions on planning permits and offers councils only two places out of five at the table of development assessment committees. The government is doing that on an extraordinarily limited and constrained basis.

To start off with, because councillors will have only two places out of five they will always be at risk of being outvoted. The second-reading speech claims that there is going to be an independent chair, but when members look at the bill they will see there is nothing of the sort — the chair is to be appointed by the minister as are the two other non-council nominees.

The local community representatives can be either councillors or members of staff. I think it will be highly likely that councillors will find it virtually impossible to become involved with a DAC. If they do, they are certainly going to be under extraordinary constraints.

There are confidentiality provisions governing members of DACs. The councillors who take part in them are almost certainly frequently, if not always, going to find themselves outvoted. They are then likely going to come under attack from the local community.

DAC Confidentiality provisions stop councillors talking to their communities

They will be trying to defend themselves with one arm tied behind their backs, because they will not be able to cite confidential information in their defence. They will be in a no-win situation.

Councillors squeezed out of planning process, leaving only government officers

If this scheme ends up being enacted, I would not be at all surprised if councillors say, ‘We are not going to take part in this at all. We are not going to be tarred with this brush. We’ll send some council officers along to make the decisions’. Councillors are effectively being squeezed out of the process altogether.

No reason required for overriding public policy

A further concerning aspect is that the DACs are not only being created in defined areas where the government has demonstrated there is some overriding public policy reason as to why in particular cases and in particularly sensitive or important parts of Victoria a DAC should be established.

Crocodilian policies

The DACs can be set up anywhere the government chooses. It reminds me of Churchill’s metaphor of people hoping the crocodile will eat them last while the crocodile goes around gobbling up one at a time. The Brumby government crocodile has designated a handful of local communities to gobble up in the first instance, and it will soon be chomping its way further through other communities.

A bil to destroy any democratic resistance to any development

It will not only do so in activity centres. The government has talked about its policy of imposing high density development along tram corridors. If the government runs into local community opposition to that proposal, next we will find that it has constituted a DAC to take responsibility, for example, for the entire strip of properties along the tram 109 route. Thus that entire strip, running from the city of Yarra through Boroondara to Box Hill, could also be pulled out of the hands of the local community.

The government is seeking an extraordinarily broad grant of discretionary power from this Parliament.

Exactly the same point applies in relation to the power it seeks through this bill to designate growth areas. It is not as if, for example, the government has a schedule in the bill and is seeking to designate areas in the schedule as growth areas; it wants the power to declare any part of the state to be a growth area. It could designate 1 hectare in Mildura, 100 hectares in Sale or a former commercial site in Camberwell to be a growth area, and all the rules relating to growth areas would then apply.

What would also apply is the obligation on people who develop land in any of those areas to pay the growth areas infrastructure contribution. This is a new burden on the people — a new tax being introduced for the first time in Victoria in 2009–10.

The government has claimed that there are going to be no new taxes, but if one looks at the budget papers made available to the house earlier today, one sees that for the first time in 2009–10 something in the order of $84.7 million is going to be collected from growth areas. The budget papers are a bit confusing as to exactly what this is going to consist of, and there is an inconsistency between budget paper 4 and budget paper 3.

Flat tax of $95,000 per ha on land owners whose land is rezoned from rural whether they asked for rezone or not

Budget paper 4 talks simply about a growth areas infrastructure contribution, estimated to be $85 million in 2009–10 — it explains that land brought into an urban growth boundary in future will be liable to a levy of $95 000 per hectare. In budget paper 3, under ‘Revenue initiatives’, at page 369, this figure is split into two figures, which designate a growth areas development fund and a growth areas infrastructure contribution, one of $42.3 million and the other of $42.4 million. This seems, although the budget papers do not make this clear, to reflect the fact that some of the money in the growth areas infrastructure contribution will in turn be assigned to a growth areas development fund — at least that is my assessment. If government members can confirm or vary that, I look forward to hearing what they can tell us.

[T]his bill will enable the government, without any further recourse to the Parliament, to declare an area to be a growth area. Following on from that will be the liability of citizens to pay this increased levy.

Be that as it may, this bill will enable the government, without any further recourse to the Parliament, to declare an area to be a growth area. Following on from that will be the liability of citizens to pay this increased levy. I would have thought that was getting pretty close to violating longstanding constitutional principles about the need for taxation or similar imposts to be authorised by Parliament rather than be imposed by the government through open-ended delegated legislation.

However, regardless of the constitutional principles, it arms the Brumby government with yet another way of grabbing revenue out of the community without proper debate and without proper authorisation by this Parliament.

This legislation seems to be completely at odds with the promises and claims that the Bracks and Brumby governments have made and the Labor Party made when in opposition about planning and their support for local communities. The former planning minister, John Thwaites, made out that he was going to be the champion of local communities and would restore authority, which he claimed had been taken away by the previous government, to local communities. But instead of restoring authority or allowing local communities to have a legitimate say, the government is taking that ‘say’ away from local communities at just about every step of the way. The bill before the house is a particularly gross example of that.

As I said, this bill is not going to be of any significant benefit in creating jobs and speeding up the development process. It operates at only that one particular point in the continuum at which an initial decision is made by a responsible authority.

It also may well not be of much help to small and medium-sized developers if the government is going to exercise its power primarily at the instigation of larger developers who come to it and persuade it to act in any particular case.

The fundamental opposition to this is twofold. On the one hand it does nothing to fix the serious problems which the Bracks and Brumby governments have allowed to evolve and fester within our planning system. It does nothing to overcome unreasonable delays; it does nothing to provide certainty to residents or those seeking to develop properties. It puts one more complicating element, in particular instances, on an existing convoluted structure that is not working properly.

Yet on the other hand it dramatically derogates from any potential for local communities to have a say through their local representatives. It is treating local government and local councillors with contempt, asking them to be part of a process through a DAC in which they have only two votes out of five — three votes are appointed by the minister against them — and to try to defend their position with one arm tied behind their backs.
The bill, whichever way you look at it, is badly flawed.

