government

Presentation by The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, Convenor of Planning Democracy, to Combined Residents of Whitehorse Action Groups, (CROWAG) Wednesday 15 February, Blackburn Lake Visitor Centre.

EveryAGE Counts: Seven in ten older Australians believe 'ageism against older people is a serious problem,’ but those in their 50s and 60s are significantly more likely to hold this view than those in their 80s and 90s, according to landmark new national polling commissioned for the nation's second Ageism Awareness Day today (Oct 7).

The research also finds a strong majority of older Australians want the government to invest in a national awareness campaign about ageism and its effects. 

Australia's construction industry is corrupt, but protected by government. This has left building consumers in a terrible situation. A current scandal is that they are being forced to pay billions for builders' mistakes in a situation where no building over 3 stories is insured. This video is of an interview with Nerrida Pohl about the dangers of inflammable cladding on skyscrapers, using her own building as an example. The location affords views of similar problems on surrounding skyscrapers in South Yarra. It also illustrates the irony of having one's view built out, even when one lives in a skyscraper, as massive population growth an deregulation accelerate infilling and raise heights. Nerrida was a speaker at the Victorian Building Action Group AGM this year.

VIDEO UNPUBLISHED: Unfortunately the person interviewed in this video has asked me to unpublish it pending her dealing with some pressure she has received in response. Because this was a very educational video, I am regretfully unpublishing it for the time being.

An independent report on the economic situation on Norfolk Island following the Australian Government takeover of governance of the island last year, released today, warns the island’s economy is heading for disaster as a result of spiralling costs and inappropriate regulation. Problems include the widespread imposition of Commonwealth and NSW regulatory regimes; the planned introduction of Australia's Modern Award System; the failure of the Australian Government to take up the responsibilities previously held by the Norfolk Island Government, such as for the promotion of tourism; the loss of direct passenger airline services between New Zealand and Norfolk Island; restrictions placed on primary producers and agricultural pursuits; and the removal of the general revenue raising powers of the Norfolk Island Government.

Written by economist and former scientist Dr Chris Nobbs, “On the Brink of Disaster: The Impact of the Australian Government Reforms on Norfolk Island Businesses” provides a detailed analysis of the impact of legislative and regulatory changes imposed on the island during the past 15 months.

Dr Nobbs concludes that the growing crisis is the direct result of flaws in the intervention by the Australian Government in Norfolk Island's governance and economy from 1 July 2016.

The report outlines the impact of substantial cost increases facing businesses, including double-digit price rises for incoming freight, a 15 per cent rise in telecommunications costs, a 12.7 per cent rise in regional council fees, along with regulatory changes that will see wage costs jump more than 35 per cent next year.

“Based on a detailed examination of the current economic situation and the impact of significant legal and regulatory changes, it is projected that Norfolk Island will suffer a very large rise in prices, a steep downturn in tourism, a slump in business, a rise in unemployment, and widespread community distress,” Dr Nobbs said.

“By requiring both that Norfolk Island pay its own way and that Norfolk Islanders become like mainland Australians in terms of their obligations and expectations, the Australian Government is crushing the island's economy in a vice from which few groups will escape unscathed.”

Critical factors the report singles out as responsible for the economic crisis include:

- the widespread imposition of Commonwealth and NSW regulatory regimes;
- the planned introduction of Australia's Modern Award System;
- the failure of the Australian Government to take up the responsibilities previously held by the Norfolk Island Government, such as for the promotion of tourism;
- the loss of direct passenger airline services between New Zealand and Norfolk Island;
- restrictions placed on primary producers and agricultural pursuits; and
the removal of the general revenue raising powers of the Norfolk Island Government.

Urgent factors

The report outlines a series of urgent recommendations for the Australian Government, including:

- the halting of further Commonwealth impositions on Norfolk Island; and
- that the Productivity Commission carry out research and conduct a public inquiry to determine the real financial capacity of the island and how it can survive economically, socially and culturally at reasonable cost.

Norfolk Island, a small island in the South Pacific Ocean, is an external territory of Australia. From 1979 until 2015, the island enjoyed a large degree of self-government, but this was terminated by the Australian Government. The changes resulted in the disbanding of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, the Norfolk Island Government, and local public service. The Legislative Assembly was replaced by a "regional council", constructed under Commonwealth legislation, and modelled on a New South Wales local authority template.

