Peter Beattie

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary Evaluation

Mon, 2013-03-11 01:22 by admin

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

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

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

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

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary
Evaluation

John Quiggin

School of Economics

University of Queensland

Summary

There are two main arguments for privatisation of electricity assets:

(1) The sale of income generating assets, such as electricity assets, will improve the financial position of state governments, allowing new investment in assets such as schools and hospitals.

(2) The process of electricity market reform associated with the creation of the National Electricity Market requires privatisation to function properly

These arguments are assessed and shown to be unsound. Privatisation is unlikely to improve the financial position of the state. If badly managed, as has been the case in most previous asset sales, it will leave the public worse off. 'Reforms' to the electricity market over the past two decades have resulted in higher prices and a misallocation of investment, which has been made worse by privatisation and corporatisation. The entire process should be reassessed before any change in ownership structures is considered.

Analysis undertaken by Queensland Treasury or by the Costello Commission of Audit is purely political, and of no evidentiary value. The weakness of this analysis is demonstrated by the consistent refusal of Treasury and the Commission to respond to criticism by a leading economist.

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: An Economic
Evaluation

Since the early 1980s, privatisation of public assets has been demanded by advocates of 'microeconomic reform' and strongly supported by the financial sector. It has been opposed, equally strongly, by voters, who have rejected privatisation whenever they have been given the chance (Kelley and Sikora 2002). A variety of claims have been made in favour of privatisation (Kay and Thompson 1986), but experience has shown these claims to be false in nearly every case.

According to press reports, the Newman LNP government in Queensland is considering the sale of the state's electricity assets. The government has indicated that the Queensland Commission of Audit, headed by a former Federal Treasurer, has recommended the sale of assets including electricity assets, although the Commission's report has not yet been made public.

There are two main arguments for privatisation of electricity assets

(1) The sale of income generating assets, such as electricity assets, will improve the financial position of state governments, allowing new investment in assets such as schools and hospitals; and

(2) The process of electricity market reform associated with the creation of the National Electricity Market requires privatisation to function properly.

Neither of these arguments is valid. The first was comprehensively rejected, both by economists and by the general public, when it was put forward by the Bligh Labor government. The second has been discredited by the failure of electricity market reform to achieve any of the goals originally put forward. In particular, whereas reform was expected to result in lower prices, the actual outcome has been a neardoubling of real prices in most Australian markets. This outcome has occurred regardless of whether electricity assets are publicly or privately owned, but evidence suggests that the outcomes have been worse under privatisation.

Background

Before the 1990s, electricity supply infrastructure in Australia was almost entirely owned and operated by statutory authorities, which were obligated to supply electricity at the lowest possible cost consistent with meeting a range of policy objectives. The development of the electricity industry by the public sector was highly successful in delivering cheap and reliable electricity at prices sufficient to service debt associated with the construction of power stations and electricity networks. In most, though not all, cases electricity systems were vertically integrated, with generation, transmission, distribution and retail functions being undertaken by the same authority.

The creation of the National Electricity Market has involved the separation of the industry into separate generation, transmission, distribution and retail components. Within this framework, transmission and distribution services are undertaken by regulated monopolies. An electricity 'pool' market operates continuously to match demand from retailers with supply from generators. In addition, generators may make long-term contracts with retailers or consumers. In addition to matching supply and demand, the market is supposed to provide investment signals.

Under the corporatisation system, required by National Competition Policy, the boards of statutory authorities, with representation from a range of stakeholders have been replaced by a system mimicking that of a private corporation. The boards of corporatised government business enterprises are appointed by, and have a fiduciary responsibility to, the shareholding ministers, normally the Treasurer and the minister responsible for energy.

The promoters of National Competition Policy and electricity market reform envisaged a fully privatised, competitive market, as the natural outcome of the prices (Quiggin 1996). After twenty years, movement towards privatisation remains limited, and the hoped-for market outcomes have not eventuated.

The history of privatisation

Privatisation proposals have been advance or implemented in most states. In nearly all cases, these proposals have been both economically unsound and politically disastrous. _{#fn1" id="txt1">1} Here is list of examples from the electricity industry

* Victoria: The industry was privatised by the Kennett Liberal government in 1993 The attractiveness of the assets was enhanced by a general increase in prices implemented before the sale. This was arguably the most favourable case for privatisation since it was undertaken at a time of strong demand, and limited supply, for infrastructure assets. As a result, the prices paid by buyers were substantially higher than they were able to realise in subsequent resales. Despite this, the benefits to the public were limited. The interest savings realised by using sale proceeds to repay debt were about the same as the earnings foregone as a result of the sale. (Quiggin 2002, Cahill and Beder 2005).

The Kennett government's policies were strongly supported by policy elites, but were rejected by the Victorian public. Despite coming into office under the most favourable conditions possible, with the previous Labor government seen as responsible for financial chaos, the Kennett government survived only two terms._{#fn2" id="txt2">2} The Liberal Party remained in opposition for three terms after Kennett's defeat.

* South Australia As in Victoria, a conservative government had been elected in a crisis atmosphere following the failure of the Bank of SA. The electricity industry was privatised by the Olsen Liberal government in 1998, despite a promise to the contrary in the previous election in 1997 (Spoehr 2003). Privatisation produced both an increase in electricity prices and a substantial loss to the public. The conservative government was defeated in the subsequent 2001 elections and has remained in opposition ever since.

* Tasmania. The Rundle (Liberal) government proposed the partial privatisation of the HEC in 1998. Analysis showed that the likely sale price would be insufficient to offset the loss of earnings from the HEC. (Quiggin 1998) The Rundle government was defeated in an election in which the privatisation proposal played a substantial role, and the Liberals have remained in opposition ever since. Flows of income to the Tasmanian government from its publicly owned assets have remained substantial.