It attacks principles of democracy, of devolution and decentralisation. It attacks principles of accountability to Parliament by government for revenue raising. It is bad in all of those respects, and it is opposed by the coalition.

Source: “Planning Legislation Amendment Bill, (Second Reading), Members Statements, Assembly, Hansard, Tuesday, 5, May, 2009 pp. 1103-1115

Editor: The situation in Victoria has been very difficult for democracy since the beginning of the 1990s because the Victorian Parliament has been overwhelmingly dominated by one party or the other. At the beginning of this nightmare run, it was dominated by Jeff Kennett's Liberal Party, which tried to raise population growth in Victoria and which began a series of changes to local government and rules for planning and development. When the Labor Party came to power after a long time in the 'desert', it redoubled, tripled... the Kennett Government's efforts to raise population numbers in Victoria and it has made and continues to make ever more decisions to empower corporations and developers in the Growth Lobby at the expense of the people who elected it. Of course, as we have reported elsewhere, this whole process has been helped in Victoria, as in other states, by the growing subserviance of the ABC and biased reporting by the commercial press, which has commercial and corporate interests in finance, mining, real-estate, development and lifestyle commodities which comprise the growth lobby currently dominating Australian politics and budget programs.

This article publishes comments by a transcript from Hansard of comments by David Morris, Liberal Member for Mornington. The full source is at end of article. Note that by publishing these comments we are reporting political comment, we are not endorsing the Liberal Party.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments on Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.

[...] Let me say at the outset that this is an absolute shocker of a bill.

How government members and indeed the minister can come into this house, support this sort of legislation and keep a straight face while they are talkingabout it and all the wonderful things it supposedly does is quite frankly entirely beyond my comprehension.

This bill is nothing but an attack on communities. It is an attack on local democracy and on local government.

It is simply a blatant, naked grab for power. It is hidden behind rhetoric about reforming the planning system, but that is all it is — a grab for power. Let usbe very clear about it. Absolutely nothing in this bill will contribute to legitimate reform. Nothing in this bill will speed up the process. Nothing in this billwill improve probity. Nothing in this bill will improve transparency or quality of outcomes. Indeed all those things will go backwards under this legislation.
It is in fact highly likely that additional delays will be caused by the introduction of this legislation. In many cases, if not all cases, councils as responsibleauthorities have delegated extensively to their officers, so many of the decisions that are proposed to be considered by development assessmentcommittees (DACs) have already been delegated to individual officers or committees of officers, and this process will be slowed down.

The message from the state government to the people and the councillors of Victoria is very clear:

‘You can’t be trusted. You can’t be trusted to make decisions about your own communities, so we’re going to make them for you’.

There is only one positive comment I want to make about this bill, and that is to say I appreciated the frank, comprehensive and professional manner in which we were briefed on the issues by the departmental officers and by the minister’s office; it was well done. Apart from that, there are no redeeming features.

What does this crock purport to do?

The bill amends the Planning and Environment Act to establish development assessment committees and to set guidelines for their operation. It is interesting to note that the minister described this bill as a framework for a new state-local government partnership. It will be an interesting partnership — local government will pay, but the state government will make the decisions.

You might say the polite term for all this is cost shifting. You might say it is undermining the democratic process.

I call it extortion at gunpoint. Hand over your valuables; in this case hand over your suburbs, towns, cities and neighbourhoods. Each neighbourhood has been established and nurtured bygenerations of civic leaders. Each neighbourhood has its own character and is a special place in its own right.

The demand is, ‘Hand them over to us and we will look after them for you. You will still pay, but we will look after them’.

Government members know how devastating the bill is going to be but still support it

If this bill succeeds, every neighbourhood in the state is at risk, every neighbourhood will be compromised — not might be compromised but will be compromised. Government members understand that. They know exactly how devastating this bill will be and what it will do to local communities. But for some reason they are prepared to support the bill. Let there be no doubt that a member who supports this legislation will not be able to ever come into this house again and pretend they are a friend of local government. They will have outed themselves for life and proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are enemy no.1 of local councils and local communities.

The amendments to the Planning and Environment Act change the definition of growth areas and establish and regulate the DACs [Development Assessment Committees -- Ed.] There are also amendments to the Docklands Act 1991, the Heritage Act 1995, the Local Government Act 1989 and the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust Act 1996, which is being amended to make some changes which should have been enacted years ago. I mention that only in passing, because I wantto concentrate entirely on the growth areas and the development assessment committees.

New rules may extend to any council or part of a council in Victoria

The changes to the growth area provisions are substantial. Growth area provisions are currently restricted to the defined councils of Cardinia, Casey,Hume, Melton, Whittlesea and Wyndham. They are defined in section 46AP of the principal act, which will be repealed under this legislation. It is proposed that the new provisions will be extended to any council or part of a council in Victoria. Any area can be declared a growth area — from Malvern to Mornington,Maldon to Mildura, and from Narre Warren, Northcote, Noojee or Nepean.

The changes will be made without consultation

The changes will be made without consultation. The Minister for Planning, through the device of an order in council, can make orders at the stroke of a pen.The Minister for Planning will become the Tsar of Planning for all of Victoria. He alone will declare the growth areas; he alone will make decisionswithout the hindrance of local opinion and community input.

Areas will not only be defined as growth areas; they will also come under the ambit of the Growth Areas Authority.

If you happen to be living within a defined urban growth area, any land transfer that occurs after the passage of this legislation will cost you an up-front payment of $95 000 per hectare for the privilege. The whole concept is just crazy. It throws due process out the window, and it cuts the community out of what process is left — and on top of that you get to pay for the privilege of no longer being able to have a say in what happens in your community.

The other principal change of course is the introduction of the development assessment committees. Once again the changes apply across the state. Once again, with a stroke of a pen, the minister can rip away any local oversight or any part of the responsible authority functions of a local council — without discussion, without consent, without justification and with no right of appeal.

It is rubbish to claim that councils or ratepayers will still control the process

If this bill ever receives royal assent, it will change local government in Victoria forever. No doubt as the debate progresses we will again hear from across the chamber claims that councils will still control the process.