The report is available for download at: http://www.norfolkonlinenews.com/impact-of-the-reforms-on-norfolk-island-businesses.html

Source: AAP 20 Nov 2017 11:00 AM

The period since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its guide to the proposed plan, nearly two years ago, has been marked by sustained outrage from all quarters.

The Murray-Darling Debacle

The ongoing flooding in the Murray-Darling Basin, coming so soon after the decade-long 'Millennium Drought', is a stark reminder of the extreme variability of the Murray-Darling river system.

These events also illustrate why the proposed Basin Plan, predicated on allocating a fixed volume of water for irrigation and returning a fixed volume of water to the rivers, has been widely condemned as facile and insincere, and of failing to improve on the existing, discredited management regime.

The period since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its guide to the proposed plan, nearly two years ago, has been marked by sustained outrage from all quarters. The authority, under its current chair, political apparatchik Craig Knowles, has been accused of a lack of transparency and of scientific dishonesty.

Few if any stakeholder groups have willingly embraced the proposed Basin Plan, and those that have indicated that they may are tending to do so in the belief, as stated by Craig Knowles himself, that his plan is "better than no plan at all" ? hardly a ringing self-endorsement of a proposal which will direct the expenditure of over $9 billion of taxpayers funds.

It appears that both Mr Knowles and federal Water Minister Tony Burke have adjudged the proposed plan to be worthy precisely because it pleases no-one.

In the broader community, there is widespread frustration and "Basin Plan fatigue" as criticisms and counter-criticisms continue to saturate the debate and consensus seems hopelessly unattainable.

Many are now asking: as a nation, how have we arrived at this impasse?

ACCESS COMPLETE ARTICLE AT: http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/content/blogcategory/14/47/

(Belated) update (30/4/2016). Not long after this article was published, the GetUp site administrator suddenly and without warning deleted this proposal together with the many other posts, all of which enthusiastically supported my proposal, as I recall. Had we been warned at least we could have retrieved copies of the posts that were of interest, before they were deleted. Given this outrageous treatment of a proposal which is clearly consistent with GetUp's purported goal "to build a progressive Australia and bring participation back into our democracy", GetUp cannot be what it claims to be.

To vote on this campaign go to http://tinyurl.com/3nmwwjq . Yesterday, I made a proposal on GetUp that GetUp launch a campaign to have the Australian constitution changed to include provisions for Direct Democracy similar to what is practised in Switzerland. Whilst the response has not yet been overwhelming, I see no reason why a campaign for Direct Democracy now in Australia should not be able to gain sufficient support to force the Government make it law. But to succeed the campaign needs your support. To find out what you can do, please read this article and the previous article, particularly, that article's What You Can Do Section.

Could I first express my thanks to Jill, Vivienne, Menkit, Sheila and others for your support for my Direct Democracy campaign?

But so far, now at 2.20pm, 18 hours since I first launched my campaign with e-mails to several dozen contacts at 8.10PM last night and over a day after I posted my proposal to GetUp, I have to say, I am underwhelmed at the response. Although the response is a long way short of what I had hoped -- only six votes in favour so far [#fn_1" id="text_1">1] -- I don't think that that is yet cause to be disheartened. Given that it was Sunday night when I posted the e-mail and that so many I e-mailed would have immense constraints placed upon the time and energy that they needed to deal with my e-mail (which Sheila has advised me is somewhat more verbose than needed) it is hardly surprising that many recipients weren't immediately convinced that it would have been worth the effort to read my e-mail.

However, I still feel confident that at least a small number of those I e-mailed will take the trouble to read my e-mail, come to see that it would be well worth their time and effort to follow some of my suggestions and do what they can to broaden support for Direct Democracy.

Once only a few extra become interested, it should only be a matter of (not too much more) time before they should be able to convince others around them that my proposal has merit and would be well worth any time and energy they could put into it. When this occurs, I believe we will have achieved a critical mass of support.

Once this campaign has a critical mass of supporters, we should face little difficulty in getting enough votes to have it officially launched it as a GetUp campaign.

Because Direct Democracy essentially takes the concept behind GetUp to its logical conclusion, I think that it is likely that this proposal will be read by a considerably greater number of recipients than most GetUp proposals. I think that few who take the trouble to read it will not become convinced of the merits of Direct Democracy. Once this occurs the campaign should have achieved a sufficiently high profile to attract support from much broader sections of the Australian community.