* New South Wales. Privatisation of the electricity industry was proposed by the Liberal Party Opposition, led by Kerry Chikarovski in 1999. In an election fought on this issue, the Liberal party was overwhelmingly defeated. Despite this, successive Labor governments sought to implement privatisation policies, with disastrous political consequences and no economic benefits. This pattern has been continued by the O'Farrell Coalition government, which now plans to sell the remaining electricity generators.

* Western Australia The Barnett Liberal government is currently proposing privatisation of electricity assets.

* Queensland The retail sector was privatised by the Beatty government. _{#fn3" id="txt3">3} Generation and distribution have remained under public ownership. However, the Bligh government sold a wide range of public assets, on the spurious pretext that this would finance additional investment in schools and hospitals. These claims were widely criticised by economists (Group of 20 Economists 2009, Quiggin 2010, Walker and Walker 2009).

Following Bligh's catastrophic defeat, the incoming Newman government announced that public sector finances were in a disastrous state, requiring massive cuts in services of all kinds, notably including health and public education. The Queensland Treasury, which endorsed the spurious claims of the Bligh government, is now doing the same for the equally spurious, but contradictory, claims of the Newman government.

* ACT The Carnell Liberal government proposed the sale of the electricity supply firm ACTEW in 1998 (Quiggin et al 1998). The proposal was defeated and instead, ACTEW established a joint venture with AGL. The Carnell government was defeated in 2000, and the Liberal party has been in opposition ever since.

At the Commonwealth level, both Labor and Liberal governments undertook privatisation. The most significant case was that of Telstra, managed by then-Treasurer Peter Costello. The sale was mismanaged in many ways (most notably by selling the business in three parts, with an initial promise to retain public ownership), with the result that the return to the public was greatly reduced. With the exception of the second stage sale, undertaken at the height of the 'dotcom' boom, the sale proceeds were of less value than the earnings foregone through privatisation. Moreover, the privatisation was a disaster for telecommunications policy. Telstra refused to invest in modern broadband, necessitating the reentry of government into the telecommunications sector through the NBN.

Fiscal arguments for privatisation

The Bligh government undertook sales of assets valued at more than $10 billion, based on the claim that such sales were necessary to improve the state's fiscal position. These claims were rejected by the then LNP Opposition. On assuming office, the Newman government announced that the state's finances were in a dire position, bordering on that of Spain or Greece. At no time has the Newman government given any credence to the claim that the previous government's asset sales improved the state's fiscal position. Such a claim is inconsistent with everything the LNP has said both before and after taking office.

More relevantly, the Bligh government's claim was rejected by economists representing a wide range of viewpoints regarding the merits of privatisation. Their statement (Group of 20 Economists, 2009) is worth quoting in full

Decisions on the sale or retention of public assets have important implications for competition and public policy, as well as for the fiscal position of governments. These decisions cannot!!be resolved on the basis of general ideological arguments for or against public ownership, and require informed public debate in each case. The normal lines of economic debate include whether a given business is more efficiently operated in the private or public sector, the appropriate allocation of risk and the extent to which the enterprise is required to pursue social as well as financial objectives.

The signatories of this statement have a range of views on the appropriate balance between the public and private sectors and on the merits of privatisation in particular cases. However, we share the view that these questions should be resolved on the basis of wellinformed discussion of the economic and social costs and benefits of privatisation, and not on the basis of spurious claims that asset sales represent a costless source of income to governments.

The arguments put forward by the Queensland government in its booklet 'Facts and Myths on Asset Sales' do nothing to promote a well-informed debate. Two central claims are particularly, and sadly, noteworthy. In relation to five public assets proposed for sale, the "Facts and Myths" booklet states

Keeping these businesses would cost the Government $12 billion over the next five years. That's $12 billion spent on new coal trains and new wharves that can't be spent on roads, schools or hospitals.

This claim is economically unsound. Forgoing income generating investments, and borrowing an equal amount to fund investments that return no additional revenue, leaves the government with no flow of income to service the associated debt. The necessary income must be raised by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure.

Selling public assets will improve the public sector's fiscal position only if the price realised for the assets exceeds the value of the income stream that the asset would otherwise generate for the public sector. In this respect, the 'Facts and Myths' booklet states

The total return from all five businesses in 2008-09 was approximately $320 million When the sale process is completed, it is anticipated the Government will save $1.8 billion every year in interest payments.

This is an invalid, apples-and-oranges comparison. The $320 million figure consists solely of dividend payouts, excluding retained earnings, tax-equivalent payments and the interest paid by the government business enterprises to service their debts.

The $1.8 billion represent the interests that would be saved, at a rate of about 6 per cent, if the state realised $15 billion from the asset sale and avoided $12 billion in new investment. Most of this

interest would be serviced out of the revenues of the GBEs, and can therefore not be compared with dividends derived from earnings after the payment of interest and tax.

The people of Queensland deserve a robust and well-informed public debate over the costs and benefits of privatisation. So far they have not received it.

The spurious claim regarding the costs and benefits of public ownership was surreptitiously removed from the Treasury website when its falsity became undeniable. The claim that asset sales could finance new investment in schools and hospitals was maintained until the Bligh government's defeat. However, the Budget papers reveal no apparent increase in investment under the Bligh government. The incoming Newman government claims that there is no possibility of new investment, and that hospital services must be outsourced to the private sector.

The case of the electricity assets

There has been no attempt to present an assessment of the costs and benefits to the state of public ownership of the electricity industry. However, the Newman government has repeatedly made the point that CS Energy has lost money in recent years, requiring injections of public capital as a result.

The implication is that the publicly-owned electricity industry is a burden on the Queensland government and public, and that selling assets would relieve us of this burden. This implication is false. The electricity sector as a whole has been, and will remain, consistently profitable. However, the structure of the sector, produced by the reforms of the 1990s mean that there is a constant shifting of risk between generators, distributors, retailers and consumers. Recent developers, most importantly the sharp increase in distribution charges arising have imposed costs on generators and consumers while benefitting distributors and, to a lesser extent, retailers. For example, Energex expects a record profit of $320 million in 2012-13.