That is rubbish.

Councils — or the ratepayers — will foot the bill. That is the extent of the input they will have. They will pay for the privilege. They will provide the resources and they will cop the blame, but they will have absolutely no say in the outcomes.

The other claim that is often made and that no doubt we will hear again and again is that councils control planning schemes and are able to make local policy.

That is not just rubbish — it is absolute rubbish. Yes, local policy exists, but it will always get trumped in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal by state policy. In any case, who makes the policy? It goes through a planning scheme amendment process. Who says you can even start a planning scheme amendment?

It is the Minister for Planning. Do not tell me that councils have any real say in what goes on in their community.

There are a whole lot of other examples of nonsense in this bill that I obviously do not have time to detail, and I do not believe any purpose would be served by detailing them. An example though is the conflict-of-interest provisions that, as I understand it, have effectively been mirrored from the Local Government Act.

We know that the Local Government Act, as amended, is totally unworkable. It has taken only four months to prove that these provisions will not work for local government, so the government is introducing them for DACs as well! These are provisions that require 70-plus pages of explanation, and still do not work. There are lots more examples in a similar vein.

The Bill must not pass

This legislation is an attack on local government, it is an attack on local communities and it is an attack on every citizen of Victoria. It is a blatant grab for power.

It is a cheap stunt to try to pass off the shortcomings of the government’s planning processes. The bill must not pass.
End of Mr Clark's speech.

Ms D'Ambrosio, Labor Member for Mill Park, rose and spoke in support of the bill.

Source: “Planning Legislation Amendment Bill, (Second Reading), Members Statements, Assembly, Hansard, Tuesday, 5, May, 2009, pp.1185-1187.

The Black Cockatoo Conservation Team has just pulled off a remarkable rescue of wildlife habitat. One West Australian Black Cockatoo colony has been saved from the developers, in the nick of time, but the species is still not out of danger. Video-link inside article.

See also: “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”, blackcockatoorescue.com.

Last year we ran an article calling for help to save land for the Black Cockatoo at “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”. The University of Western Australia had been determined to bulldoze rare bushland in the middle of Perth for future property development, and that would have destroyed the habitat of one of very few remaining West Australian Black Cockatoos. Sixty per cent of pristine 36 hectare bushland was to be razed to make way for offices and housing. The situation looked hopeless, but this area has now been saved.


I was delighted today to receive an email pointing to a video link to a news item which shows David Dewhurst and others from the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team in West Australia reporting on the establishment of that threatened habitat as land for Black Cockatoos under Land for Wildlife provisions on private land.

Having said this, I have to add that I have personally run into trouble over Land for Wildlife in Victoria. The occasion was when a number of people went to the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to attempt to stop intensive development of 9 Diosma Court Frankston, on the banks of Sweetwater Creek. One of our major arguments was the new development would impact adversely on parts of the creek held under Land for Wildlife. We were astonished and dismayed to hear that the Member who presided over the case had never heard of Land for Wildlife and that he held that it had no legal status to protect wildlife from adverse developments.

The history of this struggle and others to do with these birds may be read at this website.
There will soon be a new website. And there are two other struggles to save what remains of these endangered birds' habitat at Perth Airport and Jandakot airport.

These birds take a long time to mature sexually and then they only have a maximum of one baby every two years. This means that as they have already become rare the risk of losing all of them is very serious.

See also: “Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction”, blackcockatoorescue.com.

The NSW state government has taken the decision about planning approval for the proposed Repco Rally Australia leg of the World Rally Championships away from local councils by announcing that it would prepare special events legislation to ensure the rally goes ahead despite growing local opposition.

In a sign of growing desperation the Minister for State Development, Ian MacDonald, made the announcement on Friday.

Local residents are outraged and appalled! The fact that the announcement was made the day after a well supported protest rally was held in Murwillumbah to oppose the rally was a real slap in the face for locals residents.

It demonstrates yet again that this government is not interested in listening to the views of locals, preferring instead to listen to the assurances of "flim flam men".

At the same time that the state government is ripping the guts out of local health and transport infrastucture it can find up to $8 million to support a bash and crash rally though National Parks and rural gravel roads.

The Minister calims that “The legislation will permit the Government to impose environmental protection measures to manage any temporary impacts on affected local areas.” This begs the question ... Upon what evidence will the imposed conditions be based? Will the government undertake its own environmental studies? Because the studies undertaken on behalf of the organisers are seriously lacking!!!

All the studies acknowledge that they are walking on untested ground and thy don't know whether their suggested strategies will work! In other words, the Tweed and Kyogle areas are to be used as a laboratory to test untried strategies. Is it any wonder that local residents are not impressed???

The noise (acoustic) study acknowledges that the organisers are unable to meet the recommended standards.

The dust report recommends that residents on the route either "go out for the day" or " close their windows and doors and turn on their air conditioners".

The waste report recommends the use of split waste bins (recyclables at the rear), that even the council is replacing, rather than separate bins for recyclables.

The Carbon Offset Plan consists of one page on their website plus Q&As.

And they wonder why we don't want the bloody thing here!!!!!

We will continue to fight on!

Join us ...
- write / email / phone the NSW government
- write / email / phone your local MP if you live in NSW and encourage them to vote against the special legislation being introduced to allow the rally
- if you have contacts in Greenpeace, WWF, GetUp or other similar organisations urge them to get involved.

Our contact details are:
No Rally Group
Tel: 0438 357 452 (Australia)
Web: sites.google.com/site/norallygroup
Email: no.rally[AT]yahoo.com

A slightly pythonesque moment occurred when I rang the Premiers Department to speak with someone from the "Office of Protocol and Special Events" (who are the organisers of government support for the rally) and found out that they had been renamed as "Community Engagement and Events". George Orwell lives !!!

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

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

By Ellen Brown. Link to original article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The state-owned bank of North Dakota

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blue-green jewel floating in space that we call planet Earth is dying. There are 16,000 species at risk of extinction in the world today. This mass extinction is caused by one species – us – and may well include us.