Past campaigns from the GetUp archive include:

• Fund Hope For Mental Health
• Ban Live Export
• Save Tassie Forests
• Support Victorian Human Rights
• End Mandatory Detention
• Save the (Murray-Darling) Basin
• No Child in Detention
• Pokies Reform
• No Pulp Mill
• No Compulsory (aboriginal land) Acquisition In the Kimberly
• Don't Let Them Stop You From Voting
• Our Rights
• Climate Action Now
• Clean Up Tasmanian Politics
• Political Donations
• Economic Fairness
• (Increase essential aboriginal) Homelands funding
• Save the Net
• Save Our Heritage
• Do it for the Children
• Make this (song about the apology to the Stolen Generations) a Hit
• Roll Back, Not Roll Out (GetUp investigation of Fraser Government intervention in Northern Territory)

One very worthwhile outcome was the outcome of the "Save the Net" campaign which succeeded in stopping of the Federal Labour Government from subjecting all Internet traffic to mandatory filtering for the spurious reason that this measure was supposed to help stamp out child pornography on the Internet.

Whilst the "Save the Net" campaign and a few the other GetUp campaigns have considerable merit, the vast majority of causes that Australian communities have fought in recent years, and are fighting today, are missing from these pages. This would seem to indicate that many serious political campaigners see little reason to hope that having GetUp take up their cause would substantially increase their prospects of success.

Currently, my proposal for a Direct Democracy campaign has attracted only 6 supporters on GetUp. Perhaps those on candobetter, who have demonstrated that they understand the urgent need for Direct Democracy could consider taking a little more effort to help me achieve the critical mass of interest I need in order to progress.

#WhatYouCanDo2" id="WhatYouCanDo2">What you can (also) do

• Please consider acting upon some of the suggestions I made in my previous article.
• If you haven't voted for my GetUp proposal, please vote for it now. You will need to be a member of GetUp in order to be able to vote. If you haven't joined, please do so now;
• Please raise this issue again with each of your contacts, whom I probably have already e-mailed or spoken to. Point out to each of them that if Direct Democracy were to become law in the not-too-distant future, then whatever cause they are now fighting so hard far now would have much better prospects of success. In future they can expect to have to spend far less of their own time, energy and money to achieve similar outcomes. So, whatever time and effort they put into supporting this campaign now could easily be repaid to them many times over in future.

Vivienne, in her comment on GetUp, made a very god argument which backs up the point I made in the seconf of my above suggestions:

There are too many action, lobby, environmental and animal rights groups all in opposition to government policies, and our election system does not address these multiple concerns. We need a true democratic system in Australia, not the farce we have.

Footnote[s]

#fn_1" id="fn_1">1. [#text_1">back] As of 4.00PM on 15 August, 20 hours after I launched the campaign, the support for my campaign still seems very modest: only 6 votes for of a total of 16 votes. Presumably as many as 8 GetUp members voted against my proposal, which is a cause for concen. The given 'avg vote' figure is 2.33 votes. That figure bears no relationship that I can work out with the previous two numbers I have given. The overall rank of my proposal (out of over 1,000 as I recall) is 438. (As of 6.14PM the proposal has 10 supporters and is ranked 318 - still a long way to go.)

You can help bring Direct Democracy to Australia. To vote on this campaign go to http://tinyurl.com/3nmwwjq

John Marlowe first wrote an article about Direct Democracy late last year on 17 November 2010, the same day as an excellent episode of Rear Vision about Direct Democracy was first broadcast. Today, I made a suggestion to GetUp that they conduct a campaign for the Australian constitution to be changed to include Direct Democracy as it is currently practised in Switzerland. It is easy for anyone who agrees with the aims of GetUp to join in order to vote for my proposal. #WhatYouCanDo">What you can do.

The article below, except for the #WhatYouCanDo">What you can do section, was originally Posted to GetUp on 15 August 2011.

GetUp should run a campaign to make provision in the Australian constitution to include Direct Democracy as it is currently practised in Switzerland. The recent experience of Swiss direct democracy and its broader history was described in the excellent 17 November 2010 episode of the ABC Radio National Rear Vision program (see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2010/3047700.htm for transcript, podcast is here.)

A proposal for a new law, an amendment to an existing law or repeal of an existing law could be launched by a group of concerned citizens in a way similar to campaigns now run through GetUp.

However, if Australia had Direct Democracy in its constitution, the campaign would most likely end with the proposal becoming law, provided that a "double majority", that is a national majority of voters and majorities of voters in a majority of states, (or 'cantons' in Switzerland) votes for it at a referendum.