Public ownership of the electricity industry means that the gains and losses from market fluctuations wash out. Losses in generation are offset by gains in distribution. More generally what Queenslanders lose as consumers from higher prices, they gain as owners.

There is no reason to suppose that the current situation, in which some generators are losing money, while distributors are highly profitable, will persist. Indeed, if CS Energy were a consistently lossmaking enterprise, it would be unsalable. The history of privatisation has shown that, despite claims that private sector efficiency can outperform the public, changes aimed at enhancing profitability (often at the expense of other goals) must typically be undertaken before public enterprises can be sold. It appears that the Newman government is already taking measures of this kind, intervening in the management of public enterprises to demand largescale layoffs.

Summary

To sum up, the sale of income-enerating public enterprises does not, in general, improve the financial position of the public sector. There is no reason to think that the sale of Queensland's electricity assets will be an exception to the general pattern.

The failure of electricity market reform

Pressure to reform 1 this system came from a number of sources

(1) The proposed development of a National Grid meant that the existing system of state-based networks with limited interconnection required structural changes

(2) It was claimed that existing systems were characterised by overstaffing (pejoratively referred to as 'featherbedding') and excessive capital investment ('goldplating') resulting in excessively high prices for consumers

(3) Returns on publicly-owned assets were seen as insufficient

1. The term 'reform' is commonly used with the connotation of beneficial change. However, there is no guarantee that policies described as 'reforms' will actually be beneficial. In this paper, I will use the term 'reform' in its original sense of 'a change in form', without any implication that the reforms in question are beneficial.

(4) The rise of market liberal ideology (commonly referred to as 'economic rationalism') created a broad consensus among policymakers (though not the general public) in favour of market-oriented reform and privatisation of public assets.

Reforms were implemented through three main processes

(a) Reforms associated with the creation of the National Electricity Market

(b) The general process of National Competition Policy which required corporatisation of statutory authorities and the removal of barriers to the entry of private firms

The National Electricity Market has been a comprehensive failure

In the course of the privatisation debate, it has been claimed that the problems of the National Electricity Market are due to public ownership. In reality, the problems have been as bad or worse in states with partially or fully privatised systems.

In South Australia, privatisation was advocated in the 1990s on the basis that it was necessary for participation in the National Electricity Market. Far from reducing prices, the result was to raise them to the highest levels in Australia.

This was due in part to massively increased distribution charges. As the SA Essential Services Minister, Lew Owens noted in an interview with ABC Stateline (2003):

The simple explanation for that is in addition to the wholesale energy price you have to add the network charges for the poles and wire businesses.

They are dearer in SA because the assets were revalued back in 1996 prior to privatisation and locked in by legislation.

Wholesale prices of $71/MWh, well above the national average were also applied, as a result of the poor performance of the National Electricity Market.

In Victoria, prices were increased prior to privatisation and deregulation. In the immediate aftermath of deregulation, there was a glut of electricity, and prices for business users were reduced by around 40 per cent. It was widely forecast that full retail competition would resultin similar benefits for households. In reality the opposite happened. Charges for household users increased after deregulation and have continued to do so. For example, between 2005 and 2010, electricity prices rose by 57 per cent in Melbourne.

[Editor's comment: In this revision, the link to an on-line service which compares electricity prices has been removed. The link can be found on the article on johnquiggin.com from which this article has been adapted. The link to that original article by John Quiggin is at the top of this page.

We have removed this link, because of a dispute with CrazyDomains.com, the registrar of the domain, candobetter.net.]

Differences in tariff structures and local conditions make exact comparisons difficult. However, two conclusions are evident from the data

(i) Prices have increased dramatically as a result of the failure of the NEM

(ii) The problems have been at least as severe in states that have undertaken privatisation as in those that have retained public ownership.

Governments and public debate on privatisation

Bad policy is commonly associated with bad politics, including reversals of electoral commitments, refusal to debate the issues and so on. This has been consistently true in relation to privatisation.

In the entire term of the Bligh government, no attempt was made to respond to the criticisms made by economists. The Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, consistently evaded debate on the issue, preferring stage-managed set-piece presentations to friendly audiences. Internal critics in the Labor movement were similarly ignored and marginalised. This pattern of evasion continued until the government faced the one test it could not dodge - the electoral verdict of the people of Queensland, which was damning.

Treasury analysis not independent

It seems likely that, as with the Bligh government's asset sales, the Newman government's proposals will be supported by an analysis from Queensland Treasury. It is important to observe therefore, that such an analysis has no evidentiary value. Queensland Treasury has consistently endorsed the policy preferences of the government of the day whether these were opposed to privatisation (the Beattie government, and the Bligh government before the 2009 election) or supportive (the Bligh government in its final term and the Newman LNP government).

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

The Commission of Audit Interim Report

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

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

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

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

The Commission of Audit Final Report

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

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

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

Summary

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

References

ABC SA Stateline (2003), 'Higher Electricity Prices in the Pipeline', http://www.abc.net.au/ stateline/sa/content/2003/s984889.htm,

Beder, S. (2012), 'State of NSW: Weighing the cost of the privatisation of power', http:// www.herinst.org/sbeder/privatisation/conversation.html,

Cahill, D. and Beder, S. (2005), 'Neo-liberal think tanks and neo-liberal restructuring: Learning the lessons from Project Victoria and the privatisation of Victoria's electricity industry', Social Alternatives, 24(1), 43-48.

Group of 20 Economists (2009), Economists statement on queensland asset sales, Nov 24. Kay, J. and Thompson, D. (1986), 'Privatisation: a policy in search of a rationale', Economic Journal, 96(381), 18-32.

Kelley, J. and Sikora, J. (2002), 'Australian public opinion on privatisation, 1986--2002', Growth, 50, 54-58.

Mauro, P., Romeu, R., Binder, A. and Zaman, A. (2013), 'A Modern History of Fiscal Prudence and Profligacy', International Monetary Fund 13/5,

Queensland Treasury (2010), 'Myths and Facts (Queensland Treasury)', http:// www.qld.gov.au/assetssale/myths-and-facts.shtml, accessed 12 March 2010.