Australia has the worst reputation of species extinctions having driven 38% of its mammal species extinct in just over 200 years. The Tweed Shire has probably the most biodiversity in the whole country yet a whopping two thirds of our species are at risk of extinction. We could stop biodiversity loss right now – there are plenty of laws in place to stop it but they don’t appear to be enforced.

Biodiversity loss is a much bigger problem than water or climate change, according to Professor Hugh Possingham of University of Queensland. Whereas water shortages could be turned around in 20-40 years and climate change could be turned around in 100 years, biodiversity loss could take between 10,000 to 100,000 years to turn around.

The human species needs biodiversity to survive. We live in a complex web of life that has taken billions of years to evolve. If bees became extinct all of life on this planet would end in just four years, according to Einstein. If plankton became extinct, we wouldn’t have enough oxygen to breathe. Even earthworms tilling and fertilising the soil are more ecologically important than humans.

A healthy ecosystem needs a variety of species each with large populations and strong gene pools – like a jungle teeming with life. But we clearcut land and overfish the oceans, destroying ecosystems and species. Our oceans are in dire crisis having been overfished and polluted, with dead zones growing every year. We are chopping down rainforests faster than what we can replant.

We act like they will be there forever – but our resources are finite. If we keep consuming and populating at the rate we are going we will hit a wall, a Malthusian ceiling of misery where life won’t be worth living.

Now is the time – not tomorrow.

The Convention on Biodiversity, to which Australia is a party, has as its aim to significantly reduce biodiversity loss by 2010. Every loss of species is a threat to global biodiversity. The Convention is concerned with the moral and ethical aspects of biodiversity loss.

How can Council abide by these international regulations? By considering the ethical aspect of biodiversity i.e. having reverence for life. Animals have feelings, just like us. They feel happy, sad, lonely, they grieve. They fear death and they love their families. When their habitat is destroyed, they die – in terror. Can you imagine how that would feel?

In Queensland between 1998 and 2004 a total of 104 million animals died as a result of land-clearing. If we had compassion for animals, we wouldn’t be doing this. There would be no species loss and no extinctions. But we humans have a habit of seeing animals as resources to harvest and manage instead of sentient beings with feelings and the right to live in peace.

What is needed is a paradigm shift away from being anthropocentric to being biocentric – where life itself is the centre of our Earth, not humans. It’s about practising the Golden Rule.

If Council had reverence for life it would reject a town of 10,000 people for Kings Forest/Cobaki Lakes where 30 endangered species plus the second largest colony of koalas in the shire live. Council would zone it as a sanctuary instead.

Council would reject a car-crash rally tearing through national parks and habitat where koalas and endangered species live. Why wait till a species is at risk to protect it? By the time species reach the tipping point it’s too late and we never know when that tipping point is.

If Council had compassion it would have funding for the Koala Recovery Plan, which the current budget fails to do. Council would put biodiversity protection ahead of development, since all developments are a nail in the coffin of wildlife.

Council would also put overpasses, road culverts, signs and exclusion fences at known road kill hotspots and they would stop using toxic pesticides from Monsanto that bio-accumulate and lead to more species extinctions.

If the people in power had wisdom, they would make the Tweed Shire a model for the rest of the world on how to slow down or stop biodiversity loss. That’s what we – the voters – want. We want YOU to protect the crown jewels of the Green Caldron, which are its biodiversity. Not only for the sake of our grandkids but for the sake of all the non-human creatures and for the planet.

Our future depends on the decisions you Councillors make over the coming months and years. Please change your policies. Change your priorities. Change your heart – before it’s too late. We are running out of time.

Menkit Prince

FEARS that the NSW Government is about to override council planning powers to approve the world championship car rally heightened yesterday as hundreds of protesters marched against the event.

At the same time concerns were raised that if the rally was approved, future
protest actions could disrupt it as objectors took matters into their own
hands.

Police escorted about 300 protesters, some in cardboard mock-ups of rally cars and some dressed as koalas, wallabies or other animals which they said would be put at risk by rally cars on rural roads, through Murwillumbah.

...

Outside the Tweed Shire Council chambers anti-rally speakers addressed the
crowd on environmental and other concerns.

Byron-based NSW Greens Party Upper House member Ian Cohen said he was worried the government could override council planning powers to approve the event which it has promised the help fund.

...

   - from "Protestors ready for long fight" in the Tweed Daily News of 28 May 09.

See also: sites.google.com/site/norallygroup, Direct link to YouTube broadcast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tried to dial again but found the lines engaged.

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

"Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Thank you.

"Yours sincerely,

"James Sinnamon

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

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

"Osama bin Laden is the world's best-known terrorist, but how much of what we think we know about him is real? David Griffin examines this question in greater depth than any previous author. Based on the evidence, he suggests that bin Laden may have been dead for some time. If so, this means that some covert operators have been fabricating tapes to keep Osama bin Laden alive in the public's imagination."---Terrell E. Arnold, former deputy director of the US State Department Office of Counterterrorism; author of A World Less Safe witing of David Ray Griffin's, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

The US's political discourse and foreign policy in recent years has been based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden is still alive. George W. Bush promised as president that he would get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and has been widely criticized for failing to do so. The US's present military escalation in Afghanistan is said to be necessary to "get Osama bin Laden." The news media regularly announce the appearance of new "messages from bin Laden." But what if Osama bin Laden died in December 2001---which is the last time a message to or from him was intercepted?

In this book, David Ray Griffin examines the evidence for the claim--- made by everyone from former CIA agent Robert Baer to Oliver North--- that bin Laden is surely no longer with us. He analyzes the purported messages from bin Laden and finds that, as many have suspected, they do not provide evidence of bin Laden's existence after 2001. This leads naturally to the question: if Osama bin Laden did indeed die in 2001, how and why have dozens of "messages from bin Laden" appeared since then?

Griffin's meticulous analysis supports above all one simple and urgent conclusion: if Osama bin Laden is dead, the US should not be using its troops and treasure to hunt him down.