The number of signatures required to have a national referendum put is 100,000 of Switzerland's population of 7,860,000. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Direct_democracy). The equivalent proportion of Australia's current population of 22,677,40 is 288,278, so a more appropriate rounded number of required signatures for a national referendum to be held in Australia could be 250,000. (Given that many of Australia's people live further apart from each other than do people in Switzerland a still lower threshold could be justified.)

Under the laws of Direct Democracy, if the required number of signatures are obtained, then the proposal must be put to the Swiss people at the periodic multiple national referenda that are held in Switzerland. If the proposal is voted for by a double majority, then it becomes law.

Direct Democracy differs from the way representative democracy is practised in most countries formally labeled 'democratic'. I believe that few of those countries, notably Australia, can be described as truly democratic in the sense of "government of the people by the people and for the people". If those countries adopted Direct Democracy, then they could become truly democratic.

On many occasions, in at least the last four decades Australia, has experienced Parliaments which have inexcusably ignored the clear wishes of the Australian people.

A probable reason why Australians have quietly accepted this is subtle indoctrination through the mass media. The mass media markets the questionable idea that politicians as a whole, having the best interests of their constituents at heart, are better able to judge than their [implied] mostly less educated and less knowledgeable constituents what is truly in the best longer term interests of those constituents.

In fact, the record shows that on nearly every occasion on which politicians have over-ruled the wishes of their constituencies, their judgment has not been better, or that they had been putting the welfare of powerful vested interests above the welfare of their constituents.

Often decisions which have harmed both our national prosperity and the interests of the least wealthy Australians have been reached against the known views of the majority of Australians. Sometimes there has been no electoral mandate and, on some occasions, decisions have actually run counter to specific promises made in elections.

On many other occasions, whilst decisions may not have been opposed at the time by the majority of Australians, neither would a majority of Australians have been in favour. There certainly was no informed consent.

Examples where the known wishes of the Australian public have been disregarded include: the privatisations of Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the State banks and State insurance offices, the abolition of protection for Australia's manufacturing which commenced during the years of the Whitlam Labor Government, John Howard's Goods and Services Tax (GST) and "Work Choices", the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq.

Few other privatisations -- railways, other public transport, power generation, roads, water -- have not been imposed contrary to the known wishes of the Australian public. Certainly almost none have been done with the informed consent of the public.

Examples of actions, which were certainly taken without the informed consent of the Australian public, include: the floating of the Australian dollar and the financial deregulation of the early years of the Hawke and Keating Governments, Malcolm Fraser's emasculation of Medicare, Malcolm Fraser changing investment laws to allow overseas investors to buy up Australia's mineral wealth, the Whitlam Government's failure to legislate to index taxation scales in line with inflation, Australia's participation in the invasion of Afghanistan, the attempted use of mercenaries to break the Maritime Union of Australia by John Howard in 1998, the privatisation of retirement income, otherwise known as "Superannuation", by the Hawke government.

If Direct Democracy had been law in Australia for the last four decades, little of the harm described above would have occurred. Where Governments may have succeeded in having legislation detrimental to the public interest initially passed, more than likely, the damage would have been quickly undone through the provisions of Direct Democracy.

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

1. If you are already a member of GetUp, vote for my proposal that GetUp launch a campaign for Direct Democracy. If you are not a member, join GetUP;
2. Please tell your friends family, neighbours and all other contacts, including community groups, you are a member of, about Direct Democracy and ask them to also support my proposal and vote for it;
3. If you have your own blog or web-site, please post information about Direct Democracy onto it. Feel more than welcome to post this article, parts of this article and links to this site and to my GetUp proposal onto your site;
4. Write a letter to your newspaper editor in support of Direct Democracy. Be sure to send us a copy;
5. Ring up talk-back radio and tell them about Direct Democracy and be sure to also tell us;
6. Post Direct Democracy material onto any on-line discussion or mailing list in which you are participating where you think others are likely to be interested;
   
7. Post your thoughts about Direct Democracy, including any you may have expressed elsewhere, onto this page;
8. Consider writing articles about Direct Democracy for candobetter or other publications which support truth and democracy;
9. Post notices about Direct Democracy onto any community notice board that you can. These could be in your sports club, local library, college school, church, community hall, university or local shop.
10. Contact your local, state or Federal representative and let him/her know of your wish for Direct Democracy;
11. If you are a member of the Greens, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Protectionist Party or another minor party, ask your elected representatives to speak in favour of Direct Democracy in the Council, State Parliament or Federal Parliament. Move resolutions in support of Direct Democracy at conference or at your local branch. If you are an office holder put a motion in support of Direct Democracy to your committee;

This is a good film about how government and capitalism deprives people of freedom and gets them to coerce each other. It attributes increases in wealth since the second world war to increases in financial freedom, apparently not understanding the importance of the vast store of fossil fuels we have exploited since the 18th century. Nonetheless it makes good and valid points on a classic them.