Quiggin, J. (1996) Great Expectations: Microeconomic Reform and Australia, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW.

Quiggin, J. (1998), 'Options for privatisation of the HEC: An economic assessment', Report to Public Accounts Committee, Parliament of Tasmania,

Quiggin, J., Saddler, H., Neutze, M., Hamilton, C. and Turton, H. (1998), 'The privatisation of ACTEW: the fiscal, efficiency and service quality implications of the proposed sale of ACT electricity and water',

Quiggin, J. (2002), 'Privatisation and nationalisation in the 21st century', Growth, 50, 66-73.

Quiggin, J. (2002), 'The fiscal impact of the privatisation of the Victorian electricity industry', The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 13(2), 326-39.

Quiggin, J. (2010), 'Bad Politics Makes Bad Policy: The Case of Queensland's Asset Sales Programme*', Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 29(1), 13-22.

Spoehr, J. and Quiggin, J. (1999), 'ETSA and the privatisation panacea', in Beyond the Contract State - policies for social and economic renewal in South Australia, (Ed, Spoehr, J.) Wakefield Press, Adelaide.

(Ed.) (2003) Power politics : the electricity crisis and you Wakefield Press,

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

Appendix: other articles opposed to privatistion

Citizens Against Selling Telstra

Citizensagainstsellingtelstra.net is a historic web-site opposed to the privatisation by former Prime Minister John Howard. It has been archived as citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com by the Australian National Library Pandora service. Telstra's privatisation in 2006 was only maded possible because Senator Barnaby Joyce, who promised in the 2004 election campaign to vote against privatisation, voted for privatisation.

Topic:

Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor

Sun, 2010-02-28 23:34 by James Sinnamon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1999: Peter Beattie's unprincipled GST deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010: Anger at Qld Government fire sale threatens federal Labor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic:

Queenslanders to pay for privatisation, population growth with further electricity price increases

Sat, 2009-12-19 18:59 by James Sinnamon

On 18 December 2009, Queenslander's were greeted with yet more bad news by Brisbane's Courier-Mail newspaper in the story "Monster power price hike" (in 19 December printed edition):

The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) has just announced a draft decision that would see prices rise by 13.83 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The decision would add an additional $276 to the average annual household bill of $2000.

It is the fourth successive jump in electricity costs since the State Government claimed deregulation of the industry would put downward pressure on prices.

The heavy price, already paid Queenslanders for former Premier Peter Beattie's decision, made without their consent or any electoral mandate, to privatise the retail arm of the state owned electricity utility, continues to climb.

The Courier-Mail's editorial of 18 Dec 09 attempted to rationalise this. It's title "Using less power is key to beat price rise" gave a clue as to what its tack would be.

It began by appearing to empathise with, but at the same time diminishing the grounds for outrage against this decision.

PRICE rises, particularly when the hand of government is involved in some way, are always going to be politically contentious.

As such, yesterday's draft decision by the Queensland Competition Authority ... sparked the predictable howls of protest from consumers and the Opposition, and grumblings from the Government.

Then it immediately proceeded to provide its own wholely predictable justification for the increases.

With the massive investment required to maintain and expand Queensland's electricity network to cater for a growing and increasingly power-hungry population, rises such as this were always inevitable -- ...

If price rises were 'inevitable' as a result of population growth actively pursued by both the Queensland and Federal Governments, then why weren't the people who are now being made to pay the costs, first asked?

As we have shown in other earlier articles, the Courier-Mail newspaper like the state Government has been playing a double game with the Queensland public on this issue.

For years both have been shifting between the outright encouragement of population growth and then, when the detrimental consequences have become too obvious to deny, a pretence that it is beyond our own contol. This has been described elsewhere in the articles "Exposing Queensland Government population growth duplicity" of 1 Apr 09 and "How Government and the Murdoch press deceive Australian public on immigration" of 27 Oct 09.

Whilst, in more recent years, Courier-Mail avoids explicitly stating its support for population growth, the same is not true of the national daily newspaper the Australian also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Examples of promotion of population growth and high immigration are listed in the abovementioned article. Another is the editorial with the lofty and pretentious title "Population is destiny" of 19 Sep 09 which enthusiastically endorsed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's stated goal of increasing Australia's population to 35 million by 2050.

The editorial makes sweeping claims about how such population increases will be of enormous indisputable benefit to all, but, of course, no-where does it mention the environmental, social and economic costs that Queenslanders are now being made to pay for population growth. No-where does it warn that charges for services such as electricity, gas and water will rise as a consequence.

For their part, the Courier-Mail's reporters and editors write of the effects of population growth as if unaware of the role played by the Australian in bringing it about.

If it chose the Courier-Mail could use, very effectively, its voice towards stopping population growth and the consequent harm, only one example of which that this editorial addresses. I have demonstrated that it has shown that it is able to on other political questions in the article "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, but in regard to population growth, it chooses not to.

It lets off the hook the politicians whose undemocratic unpopular decisions have so harmed the public interest and continue to do so. In regard to former Queensland Premier Beattie, the editorial Courier-Mail's editorial contines:

... and former premier Peter Beattie was foolhardy at the time of the Energex retail sell-off to talk up the prospect of cheaper power.

The possibility that Beattie's long since discredited promise of cheaper power, rather than having been 'foolhardy' may have been judged necessary to achieve his goal of bludgeoning public opinion into accepting the deregulation and privatisation of the retail arm of the state's electricity utilities sector, is not considered.

Beattie's claim is only one of many examples of similarly baseless claims of the benefits of privatisation made by politicians. The possibility that claims made by Premier Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser today in support of their current bid to flog off $15 billion worth of public assets may be similarly groundless is, of course, never raised by the Courier-Mail with its readership.