David Ray Griffin has published 35 books on philosophy, religion, and politics. His most recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly "Pick of the Week" in 2008.

"David Ray Griffin, one of America's most careful and judicious political analysts, specializes in subjects the mainstream media and most politicians prefer to ignore. Three cheers to him now for taking on the question of whether Osama bin Laden died some years ago and should therefore no longer be a reason for the United States to continue its war in Afghanistan. There are powerful forces both in the United States and some of its allies that undoubtedly want a clash of civilizations. Some of these forces may well have acted secretly in the past, and may still be working, to create situations, real or false, to bring about more warfare. Griffin's new book, with its evidence that "messages from bin Laden" may have been fabricated, should encourage a complete rethinking of the mission in Afghanistan." --- William Christison, former senior CIA official

"This book is part of a growing body of non-fiction that illuminates the cataclysmic gap between those with power, who do as they please, and those with knowledge, who are not heard. At least 80% of what is done ‘in our name' with our tax dollars is wasteful, lacks intellectual integrity, and does great harm to humanity both at home and abroad. Unless President Obama breaks out of the closed circle of power to connect with the kind of independent knowledge found in this book, he will remain a captive ‘front' for the Empire Enterprise."--- Robert David Steele Vivas, recovering spy, founder of the USMC Intelligence Center, CEO of OSS.Net, and CEO of Earth Intelligence Network.

Also published on 911blogger.com.

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Sinnamon,

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

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

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

Air of panic in a cash-strapped state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Population growth impacts on wildlife: The endangered Earless Dragon is being used to justify killing thousands of Eastern Gray kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, but the motive is really developers' profit. As grasslands are turned into building sites, as human population growth is encouraged.. Kangaroos are in the way, as is democracy, so both are being buried. See also:Kangaroo articles

When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

Did the ACT government organize the mass killing of thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, near Canberra, in a sudden uncharacteristic and galvanic effort to save the endangered Earless Dragon?

(Illustration of dragon as gun by Carol.)Thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos have recently been shot and bulldozed into pits in Belconnen and Majura, [1] Australian Capital Territory (ACT), in fatal massive round-ups which have not been seen since early last century. In a torrent of official reports and statements, scientists and politicians have fingered the Eastern Grey Kangaroo for overgrazing rare grasslands and thus threatening their other inhabitants, notably the endangered Earless Dragon.

Who would have thought that the little Earless Dragon had such powerful friends in government, planning, universities and business - even the Canberra International Airport? [2] The Grasslands Earless Dragon doesn't pay taxes and doesn't directly contribute to political fundraisers, but it is often associated with grants and development programs these days.

Were these culls really for the benefit of the Earless Dragon? Or was the Earless Dragon only an excuse for this macropod massacre, in which case, what was the real motive?

Although these planned culls aroused public ire and many questions, formal responses were highly selective. Many questions about the Belconnen cull went unanswered and remain unanswered. When the Majura cull came up on the agenda, the same angry questions received the same infuriating non-responses.

The public and the kangaroos deserve much better.

It was so difficult to make sense of what was happening. Could the whole thing actually be as cruel and stupid as the kangaroo-cull protesters claimed? Or were the protesters really childish people who could not accept the obvious need to put some animals which had ‘bred like rabbits’ out of their misery?

After all, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) had given its seal of approval. That meant it must be okay, right? Right? (See, for instance: "Questions to Michael Linke, RSPCA re the Majura Massacre of Kangaroos")

Absence of testable theoretical basis for cull

My own preoccupation over the months intervening between the Belconnen and the Majura kills had been to ascertain what population theory was used to arrive at the diagnosis of overpopulation or to assert that there should be only one kangaroo per hectare. My search failed. This question has now become one of whether there was any population theory at all. A theory of how kangaroo populations behave is necessary for any outsider to be able to test the validity of the judgement that the Majura Roos or the Belconnen Roos or any other roos were overpopulating and needed ‘culling’. Saying that there should be one per hectare or that they may die of starvation are remarks which, on their own, do not justify culls.

I was amazed that official reports did not begin with a description of how kangaroo populations were thought to operate, how this theory had been tested and the populations measured. In an effort to find out if any real theory and application had taken place, I attempted to contact officials and scientists involved in kangaroo management programs of one sort or another. No population theory of any kind, whether or not demonstrating lemming-like multiplication tendencies in kangaroos, has yet surfaced as a reasonable basis of the culling of the Belconnen or Majura roos.

What did emerge was that there was an overtly declared perception of conflict between human activities and the presence of kangaroos in grazing and a less overtly acknowledged conflict between land-use intensification in urban development, such as roads and new suburbs, accompanying the promotion of radical human population growth policies in the ACT. (See, for instance, this description of planned expansion and intensification in the area.)

Dr Fletcher’s thesis oddly at odds with Canberra culls

One scientist who was closely associated with the Belconnen cull and the Majura cull, was Don Fletcher. Fletcher is the Senior Ecologist in Research and Monitoring in Parks, Conservation and Lands, Department of Territory and Municipal Services, ACT. His involvement in the Belconnen Roo cull seems to have been officially limited to capturing then releasing female survivors after inserting contraceptives in them. He was one of the writers of the public consultation document leading up to the Majura cull.

He defended these culls and has defended the assessments leading up to the Majura culls in a public consultation document. Yet his own thesis on the “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” (pdf 4.27mb) seemed to discredit claims at the basis of these culls, which were too high population density and a need to manage it down to one kangaroo per hectare. For instance, he wrote on page 237 of his study that :

“The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate. Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover.” [3]

He also wrote that some of the populations he was studying were at the highest density recorded. They ranged between 4.5 and 5.1 kangaroos per hectare. The density in the studies below was expressed in square kilometers. To get density per hectare, divide by 100. [4] Fletcher wrote:

“The kangaroo density estimates reported in Chapter 7 for the three study sites (mean eastern grey kangaroo densities of 450, 480 and 510 km2) are the highest kangaroo densities reported. For comparison, the maximum density of combined red kangaroos and western grey kangaroos in the Kinchega study was less than 56 km2 (Bayliss 1987) and the density of eastern grey kangaroos at Wallaby Creek (Southwell 1987b) was 41 to 50 km2. The next highest kangaroo density outside the vicinity of my study sites appears to be that of Coulson et al. (1999a) for eastern grey kangaroos at Yan Yean Reservoir near Melbourne, which was 220 km2.”