Comments and discussion welcome.

For instance, is it really sufficient to 'see' your prison in order to escape it?

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

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

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

Misleading, irresponsible propaganda from Anna Bligh

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

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

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

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

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

Premier's stance that resistance is futile is wrong

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

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

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

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

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

1. Local Government

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

2. State Government

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

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

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

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

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

3. National Government

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

4. Global

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many ordinary people and committed activists are despairing of parliamentary democracy in its current form but say “What else can we do?” So many things just happen without us feeling that we have had any say at all or that our concerns have been completely ignored. Many of our friends are deeply disheartened. We say the community can no longer rely on our elected representatives to make objective and reasonable decisions on our behalf and we have to do something different. At the moment it is democracy in name only. We really have no control over our elected representatives from one election to the next, and we no longer have the time to be patient with them for 4 years at a time.

Here are our major points:

* It is clear that politely attending EES hearings, submitting thoughtful and well researched responses, running peaceful rallies, letter writing campaigns and using the law to try to protect the environment has become a useless exercise. Indeed it’s only function has perhaps become to furnishing government with its “community consultation” obligations. Blue Wedges for example has tried all of the above for the last 5 years, including collecting around 60,000 signatures on two petitions, 10,000 letters to MPs, and demonstrating to a Parliamentary Inquiry that a project has no economic credibility, but still the development juggernaut rolls on and over us. Government has managed to turn what appears to be detailed “community consultation” into a box ticking exercise. So, rather than continue to merely engage in government’s paradigm, we need to start the conversation about a different paradigm for decision making on important issues.

* Politicians have made themselves increasingly inaccessible and impervious to their constituents’ views – they are now mostly irrelevant to most of us most of the time. They are only responding to the growth lobby and a few other noisy, demanding, irrational but powerfully connected minority groups. Our current parliamentary system, where for the 4 years of their incumbency, and where a politician has no obligation whatsoever to vote according to how she/he campaigned and was elected, or how the majority of their constituents might subsequently ask them to vote is no longer serving a useful purpose for most of us.

* Old growth logging, the Tamar Valley pulp mill, the channel deepening issue, De-Sal, North-South pipeline, and of course Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) have all had well run campaigns aimed at engaging our local MPs and government to at least consider alternatives. The unpopular and unnecessary policies and projects just roll on.

* Most recently Planning Minister Madden has even ignored the recommendations of two EES Panel Inquiries, which recommended against the development of Bastion Point Mallacoota and the Crib Point bitumen plant. It’s obvious that parliamentary democracy and its underpinning administrative processes no longer serve us on so many social and environmental issues. As Cr. Rosemary West said at the Planning Backlash Rally on 10th June, “Were any of us asked whether we wanted 5 million people in Melbourne by 2030 (now 2020)?” We weren't asked, and in the case of population growth we weren't even really told what was going to happen.

* All levels of government in Australia have powers to initiate referenda on any issue. With the host of unrepresentative decisions being made by people elected by us perhaps it is time to look at alternative decision making processes.

* Unfortunately under existing arrangements, in Australia a referendum will only be held if a government or local council determines that a poll should be held on an issue. In Victoria we have provision for referendums but unfortunately the decisions are not binding on government.

* Referenda are already in use in a number of countries around the world, including Switzerland and many states in the USA, and Australia, where in recent times referendums have been conducted in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. Some countries have Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (eg. California USA) and some, like Australia only conduct a referendum if initiated by a council or government.

* The state-wide issue of whether to adopt daylight savings was recently decided via referendum in WA, as well a local issue in the City of Box Hill regarding liquor licenses. It would be relatively simple to organise voting on federal, state and local issues, as most people now either have Internet access via a home computer or mobile phone, or can access a computer via a public library. Electronic voting could be managed by voters using of a unique ID number such as tax file or Medicare numbers (no sillier than in the 21st Century still queueing up at the local school to have your name manually ticked off an electoral role).