The editorial argues against aginst any direct Government intervention to reject or curtail the price risese approved by the QCA:

Not only would this undermine the authority of the QCA itself, it would also be a recipe for disaster for commercial entities in Queensland's power sector, many of whom are operating on very thin and competitive margins as it is.

In fact, such a move would likely drive away participants from the sector, resulting in less competition and ultimately even higher prices.

So, the fabulous competitive energy market is apparently economically unviable, that is unless it is allowed to charge massively more than what the previous Government owned electricity retail arm charged for the same service!

Instead, the editorial argues that the Government act to modify consumer behaviour:

As was demonstrated during the water crisis, a concerted public information campaign can result in an enduring behavioural shift when it comes to consumption patterns.

Our love affair with airconditioners and other power-hungry appliances has resulted in average household consumption rising from about 6400 kilowatt hours to 11,000kWh in the past decade. And in the past five years the network has been expanded to cater for an extra 4200 megawatts of electricity at times of peak demand -- enough to power South Australia and Tasmania combined.
This additional capacity does not come cheap, and the costs must ultimately be passed on to the end user – and these are consumers who, on average, have increased their electricity consumption by 70 per cent in only 10 years.

Of course, the Courier-Mail now conveniently forgets its own past role in encouraging ever greater per capita consumption of energy and other resources.

One of the principle reasons for "our love affair with airconditioners" as the editorial puts it, is the shoddy designs of housing crammed together on sprawling suburban developments with little tree cover in between the concrete, the often black-coloured tiled rooves, guaranteed to absorb the maximum possible amount of heat and bitumen roads. Whilst the Courier-Mail clamoured to expand the housing development industry and the importation of customers for it, the Courier-Mail showed little leadership of which I am aware, towards at least ensuring that what was built would not be so energy inefficient.

Now people who paid so dearly to buy these dwellings may have be forced to swelter without air-conditioning in the summer heat or pay probibitively for it.

Before the Global Financial crisis, the Courier-Mail fed to Queenslanders expectations that the economic boom would last forever and, not that long ago it was considerably less circumspect in its support for population growth. It openly clamoured for ever greater numbers of people to move to Queensland to fill what it insisted were critical labor shortages as I described in the article "The Courier Mail beats the drum for more Queensland population growth" of Jan 07.

Now we have discovered, to our cost, that this state never had the unlimited capacity to cater for new arrivals and ever higher per-capita levels of consumption that the Courier-Mail insisted that we did have, the Courier-Mail's own past consumerist propaganda, at least in some respects, is turned around 180 degrees.

The editorial concludes:

Without altering our behaviour, the only way to keep a lid on electricity prices is via government subsidies. And then we all end up paying more -- no matter what our individual usage -- through higher taxes.

Of course, we know better than to expect of the Courier-Mail to argue to end reckless Government policies of population growth and privatisation that created the shambles that the electricity secore has been turned into.

Instead, we are expected to fix the mess by reducing our consumption whether through smart means or by brutal means which will reduce our livng standards.

But even if we achieve this, it can only provided a temporary reprieve until we achieve population stability.

What you can do: Queensland citizens can sign the e-petition calling for the resignation of the Queensland Government and new elections. See "Anti-privatisation e-petition calls on Queensland government to resign" for further information.

Topic:

Exposing Queensland Government population growth duplicity

Wed, 2009-04-01 16:43 by James Sinnamon

This brief article is in response to the following #comment-232844">comment made during forum discussion on John Quiggin's blog on 31 Mar 09 in respons to my article "Courier Mail, ABC back Department of Main Roads land grab" of 29 Mar 09:

"As for the comments on population growth, I partly agree. Population growth is the problem. However the boom in immigration was under Howard not Rudd; Rudd has reduced the numbers. AFAIK Australian state governments do not have the power to halt interstate migration, which is the cause of population growth in Qld, not overseas immigration. The cause of interstate migration is almost invariably job supply; thus people tend to leave SA and Tasmania and migrate to QLD and WA. Beattie and Bligh are guilty of taking credit for something they neither caused nor can control."

The article also draws on material used in the section "End Queensland Government encouragement of population growth" in the article "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent" of 9 Mar 09. - JS, 1 Apr 09.

In fact, imigration Minister Chris Evans has ramped up immigration to levels even higher than they were under Howard, and that is taking into account the recent much ballyhooed reductions.

The simple fact is that Queensland's runaway population growth occurs because Premier Anna Bligh and, before her, Premier Peter Beattie also wanted it to happen.

If they wanted to, they could easily have raised their voices loudly to demand that Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, end his record high immigration levels.

Bligh and Beattie could also have acted to stop immigration in the time of Howard. Just simply alerting the public to the fact that Howard had so massively ramped up immigration whilst pretending to be tough on 'border security' would have gone a long way towards stopping it, but, instead, they said nothing.

If anyone insists that state Governments are powerless to influence federal Government policy, just remember how Beattie and the other 'Labor' premiers got their way on the GST and the Australia -US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA).

By negotiating with Howard over the implementation of the GST when its fate was still in the balance, Beattie did more than any other individual to sabotage the growing popular opposition to the GST in 1999. In 2004, Beattie and the other Labor Premiers pre-empted any opposition to the rotten AUSFTA by loudly insisting that it be signed as the Federal Labor Party was trying to decide its position.

So, just as the Queensland Government can cause outcomes against the public interest at the Federal level when it chooses, it could add its decisive weight to calls to bring about the end of high immigration if it had the political will to do so.

But, instead, Bligh and Beattie did everything possible to bring about run away population growth and have been playing the Queensland public for fools whilst doing so.

On many occasions they have basked in the glory their supposed 'achievement' of having increased Queensland's population (see, for example, full page Qld Government advertisment of 8 Dec 2005 in the article "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent").

But on other occasions, when confronted with the problems caused by population growth -- hospital waiting lists, the water crisis, traffic congestion -- they turn around and blame population growth as if this had not been their own policy.

I asked Peter Beattie personally at a public forum to discuss the water crisis in 2006 whether he would acknowledge that population growth had caused the water crisis and would he use his voice to try to stop it.