Coulson’s study of kangaroos at 2.2 per ha was published in 1999 as Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”. [5] Graham Coulson’s Yan Yean article is frequently cited by kangaroo population students and he seems to be thought of as the originator of the “one kangaroo per kilometer” ‘rule’.

I did contact Dr Fletcher by email, and he was initially quite friendly, but when I attempted to ask him questions about his thesis responses to my emails ceased, even though I re-sent the emails.

For every assertion a contradictory one remains unanswered

The ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1 (issued prior to the Majura cull) reported conflict between kangaroos and the rural community which uses 23% of the ACT.

“A key issue for rural lessees is the conflict between kangaroo grazing and pasture and fodder crop production.”
(ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1. )

It stated as fact anecdotal reports that kangaroo populations ballooned due to man-made pasture improvements.

“There is general consensus that, in other parts of Australia at least, land clearing and swamp drainage to extend areas for introduced pasture, together with the increase in the number of farm dams has improved habitat for Eastern Grey Kangaroos and some other macropods, leading to increased numbers.”

But these anecdotal reports are very selective and easily countered by others, for instance in Dr John Auty’s comprehensive review of original documents forming the history of kangaroo populations from the time of European settlement in Australia. See “Red Plague Grey Plague - Kangaroo [numbers] myths and legends”

Other ACT researchers have also questioned the logistical principle of blaming kangaroos for human pressures on the environment, i.e. why blame kangaroos when we know that the damage is outstandingly done by sheep and cattle? In the Olsen and Low report case cited below the researchers are talking about farming, but they could just as much be talking about new suburbs, i.e. why blame kangaroos when the damage is obviously being done by human population growth, accompanying infrastructure and housing development (roads and suburbs), and human activities (driving cars, growing lawns, shopping, expansion of production, etc.)?

“The discontinuation of damage mitigation as grounds for harvesting is in many ways a more honest approach to kangaroo management given that damage is difficult to monitor, predict and even to prove empirically to be an issue. It also removes the implication that kangaroos are pests.

However, some landholders still perceive damage mitigation to be the main reason for harvesting and continue to call for greater quotas, mainly during the recent years of low rainfall. Arguably, this is a socio-economic problem rather than an ecological one. Certainly, the issue of land degradation will never be redressed by simple reduction in kangaroo numbers when there is no concomitant control of sheep and other introduced herbivore grazing impacts.” Olsen and Low Report. [6]

Is the real conflict over the grasslands between developers and kangaroos rather than kangaroos and earless dragons?

Fletcher, in his thesis, describes Kangaroo density in the ACT as having “increased more rapidly from 1996 to 2000 after sheep and cattle grazing had ended.” [7] Sheep and cattle had been allowed to graze in the threatened grasslands. In some cases they have even been returned to the areas where kangaroos have been ‘euthanazed’ to protect those fragile grasslands.

The question asked here should not be whether the kangaroo density increased to take up pasture vacated by sheep and or cattle. The real question should be: Did such a reduction in sheep and cattle grazing then bring the unfortunate kangaroos into conflict with urban developers over the rezoning of agricultural land for rural use?

In fact, if we drop the non-issue of kangaroo numbers, the relevance of developer-ambition conflicting with retaining grasslands for any indigenous animals becomes obvious.

Kangaroos graze there, which is obviously better than sheep and cattle grazing there, but property developers want to raise far more lucrative crops of humans there by building roads and houses where kangaroos now graze, along with earless dragons.

Unfortunately the government is encouraging developers. Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability, in her report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation, says that the "ACT is fortunate in being in a strong position to be able to advance the protection of lowland native grassland, in particular Natural Temperate Grassland communities and the species it supports," ... BUT... [she adds]:

“Protecting lowland native grassland from development is also a challenge as these areas, being generally flat to gently undulating with no trees, are often prime potential development sites. Much of Canberra’s development is on lands that were once lowland native grassland.” Maxine Cooper Report, p. v.

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” Maxine Cooper Report, pp 74-75,

Now most of the competition with kangaroos is from property development. Stimulating property development is government policy and the means of stimulus is a policy to encourage interstate immigration and natural increase through baby bonuses. This government decision to stimulate human population growth in the ACT and to expand development in the ACT causes pressure on the local kangaroo population and the population of the Earless Dragon in the ACT.

Grave failure of public education and democracy

The commercially-based decisions about human population policy which cause these pressures, however, are kept entirely out of official calculations, negotiations, and rationales pertaining to kangaroo culls and definitions of kangaroo overpopulation in Belconnen and Majura, ACT. This omission means that the public do not have the information to hold the government responsible where it should be held responsible, nor to question the costs of its policies. This represents a grave failure of public education and democracy.

Oddly, Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, mentions and notes the threat to the grasslands from development, yet she does not factor this logically into the reasonableness of blaming and killing kangaroos.

Instead, she uncritically accepts the illogical explanations which she is provided with about kangaroos. She even provides further faulty measures of kangaroo population densities by rate of car-kangaroo collisions.

“The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” [8]

Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and onto the roads to make way for houses.

If, however, commercial development pressure were properly assessed, then its role as the primary population impact on the grasslands and the cause of ACT policies to depopulate kangaroos would become obvious and the government would no longer be able to deflect criticism of overdevelopment and cruelty to kangaroos.

Who profits? When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

What of the Earless Dragon in all this? Small and scarce, it is not hard to imagine it fitting into a developer’s pocket-size native-style garden. You could even imagine thirty-something refugees from housing prices in Sydney and Singapore cultivating it in garden pots in new high-rises. Imagine is the key, since who would check up?