* Referendums would need to be properly constituted, conducted by the VEC or the affected LGA. A properly constituted poll would be required to equally fund the for and against arguments, so that people could be properly informed, not marketed to. Candobetter Editor comment: Would this over-ride the mainstream press, which distorts every electoral issue by producing political options that it wants by restricting scope of argument? I suppose that what is being suggested here would at least help to combat commercial press propaganda.

* An electronic system could also present the ‘for and against’ argument equitably. It need not be compulsory to vote on every issue, but perhaps it could be organised so that a statistically significant sample is required to decide any outcome. I am sure that it is not beyond our capacity to devise a suitable system.

* Citizen’s Initiated Referenda is an ideal alternative to the present system and is currently operating in various democracies worldwide. (This is not the rather odd “People’s Mandate” idea promoted by some, which aims to collect signatures from over 50% of eligible persons to then invoke powers which have purportedly existed since Magna Carta. Blue Wedges sought legal opinion on the People’s Mandate and were advised, by the now President of the Court of Appeal that the People’s Mandate has no legal standing)

* CIR on the other hand is legally robust and already operating around the world. A CIR is determined to be conducted if 10% of eligible voters petition government to conduct a poll on a specific issue.

* CIR would have the benefit of providing direct democracy for all citizens and could eventually enable the abolition of state governments, which largely duplicate federal government bureaucracy and cost billions of dollars.

* New Zealand has CIR and has recently conducted two polls. One on the issue of whether parents should be allowed to use corporal punishment on their children and one on raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The result of the corporal punishment poll determined that parents should be allowed to smack their children, thus opposing the legislation that the government has just adopted, banning corporal punishment by parents. Unfortunately in NZ, CIR outcomes are not binding on government. To be effective of course CIR outcomes must be binding on government.

At the very least, perhaps our elected representatives should be required to conduct statistically robust polls in their electorate to guide their voting on issues currently before them in parliament. We understand Independent Victorian MP Craig Ingram did this on the recent abortion reform debate. His electorate overwhelmingly supported reform so that’s the way he voted. Other MPs of course proceeded with a “conscience” vote without any obligation whatsoever to consult or inform their electorate. As it stands, for most of the time that is precisely what most of them do – ignore almost everyone that voted for them!

The way things are at the moment, we will be fighting many unwanted policies and proposals in future and if nothing changes we will just keep on being ignored. From now on, when campaigning for the retention of something special, or against something dreadful, amongst all the points we make, why not take the opportunity to remind people that the conventional and proper methods for community input are being ignored by those “in control”, so we need to start thinking about a different way forward – otherwise it is a dead cert we will get what we DON”T want, the environment will be trashed, and those of us running the campaigns will get very depressed and worn out for no sum gain.

A component of all our current and future campaigns should be the message that “community consultation” is off the rails and heading for the cliff. We need somehow to take back control from those who purport to represent us, but are doing nothing of the sort. Otherwise we will just get steamrollered time and time again. We might not make a dent straight away, but sooner or later we just might if we keep giving it a go, and those who come after us will thank us!

We are still willing to believe that if given the facts, most people are capable of making a reasonable decision. If we think otherwise, and don’t trust our fellow citizens then we don’t believe in democracy either, and are just as bad as those we are currently criticising.

Written by Jenny and Len Warfe of the Blue Wedges organisation.

This week - 25 August 2009 - it's about creating a citizens bank. Joe points out that Australians demanded a peoples' bank in 1909 (after the 1890 depression) and got it. Unfortunately they made it the property of the government, and the Hawk Government sold it off.

"Next time", says Joe, "It needs to be made to belong to us, not the government." Then they won't be able to sell it off without a referendum.

You learn a lot about politics, rights and institutions from Joe. Also about how to conduct demonstrations. And about how we need to be active and let the government know we are out there.

Joe is also wise to big business and unsustainable population growth.

Listen to Joe Toscano here. From anywhere in the world.

Dear friends of Earth,

Australians everywhere are devastated at the terrible bush fires in Victoria and flooding in Qld. An estimated one million native animals have been incinerated in the infernos, although the true total could be many times more. The surviving animals will be left to starve or die from injuries, heat stroke or dehydration. We have seen the photos of desperate koalas stopping cyclists on the road for a drink from their water bottles, clambering over fences and drinking from people's swimming pools, dog bowls and watering cans. Koalas nation-wide will now number considerably less than 100,000 thanks to these fires and floods.