He firstly thanked me for having asked such a 'good question', but failed to answer it. He said, contrary to what he had said on many other occasions, that he wished that so many people would not come here. But that quickly morphed into his arguing that we needed more skilled people. By the time he finished he seemed to be saying that we needed at least another million migrants to cope with the problems caused by previous population growth!

Beattie and Bligh are either stupid or something worse.

I believe that much of the explanation for this is to be found in my article "How the Growth Lobby Threatens Australia's future" of 24 January 2009. It is published here and on Online Opinion. The article largely based on Sheila Newman's 2002 Masters Thesis "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France " downloadable here.

Topic:

Courier Mail praises Bligh Government's 'solving' of population-growth-driven water crisis of its own making

Tue, 2009-02-03 16:52 by James Sinnamon

Andrew Bolt of Murdoch's Herald Sun newspaper Melbourne in his article "Melbourne is wrecked and full" of 30 January 2009 pointed out to his readers how population growth deliberately encouraged by the Victorian Government in recent years had placed too great a strain on Melbourne's infrastructure, causing it to fail during the recent heat wave.

Yet, the Brisbane Courier Mail newspaper, also owned by Rupert Murdoch, adamantly refuses to question past and future planned population growth in spite of Bolt's pertinent observations and in spite of an implicit acknowledgement in its editorial "Labor crisis skills seen in water bill" of 3 February 2009, that the recent water crisis was a result of past population growth:

"This was a crisis that was inevitable given the booming population growth of southeast Queensland and the certainty that one day drought would strike."

So, if the Courier Mail acknowledges that the water crisis was 'inevitable', what then were its own reasons for stridently supporting population growth through all those years and why does it continue to do so?

Unsurprisingly this question is neither posed nor answered nor even is the Courier Mail's own support for population growth even acknowledged.

As the editorial points out:

"But for its first eight years in office, Labor virtually ignored the issue (of water)."

And during those first eight years, both 'Smart State' Premier Peter Beattie and his then Deputy Anna Bligh made the water crisis inevitable by deliberately encouraging runaway population growth to suit the Labor Party's land speculation and property developer benefactors.

Yet, in spite of all the damning evidence of their negligence and incompetence the editorial ends up endorsing the overall record of Bligh and Beattie.

To be sure editorial is harshly critical in many ways, but it seems unduly charitable given the overall circumstances:

"But, to give full credit, much of the water grid was delivered on time and on or under budget, despite such embarrassing hiccups as a two-month delay in switching on the $1.2 billion desalination plant because of corrosion problems.

"To summarise, yes, the Government did confront southeast Queensland's water crisis and found a solution, but it could barely have been more expensive or more rushed. Any spare funds and spare borrowing capacity the state might have been able to use to support our economy during the current economic crisis have now been largely used up."

In other words, they made mistakes, and Queenslanders paid dearly for those mistakes, but ultimately, both Beattie and Bligh have shown themselves equal to the task before them.

The editorial continues:

"Consumers, too, have been paying a premium, first by paying for their own water-saving solutions such as tanks, and later through the higher water bills needed to cover the cost of all the new, top-priced infrastructure. Power prices will also be higher because of the high cost of recycled water supplied to power stations."

However, consumers were never consulted by the Queensland Government as to whether they were happy to pay the increased charges made necessary by population growth that it chose to bring about.

Of course, the Courier Mail will continue take care to ensure that, as far as possible, its readers do not draw the link between population growth, on the one hand, and its consequences on the other - higher electricity and water charges, higher council rates, traffic congestion, infrastructure failure, longer hospital waiting lists, housing unaffordability, destruction of natural habitats, further extinction of wildlife, declining quality of life, etc..

And where the cause and effect become too obvious to deny, the Courier Mail will pretend to its readers that population growth is something that is somehow inevitable and not a conscious choice made by governments in the service of land speculators, property developers and others who gain from population growth at the expense of the rest of the community, the natural environment and future generations.

Topic:

Courier Mail breaks 'news' to Qld taxpayers, ratepayers: amalgamations will cost you

Fri, 2009-01-30 16:48 by James Sinnamon

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic:

Expert warns that recycled water poses unacceptable health risks

Fri, 2008-10-31 03:30 by admin

Recycled water - experts arguing over safety

For the information of Queensland MPs, Councillors, Media and Public

Australian National University Emeritus Professor, Patrick Troy, an authority on water infrastructure, on the 29th October was widely reported (The Australian newspaper, Channel 7, 9 ,10 Television news and on radio) with advice that it was not possible to prevent potentially harmful organisms from entering southeast Queensland's water supply when recycled sewage is added to it in February.

The Courier Mail, however, appears to have not reported on this issue.

Professor Paul Greenfield, chair of the Queensland Water Commission Committee which advised the Queensland Government to proceed with the recycled water project, has rejected suggestions that the practice is unsafe. Professor Greenfield has stated that Peroxide and UV light will destroy all organic material (presumably that escapes through membranes ) but no mention of inorganic compounds was reported.

The Queensland Water Commission has in the past stated - there are 7 safety barriers and the first barrier is that no Hospital and Industrial waste goes into the sewerage system - this has been changed to "residential /industrial source control including hospital waste".

However, the very first barrier one is a barrier in name only, there is no actual control over hospital and industrial waste entering the sewerage system because hospitals and industrial areas do not have separate reticulation systems. Business owners in Industrial areas can purchase Trade Waste certificates to dispose of industrial wastes to sewers. There is no control over what happens in residential premises, there is no government monitoring of domestic sinks and toilets and there is no mechanical barrier to prevent any chemical substance (eg expired drugs) from entering sewerage.

On 4BC Radio (Thursday 23rd Oct am) Premier Anna Bligh said that hospital waste was required by law to be treated to " a certain level ".

Investigative journalists and others are urged to contact their local hospitals to find out what this " treatment " entails. They will find that the " treatment " is that part of the waste stream (almost certainly not toilet waste) goes through a greasetrap.