Pardon me for being skeptical, but the high profile of the Earless Dragon makes me think of advice to writers about mentioning loaded guns in detective stories. If there is a gun it is there to shoot a victim for a motive. The huge importance suddenly given to the humble Earless Dragon bespeaks a greater purpose than the self-evident worth of its own preservation. Cherchez le maccabe. [Find the cadaver.] The Dragon is the weapon to get rid of the much-loved kangaroos. There can be no argument there, for we hear little else but how the kangaroos are threatening this little animal. Once the kangaroos are gone, the tiny Dragon’s profile will almost certainly sink back to the level which escapes most humans’ notice, unreported by the mainstream press.

Let us ask the ever-useful sociological question here. Who benefits?
Developers and their friends do.

Let justice be done

You wouldn’t think it from listening to politicians, but I have it from a reliable source that, in the ACT, the biggest source of public complaint is cruelty to animals. People should realize that they are not alone in their horror at the cruelty entailed by all this unwanted (except by its few focused beneficiaries) and costly population growth and development. The Earless Dragon has been deployed with the effect of sowing paralysing confusion among nature groups by implying an ungenerous bias for furry kangaroos against ugly dragons.

”To save the beauty, or the beast; that is the question
Eastern grey kangaroos are among the most appealing of mammals (Figure 12), while Ginninderra Lepidium, Grassland Earless Dragons, Coorooboorama Raspy Crickets (Figure 4), Striped legless Lizards, Perunga Grasshoppers (Figure5), Golden Sun Moths (Figure5), and other grassland-dependent plants and animals, are all ugly. Well that may be one opinion, but if so, it is irrelevant. Governments are legally and morally obliged to protect each species. Beauty is not a consideration.” ”A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue, Dept of Territorial and Municipal Services, ACT Government” [ 9]

This has the hallmarks of a straw man argument.

Let the community be heard as it rises to save the grasslands and return them to their rightful management by kangaroos and Earless Dragons. Let due opprobrium be publicly dealt the Growth Lobby by exposing its greed and cowardice in orchestrating the cold-blooded execution of thousands of living, breathing, social creatures for economic and ecological crimes they could never have committed, merely to defend its exceedingly narrow and debt-ridden interests. Let us sheet home to the Growth Lobby and its minions in government the depravity with which they attempt to corrupt our wider society. We are not cruel or injust. We do not support cruelty and injustice.

It seems amazing that Maxine Cooper can support a kangaroo cull when she also writes that the Majura Valley grassland is “arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia” but that it has no long-term planning protection and there is no commitment for any, and that to protect it by defining it as a reserve would

“[…]constrain future development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road [… and] would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans.” [10]

In other words, Maxine Cooper is aware that plans for several new roads and urban expansion are planned for the Majura grasslands and sees that it will be necessary to curb this development to protect the grasslands. [11]

Some of Cooper’s other recommendations (apart from those which promote the culling of kangaroos on illogical grounds) are good. I provide these in the appendix to this article.

Earless Dragon scarcity previously coincided with kangaroo scarcity in ACT

Don Fletcher, in “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” describes how, in the 1940s and 1950s kangaroos actually became rare in the ACT due to competition by European grazing stock. Even when these stock were removed, they remained rare for some time. Salt blocks were put out in the 1960s to attract kangaroos to the Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve, where in 1963 employees went for three months without seeing one.) [12]

Oddly, at the same time as kangaroos were banished from the ACT, the Earless Dragon also became scarce. It couldn’t have been because of too many kangaroos.

“The Grassland Earless Dragon was very common in the ACT up to the 1930s but there are now very few left. This is mainly because there are so few areas of its native grassland habitat remaining. There are now only two main populations known in the ACT; and there is one near Cooma in NSW.” Source: The ACT Conservation Council, http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=34#GED
[13 ]

Note that the Earless Dragon was also found in 2001 in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. [14]

APPENDIX: Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009

Recommendation 23: Plan a Majura Valley Reserve to protect Natural Temperate Grassland and its supporting species, particularly the Grassland Earless Dragon, by defining the boundaries of this proposed reserve in the near future.”

“Findings that informed Recommendation 27
During the investigation, the Commissioner’s Office found it difficult to identify the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones that guide land use. To help the community and developers gain information on grassland sites relative to planning zones it is recommended that a map of the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones be published.

Recommendation 27: Publish a map that shows the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones. This should be readily available through the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.” Source: Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, pp 73-74

“In terms of biodiversity conservation, the ideal approach is to establish a series of conservation reserves (which may include voluntary schemes) that are of sufficient size and biodiversity to maintain a full range of ecological communities (and hence species) on a long-term basis. It is also desirable for such reserves to be located to enable connectivity for animal movement and other interactions between them.125
The natural connections between grasslands and adjoining woodlands have mostly been severed, but should be retained where they still exist.

Important grassland sites for connectivity between woodland and grassland are at:

• Mount Ainslie Nature Reserve and Campbell Park (MA05)
• ‘Callum Brae’ (JE02)
• Jerrabomberra West Reserve (JE03) and woodland to the west
• Gungaderra Nature Reserve (GU02) and Gungahlin Hill
• Aranda Bushland and Caswell Drive (BE10)
• Majura Valley at the Majura Training Area (MA01).