With the worst record in the world of wildlife extinctions, having driven 40% of our native animals extinct in a mere 220 years, isn't it time, once and for all, that the Australian government stopped allowing the killing of our so called 'protected' native animals, most of whom are suffering from the following major threats:

1. drought
2. climate change
3. habitat destruction from developers and livestock farmers
4. bushfires
5. flooding
6. farmer kills
7. illegal kills
8. roadkill
9. illegal wildlife trade
10. diseases caused by man
11. polluted air, soil and water
12. the 'bush tucker' trade
13. sports hunters
14. government 'culls'

We call on the government of Australia to protect our native animals in the following ways:-

a) Impose an immediate moratorium on the killing of ALL native animal species (except where it's in the best interest of an animal such as in the case of wounding/disease).

b) Immediately revoke all licences for nuisance killing or sports killing.

c) Increase the penalty for deliberately killing a native animal and to include jail time.

d) Mandate that motor vehicles be installed with 'Shu-Roo' type sonic devices to alert wildlife of the approach of vehicles on country roads.

e) For all development proposals to include appropriate wildlife corridors for the species who live there.

f) To increase expenditure for wildlife corridors to be created where native roadkill consistently occurs.

g) Offer substantial subsidies for livestock farmers to transition from cattle and sheep farming operations to grain and vegetable operations, which do not require constant deforestation to create more grazing lands. Much of the dryness of our country, and therefore propensity to bush fires, is due to livestock farming since cattle and sheep pull out the roots of grasses then compact the soil and cause soil erosion, deserts, droughts and climate change. It's time to move away from this destructive industry and help people transition to a plant-based diet for the sake of our nation.

h) Close down the 'bush tucker' trade completely, especially the kangaroo meat and leather industry. Kangaroo populations have plummeted up to 70% nationwide due to drought and excess killing by the commercial kangaroo industry. The average age of commercially killed kangaroos is only 2-3 years, barely reproductive age. More than 50% of kangaroos killed are females - a recipe for extinction and certainly not 'sustainable.' (see www.stopkangarookilling.org )

i) Create an information sheet highlighting the many ways that kangaroos help prevent bushfires such as by eating the dry grasses that ignite easily in bush fires and by regenerating native grasses by eating the seeds and then migrating to other areas before depositing them into the soil via their stool. Kangaroos are beneficial to our ecosystem in many ways. They do not compact the soil and they help plant many seeds by creating indentations in the soil for seeds to fall into. They also need very little water to drink.

j) Use the media to dispel the widely-held myths that kangaroos are in 'plague proportions' and 'pests.' Since there are more than 5 times as many sheep as there are kangaroos and more cows than kangaroos and about the same number of people, it is hardly fair to call refer to kangaroos as in 'plagues' or 'abundant' and to use that to justify killing them. Also there is no scientific study proving that kangaroos compete with sheep or wheat fields.

k) Develop new methods for people to live in harmony with wildlife so there is no need for governments to 'cull' them. Perhaps where absolutely necessary initiate contraceptive measures or skilfully relocate them.

l) Above all, cease referring to native animals as 'resources to be sustainably harvested.' There is no more sustainability in killing our wildlife, especially our iconic animals.

m) Immediately disband the FATE program established by UNSW which pays farmers to allow shooters to come onto their property and kill native animals for a profit.

n) Tourists come from all over the world to see our amazing native animals and are disappointed to only find them in zoos. Since our tourism industry is suffering financially, creating eco-tourism (possibly employing former shooters and/or local farmers to become tourist guides) would do a lot to stimulate our economy and also go far in re-establishing our current abysmal international reputation for eating our national emblems and for the fact that we conduct the largest slaughter of wildlife on the planet.

We are running out of time. Without biodiversity, we will all perish!

May Australia not be the first country in the world to have all its native animals extinct during this period of the 6th Mass Extinction of all species.

Sharon Burrows, ACTU

President of ACTU, Sharon Burrow, claims that medium income families are paying $60-70 more a week for food and fuel. She says that the inflation is not their fault.

The government is, however, calling for wage restraint.

What is the cost of wages compared to the cost of rent, mortgages, and new roads, tunnels, and other infrastructure to service new suburbs?

What restraints to apply?