The rate of cancer is very high and increasing and many patients in hospitals are receiving cytotoxic drugs which will be excreted from the body in urine, faeces and vomit, which then enters the sewerage system via hospital toilets. It would be extremely unlikely that a greasetrap would be be able to remove cytotoxic drugs, and other chemicals such as antibiotics from the waste stream.

The presence of large amounts of excreted antibiotics in infectious Hospital waste streams gives great concern for the evolution of Super-bugs and Professor Troy's advice should be noted.

Many cancer sufferers receive Chemotherapy as Oncology Outpatients in chairs (virtual beds) and after treatment, return home, with the result that cytotoxics enter sewerage via domestic toilets.

Queensland Health does not currently know what actually goes into the sewerage system from Hospitals, but recent information from a public Hospital source is that the Qld govt is paying for a privately contracted survey to try and find out.

On the 22nd Oct a spokesman from the Deputy Premiers Office phoned Radio 4BC and claimed the Labor government went to the last election and was voted in with recycled water clearly on the agenda. He said people had voted for it. This has been pointed out by the radio host as being incorrect.

"We are being conned. The Labor Party did not go to the election with recycled drinking water on the agenda. Peter Beattie was emphatic before the last election. On Friday 2 June 2006 the Labor government released a statement which said "Premier Peter Beattie and the Minister for Water, Henry Palaszczuk said today that it was not government policy to place recycled water into dams across Queensland." (#10;718.html">www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/water-is-important/20081023-5718.html)

Premier Bligh stated Oct 29th 2008 "there will be no going back".

Indeed, there can be no going back, the pipes are in the ground, the Queensland Tax payer has been committed to having to pay for the Water Grid (9 Billion dollars plus interest) for many years into the future. There is a solution however, to minimise risk to the population of SE Qld.

Recycled water is now being used to guarantee supply for Swanbank and Tarong power stations. A short spur pipeline line of only 6 kms is needed to place water in Atkinson Dam and this water can be used to guarantee water supplies for one of Queensland most important agricultural areas.

In Singapore recycled water is added into a small reservoir that is separate to the domestic supply. Only 1% of the Singapore domestic supply is comprised of recycled water. With only 1% added, it is obvious that recycled water is not needed to replenish the Singapore water supply, it does however assist the marketing of hugely expensive Reverse Osmosis systems and the promotion of the concept of placing recycled water into domestic water supplies.

The deliberate extensive addition of recycled water to domestic supplies as planned by the current Premier, is a world first. If there are accidents, mishaps or cover-ups, it could become a world worst. There are no safety studies that the Government can put forward, because there are no comparable situations.

The Liberal National Party (LNP) has maintained that adding recycled sewage to our drinking water supplies is an Armageddon solution, this was first admitted by Peter Beattie. The words sewage and sewerage have almost been removed from the Queensland Media's vocabulary, substituted by the euphemous phrase "purified recycled water" by promoters and sections of the media that will not report any negative stories. This is helping keep the public in the dark about where their water will be coming from.

The LNP as an alternative future government, is urged to help make the public aware that their drinking water under a Labor government, will be sourced from sewerage treatment plants. If the LNP remains committed to their policy that recycled water should not be added to domestic supplies, and makes it an election issue, it should be a winner to them.

Recycled water for industry? Great idea! Recycled sewage water for human consumption? Who came up with this insanity ?

This message authorised by M Haines a spokesperson for Queenslanders For
Safe Water (Air and Food) Inc. Media contact mob 0418 777 112

www.qawf.org

See also: "Queensland Premier Anna Bligh tells water plan critics she will drink recycled sewage" the Australian of 31 Oct 08 (including readers' comments), "Disease expert warns on recycled sewage" in the Australian of 30 Oct 08, "Bligh says academic ill-informed on water claims" in the ABC on 29 Oct 08, "WA slow to recycle sewage as drinking water" in Perth Now of 29 Oct 08, "Recycled sewage 'will have bugs', Queensland Government warned" in the Australian of 29 Oct 08, "Flush then drink in the Sunshine State" in the Australian of 30 Oct 08, "Water talkfest simply a farce" by Bill Hoffman in the Sunshine Coast Daily of 15 Oct 08

Topic:

Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie's legacy

Tue, 2007-09-11 10:23 by admin

Encouraging population growth in Queensland without having a clue where the necessary additional water would come from.
Coming out of the closet as being in favour of massive population growth, which for years he held responsible for state infrastructural problems.
Entering negotiations with Howard over how to divide money raised form the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1999 at a time when popular opposition to the GST was growing.
Jeopardising Federal Labor's 2007 election prospects with his anti-democratic forced local government amalgamations that were enacted in accord with the wishes of the Property Council of Australia.
The invasion of Maleny in 2005 with 200 police in order to enable the building of a Woolworths supermarket opposed by 80% of Maleny's population.
Privatisation of the Dalrymple Bay coal loader.
Full privatisation of SunCorp (formerly State Government Insurance Office) in spite of election promise not to.
Privatisation of the retail arm of Energex, Queensland's electricity generating untility.
Privatisation of the Golden Casket.
Having privatised the Golden Casket and many other revenue earners, raising stamp duties on second hand car sales from 2% to 4% to make up for revenue shortfall.
Ongoing efforts to privatise water and Queensland Rail.
Attempts to destroy the last undeveloped coast land at The Spit on the Gold Coast with with a passenger ship terminal and housing development.
Support for the North South Bypass Tunnel and the Hale Street Bridge.
Accelerating the rate of export of climate-changing coal.
Wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on the SunCorp Stadium white elephant, which was opposed by local residents at a time when Queensland did not have the money Beattie said was necessary to compensate farmers in order to prevent tree clearing.
Choosing the Traveston Dam site over four other more preferable sites because the affected residents lived in a safe National Party seat.
etc.