Important grassland sites for connectivity between grasslands are at:

• Campbell Park (MA05) and Majura West (MA06)
• adjacent grassland on either side of the ACT and New South Wales border via Harman Bonshaw North (JE06) and Harman Bonshaw South (JE07), Jerrabomberra East Reserve (JE05), Woods Lane (JE06), and Queanbeyan Nature Reserve (Letchworth, New SouthWales)
• adjacent grassland between the Canberra International Airport (MA03) the Majura
Training Area (MA01) and ‘Malcolm Vale’ (MA04). Pp. 74-75

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

NOTES

[1] “Majura roo cull targets 6000, Canberra Times, 2 May 2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/majuraroo-cull-targets-6000/1502384.aspx and
Victor Violante, “Roo cull under way: 2000 shot”, Canberra Times, 9/05/2009,
“About 2000 eastern grey kangaroos at the Department of Defence's Majura Training Area have been culled this week, with a further 4000 expected to be shot. Defence confirmed yesterday that culling had begun on Tuesday and contractors doing the cull had already achieved about a third of their target.
Defence spokesman Brigadier Brian Dawson said there were about 9000 eastern grey kangaroos on the Defence-owned site, and they would reduce the population to the ''sustainable level'', a density of one per hectare. This would reduce the population to about 3000.
‘The cull is being conducted humanely by licensed and experienced professional contractors,'' Brigadier Dawson said yesterday.’”
[2] Kangaroos Threaten One Of Australia's Last Remaining Original Grasslands, And Endangered Animals (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/ 080521114923.htm) “The eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) has always been part of the cityscape of Canberra, also known as the "bush capital" of Australia. But even Leipzig-based scientist Dr Marion Höhn and Anett Richter of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) are surprised by the high numbers of them. In her doctoral thesis, Anett Richter is investigating how selected invertebrate species such as ground beetles are affected by landscape fragmentation and habitat alteration in natural grasslands in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Yet during her fieldwork she discovered that there were far fewer of them than expected.
What she found instead were dry grasslands, grazed bare and scarred by the worst drought to hit Australia in a century. Particularly, she was surprised to find large quantities of kangaroo dung, especially in the enclosed military areas: "The results of the fragmentation studies are not yet available. But we assume that there is a relationship on individual sites between the extremely high density of kangaroos and species diversity among the invertebrates – especially in times of severe drought."”

In Peter Robertson & Murray Evans, /files/earless-dragon-management-2009-tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf National Recovery Plan for the Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla, published by the ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, Canberra, 2009: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/43f24013-b621-4ff6-bf09-34da942e8ced/files/tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf the Canberra International Airport is listed as responsible for the management of earless dragon habitat at the airport (p.9); as possibly relatedly suffering economic impacts (p.12); as supporting ongoing studies p.19.

The Airport legal framework for protecting dragon habitat, including land management agreements and conservation directions, is outlined in section A5.1, p.4:

"Development at the Canberra Airport requires approval for Major Development Plans (MDP) (defined under the Airports Act 1996) from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure Minister). The Infrastructure Minister, under Section 160(2)(c) of the EPBC Act, must obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Environment Minister). Although an approval may be given by the Infrastructure Minister for a MDP, a permit from the Environment Minister under Section 201 of the EPBC
Act to move, take or kill is required to harm a Grassland Earless Dragon or its habitat. In issuing such a permit the Environment Minister must be satisfied that the action will not have an adverse impact and will contribute significantly to the conservation of the species."

[3] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” was on line as a pdf, which is the form I downloaded it as. A copy is preserved now under this article, linked here: /files/Fletcher-kangaroo-thesis.pdf because the pdf is now of limited availability, although copies are still at the University of Canberra Library, reference: http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an42269526. A book by the same title and author has also been published.
[4] There are 100 ha in one square km. So if density varied between 450 and 510 kangs per square km, then that is 4.5 p ha or 5.10 per ha. With 220 per square km 2.2 per ha.
[5] Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S (1999). “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”, Proc R Soc Vic 111: 121–130.
[6] Penny Olsen and Tim Low, “Situation Analysis Report Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling”, School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200
26 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland 4049, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006
[7] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”, p.40
[8] In Note 11: “The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and on to the roads. Nor does Don Fletcher, in his thesis, where he accepts reports on increasing rates of car collisions with kangaroos in Victoria, also a state with a population growth policy which manifests in rapid population growth and development and rapid depletion of kangaroo habitat.
[9] A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue (2006) from the ACT Department of Territorial and Administrative Services.

[10] Maxine Cooper Report, pp. xv-xvi
[11] Maxine Cooper Report, pp.74-75 and pp xv-xvi:

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” pp 74-75

“Majura Valley’s large, intact lowland native grassland area, which consists of a number of sites under the control of various government agencies, does not have long-term planning protection; it is not in a reserve and there is no commitment for this to occur.

Given the significance of the Majura Valley grassland, arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia, the presence of five threatened species including the Grassland Earless Dragon, it is strongly recommended that a commitment be made to create a reserve in this locality.” [xv-xvi]

[…]defining the site of the proposed Majura Valley reserve would constrain future
development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road, it would provide a more certain context for potential developments. It would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans. [xv-xvi]

The lands for the proposed reserve could be the subject of a formal conservation agreement between the ACT and Australian governments.”
[12] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”: “3.3 History of eastern grey kangaroo populations on the sites
All three sites had been grazed commercially for 50 – 150 years until withdrawn in recent decades for conservation or water supply purposes. Each site supported an unmanaged population of eastern grey kangaroos, which was at high density. Kangaroos were scarce in the ACT region in the 1940s and 1950s (Schumack 1977; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996, p. 9). This included the study sites. The first employees in the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve lived there for three months in 1963 before seeing a kangaroo (Mick McMahon, former employee, personal communication; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996) and salt blocks were put out to attract kangaroos in the years before the reserve was opened to the public (ACT government official file: Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve Advisory Committee – 1966).”
[13] Source: The ACT Conservation Council description of the Grassland Earless Dragon - Typanocryptis pinguicolla.
[14] Mt Tyson's Grassland Earless Dragon: not extinct after all
“Chocolate bilbies are facing stiff market competition from the Grassland Earless Dragon in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. GED (as the Grassland Earless Dragon is affectionately known) was thought to be extinct, but was rediscovered in 2001. An adult GED grows to around 12 centimetres long and has spotted spiky skin which makes it a camouflage specialist. […] The Landcare Group has received more than $7,000 from the Australian Government to fund a variety of activities designed to promote awareness of GED and create a conservation management strategy for the species. […] The Group had previously received funding through a State Government Community Natural Resource Awareness Activity Grant, which they used to commission the chocolate mould that was provided to manufacture the chocolate dragons. Support has also been provided by local businesses such as Ergon Energy in Toowoomba and by the Queensland Museum and the University of Queensland Gatton campus.”