Although restraint has to come from somewhere, it would be better to restrain and rein-back housing prices and construction. This would lower a controllable living cost caused by government policy-driven land-speculation and debt. Since oil, the basis of the 20th century’s extraordinary growth is slowly drying up, the Rudd Government must stop supporting the continued expansion of our economy at State and Federal level. We need cooperation from the mainstream press on this, which needs to quickly stop marketing our real-estate globally via www.realestate.com and www.domain.com and similar business vehicles, since this is a major accelerant of land-price rises and real cost of living. Although the Australian CPI has never factored in the cost of land, claiming that it is not a consumable, it has been treated as such in recent times and has had the greatest impact on cost of living. Consolidation must be the order of the day and of our future. Banks, which rely on interest earned from financing this kind of expansion, will have to resign themselves to much lower profits than they have become accustomed to. There was a time when they and we were content with much less. Deposits must be protected at the expense of interest on accounts. The government must step in to prevent hard-won savings from being destroyed in bank crashes and Enron-like implosions.

and how?

Restraint must be equitable and the government must lead by example. Peace in this country will not survive a government which tells the poor to tighten their belts whilst it sells off vital assets to private companies and wines and dines with ostentatious industry moguls who want its support to expand their industries and profits. Our leaders must show that they are prepared for personal sacrifice if they are going to demand it of the rest of us. The press needs to support them in this and stop lobbying on behalf of consumerism and expansion. The ABC needs to drop its stable of developer and real-estate ‘consultants’ now.

The government has so far announced that it wants to maintain living standards by maintaining growth through increasing productivity but this means increasing draw down on oil, which will inflate prices even more as well as growing CO₂ fumes. It is arguable that ordinary people do not really benefit from ‘productivity’ growth when the owners of property and the means of production are in a position to match every wage increase. Productivity growth is not geared to increase wages, but to increase profits. Whilst wages are paid out of profits, profits these days must also cover expected constant rises in shareholder dividends and huge salaries for CEOs. Public companies have come to rely on a promise of continuous growth to retain and attract shareholders. Where essential industries cannot maintain profits, governments should consider taking these industries over to maintain their services.

How to cope with end of cheap oil?

Constant growth is no longer possible now that global oil production is no longer keeping up with population and economic demand. Per capita global oil production has been in decline since 1979. Western European countries have dealt with this decline earlier and better than the English speaking ones which have employed a Thatcher-Reaganite response of expansion based on debt, economic class divide, and asset stripping.

The Australian government has the task of mediating the impacts of economic decline in Australia. It cannot actually stop this economic decline but it can choose to insulate the poor or to insulate the rich. The pressure is on the government from the rich. Property developers and their financial industry allies are currently trying to get the government to divert budget surpluses to oil and materials intensive works, as reported in the Australian Finanacial review of 8 May 08:

“Industry leaders have urged the Rudd government to use part of future surpluses to fund infrastructure that is unlikely to attract private-sector finance and to dramatically increase the federal budget contribution to urban transport and other projects.”

Although infrastructure projects, the Keynesian economic cure for economic depressions, were valid when oil and materials were abundant, they are no longer valid in an oil scarce world with availability of many materials in decline and the cost of fertilizers and food production rocketing.

The government will need to fund sensible public transport and insulation initiatives to save fuel and ensure that vital services and food production are retained, but it cannot afford to engage any ephemeral budget surplus (if the Howard government really left one) in propping the unreasonable profits of private sector infrastructure corporations. Those industries have become accustomed to inequitable distribution of huge profits based on cheap fuel and a parasitic reliance on bringing in massive quantities of immigrants as customers and workers, which they have achieved by lobbying government.

Controlled end of economic growth urgently needed

This financial and development industry reliance on population growth to fund expansion is no longer economically viable even in the short-term It is contributing to the rise in the cost of water, power, food and housing. These high costs make manufacturing in this country extremely uncompetitive against other countries where the cost of land is much less. This has contributed to the destruction of our manufacturing industry and our import/export imbalance. These costs are within the control of the government through the reduction of costly economic activity which is based on the creation of debt for the profit of a few.

Employment is going to start to dry up and this is immediately very frightening if you are paying rent, mortgages or need to drive a car to get to food outlets. Once again, the government can mediate and mitigate the impact of employment decline. There is actually a positive way to deal with this. That is to halve the working day, share the work, and to reduce the costs of living (mentioned above) which are in Australia’s control. Slowing down our economy by stopping expansion will save fuel, save lives, and save time for quality of life and local community strengthening.

See also Mike Stasse on The Challenges of Powering Down