#QldPowerPrivatisation" id="QldPowerPrivatisation">Letter published in the Courier Mail in response to the announcement of plans to sell retail arms of publicly owned power utilities Dear Sir/Madam, What right does Premier Beattie have to sell off, possibly to foreign interests, Energex and Ergon, assets which rightfully belong to the people of Queensland, especially given the disastrous records of Privatisation in South Australian and Victoria ("Power Sale Likely", 24 Apr 06")? How is this consistent with the Beattie Government's own supposed opposition to the Telstra privatisation? If this Government had any true commitment to Labor principles, it would abandon the sale. If it had any commitment to the principle of democracy it would put the proposed sell-off to the Queensland electors at the forthcoming state elections. James Sinnamon

Peter Beattie

Beattie call for 50 million reflects vested interests

Wed, 2007-09-05 14:55 by James Sinnamon

Sustainable Population Australia Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's call yesterday for an Australian population of 50 million echoes those by vested interests of the housing, construction and real estate industries, according to Sustainable Population Australia inc (SPA).

National President of SPA, Dr John Coulter, says that this is not surprising given the very large donations that members of these groups make to political parties.

"But far more important than this distortion of democracy is the clear lack of any concern for the natural environment," says Dr Coulter.

"The most recent work by the Hadley Centre in the UK indicates that global temperatures are likely to rise sharply in the next few years as natural cycles augment the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Eastern and southeastern Australia will be prone to even worse 'droughts', water shortages and crop failures than experienced in the last few years," he says.

"The industries that Beattie and his fellow travelers in both major parties want to establish to support this larger population will all add to the severity of climate change and make Australia less able to support even its present population."

Dr Coulter claims that Beattie, Rudd, Howard and the political parties they represent are caught in a time-warp.

"Their push for ever more population and economic growth is a recipe from the 1960s. It ignores the reality that humanity and its economy depends on the natural environment. And the environment is telling us, loudly and clearly that this continual growth is no longer sustainable.

"Fifty million in Australia is not achievable. But the attempt to bring it about will progressively destroy any possibility of making Australia environmentally sustainable. Far from being leaders these people and their parties are strongly inhibiting the transition to a new and sustainable relationship with our supporting natural environment.

"Science is warning that we have little time left to respond. Beattie has shut his ears to the message," Dr Coulter concluded.

Further information: John Coulter 08 83882153

Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide

Fri, 2007-08-10 02:11 by James Sinnamon

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level.Adapted from an article cross-posted to Online Opinion. Also, see article on webdiary "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" by Margo Kingston.

Those who have read "The Latham Diaries" will have found startling confirmation of the fact the State Labor Premiers are cynical enough to deliberately damage the electoral prospects of their Federal counterparts in order to better ensure their own survival at the state level. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr expressed it thus in his own diaries on 6 November 2001, quoted on pages 305-306 of "The Latham Diaries"(2005):

Published polls and the Party's polling starting to show Federal Labor edging up. Can't believe it. ... (Michael Egan, NSW State Treasurer said,) 'We'll be the ones weeping if Labor wins.' Yes - the secret agenda: State Labor wants to run against a rotting hated Coalition Government in Canberra. A Labor Government there only makes a third (State) term harder.

Mark Latham commented: "People used to get expelled from the Labor Party for this sort of treachery. Yet when it appeared in Marilyn Dodkin's book on Carr last year, no-one batted an eye-lid. Has it become part of the system? Everyone now expects Carr Labor to selfishly look after itself, cheering for a Howard victory, ..."

And certainly Bob Carr, together with his Victorian and Tasmanian counterparts did just that, as Latham abundantly illustrated, and we have them largely to thank for Howard's victory in 2004, together with "Work Choices" and all of his other policy abominations.

Which brings us to the forced council amalgamations in Queensland. There are no sound reasons derived from Labor principles to justify Beattie's current plans to abolish so many local governments which are in tune with the needs of their constituents. Indeed, it was a former Queensland Hanlon Labor Government which gave local government the powers they have enjoyed up until now (see "When amalgamations failed" by Dr Mark McGovern of the QUT).

The only possible motives that I see are:

To take away the powers that local communities now have to prevent the further ravaging of their regions by property developers, and
A cynical political stunt, in emulation of Bob Carr, to use the perpetuation of John Howard's rule to ensure the survival of his Government at the next State election.

Peter Beattie

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary Evaluation

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary
Evaluation

Summary

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: An Economic
Evaluation

Background

Fiscal arguments for privatisation

References

Footnotes

Appendix: other articles opposed to privatistion

Citizens Against Selling Telstra

Other articles on this site against privatisation

Topic:

Labor wrecker of 2007 claims union anti-privatisation campaign a threat to re-election of federal Labor

1999: Peter Beattie's unprincipled GST deal

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

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

2010: Anger at Qld Government fire sale threatens federal Labor

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

Footnotes

Topic:

Queenslanders to pay for privatisation, population growth with further electricity price increases

Topic:

Exposing Queensland Government population growth duplicity

Topic:

Courier Mail praises Bligh Government's 'solving' of population-growth-driven water crisis of its own making

Topic:

Courier Mail breaks 'news' to Qld taxpayers, ratepayers: amalgamations will cost you

Topic:

Expert warns that recycled water poses unacceptable health risks

Recycled water - experts arguing over safety

Topic:

Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie's legacy

Beattie call for 50 million reflects vested interests

Sustainable Population Australia Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide

Topic:

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments

Peter Beattie

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A PreliminaryEvaluation

Summary

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: An EconomicEvaluation

Background

Fiscal arguments for privatisation

References

Footnotes

Appendix: other articles opposed to privatistion

Other articles on this site against privatisation

Topic:

1999: Peter Beattie's unprincipled GST deal

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

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

2010: Anger at Qld Government fire sale threatens federal Labor

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

Footnotes

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Topic:

Recycled water - experts arguing over safety

Topic:

Sustainable Population Australia Media Release, 5 Sep 2007

Topic:

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: A Preliminary
Evaluation

Privatisation of Queensland Electricity Assets: An Economic
Evaluation