In the First World War, a total of 16 million died of which 62,149 were Australians. In addition, from March 1918 until February 1919, in the pandemic of the (misnamed) Spanish Flu, which was brought to Europe by American soldiers, 21 million died.

Dr Mehdi Frauqi's NSW Legislative Council speech opposed to privatisation (2/6/15)

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [6.41 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I contribute to debate on the Electricity Network Assets (Authorised Transactions) Bill 2015 and the cognate Electricity Retained Interest Corporations Bill 2015. I thank The Greens members and activists; Dr John Kaye, who has led the fight on The Greens' side; and all the hardworking "Stop the Sell Off" campaigners and union members who have been leading a strong campaign against the sell-off of our public electricity network. It is a disgrace that the arrogance of this Government means it is not willing to listen to sense or public opinion on this issue. This legislation will enable the lease of 49 per cent of the State's electricity network. The word "lease" is misleading; it is de facto privatisation. It is telling that the lease is so long–99 years, in fact–that no-one voting on the bill today will be alive to see this asset revert to public hands, if it ever does. The decision made today robs our children and our grandchildren of public assets. It is a very bad strategy to get rid of these assets and forfeit the resulting revenue that would otherwise flow into the State budget to be used to benefit the people of New South Wales.

Not many in this Chamber will be surprised to hear me describe this move for what it is: completely backward policy. Privatisation of public assets and services fails the community and the "public good" test. Public assets must remain in public hands for the good of us all and for the good of our State. These are assets that generations of Australians have paid for. Once they are sold off, they will not be able to be brought back into public ownership. Handing over our electricity assets to private operators will effectively rule out any large-scale move towards compatibility with innovative energy systems–systems that are green, clean and renewable. Dr Kaye wrote in the Guardian this week that the Baird Government ignores the recent "sea change of technology" in the energy distribution area at its peril. The release of Tesla's battery units is a game changer for everyone. The profit model of the corporate owners of the grid leases will simply not be compatible with supporting a shift towards the local trading of electricity. There is an incentive not to make our grid more efficient and more sustainable.

Members in both Houses have described as a sham the inquiry into this issue that has taken place over the past few weeks. It was an investigation with a predetermined outcome, with narrow terms of reference and no real expectation that it would produce anything other than a positive story for the Government. Indeed, why would the Government have agreed to such a process if there was any serious risk of it jeopardising its privatisation agenda? The issue at the heart of this matter is that this is short-term thinking by a Government that sees benefit in flogging off public assets and getting some short-term cash in advance. That leads me to the issue of expenditure. Perhaps just as worthy as criticism of the lease itself is what the Government is putting on the table as potential investments in order to justify the sell-off. I am concerned that much of the proceeds of the sale will go towards projects that are ill suited to the needs of our State. Particularly close to my heart is the expenditure on roads and transport.

The Government intends to spend almost half of the $20 billion raised by the sell-off of poles and wires on transport infrastructure that will not work for Sydney and will not work for New South Wales. It will not work and it is not in the interests of the long-term future of New South Wales because it effectively locks down a future of road congestion and pollution for the State, and locks us all into a privately operated, unintegrated rail network along the way. Like the electricity sell-off itself, these plans are not in the public interest; they are in the private interest. They are in the interest of the Liberals and The Nationals and their mates. A massive $7 billion will be directed to the Sydney Rapid Transit line. This line is possibly the biggest rail con job in the history of the State. Sydney Rapid Transit involves the extension of the private North West Rail Link shuttle through North Sydney and the city and onto the Bankstown line, with entirely single-deck trains, privately operated and separated from the current Sydney Trains network.

It seems very recently that the Government had us all scratching our heads over its plans to rip up the recently opened Epping to Chatswood line for its private metro service and incorporate the line into the North West Rail Link. The Epping to Chatswood line was only opened in 2009–as many in this Chamber would remember–for $2.4 billion, under the previous Labor Government. Despite the bloated price tag and the failed ambition of extending the line all the way to Parramatta, this is a good service. It works for people, especially those in the North Ryde and Macquarie Park industrial areas and students attending Macquarie University. It is well patronised and efficient, but the Government wants to rip it up to make way for the privately operated shuttle.

With Sydney Rapid Transit on the table, thanks to the sell-off, we know that the Government's ambitions do not stop there. It also wants to rip up the Bankstown line completely and put the privately operated network through there too. This will cause unnecessary and painful disruptions for people on many parts of the network. But the "short-term pain for long-term gain" argument does not hold much weight here either. Unfortunately, there is going to be short-term pain for more long-term pain. There is no doubt that we will need a second harbour rail crossing in the future. We need to look at new services and new capacity._{#fn3" id="txt3"> 3}  This can be achieved in some part through technology, such as automated signalling, and in some part by expanding the current public transport system, not cannibalising it. The single-deck, low-capacity Sydney Rapid Transit is probably the worst way possible of achieving what we want. It puts in train the wholesale privatisation of the rail system in Sydney, from Rouse Hill to Epping, to St Leonards, to the central business district, to Sydenham, to Marrickville, and all the way through to Bankstown. What is worse, the single-deck service does not even make sense capacity-wise for much of that journey.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I note that, while wide latitude is extended to members speaking during the second reading debate, Dr Mehreen Faruqi should ensure her comments are within the leave of the long titles of the bills. I have allowed the member to continue for some time, but I now invite her to consider the legislation that is before the House rather than rail lines.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President. Of the constituents the Government spoke to regarding the sell-off of the poles and wires, I doubt many knew about the second harbour rail crossing being a private line and cannibalising their current train line. Moving on to the wasteful expenditure of the money acquired from the privatisation of poles and wires, $1.1 billion will go to the WestConnex extensions and a new western harbour tunnel, which will spew further traffic into more of Sydney. It is not enough that billions of dollars are being totally wasted on toll roads that are not solving Sydney's transport problems but more money from the sell-off of a public asset will be thrown into producing more congestion in the city and destroying our environment.

In essence, the community loses profits from a public asset and these will be spent on private motorways for the benefit of private companies. The Transurban Group, which owns roads in all the eastern seaboard capital cities, made a profit of $282 million in the last financial year. This is a textbook example of corporate greed–the transfer of wealth from the public to benefit only a few. Fortunately, there is another way. During the 2015 election campaign The Greens outlined our own way of financing $20 billion through a range of measures, including reinstating the vendor duty, restoring marginal poker machine tax rates and maintaining stamp duties on certain business transactions. This money would be invested in schools, hospitals, energy, housing and transport of the twenty-first century. The Greens showed that through smarter spending we can divert $4.5 billion being wasted on the NorthConnex and WestConnex projects to public and active transport that expands access for the people of New South Wales. We do not have to sell the electricity network. We can get the infrastructure that New South Wales wants and needs by keeping its electricity network in public hands. The Greens strongly oppose the legislation.

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1.#txt1"> ↑  In part, Baird's victory was also due to the whiteanting of Luke Foley's campaign by elements within the Labor Party, including former NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr and former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. See
Former premier Bob Carr crashes in on the debate over privatisation of electricity networks (7/3/15) Daily Telegraph, The Debate: should NSW's poles and wires be privatised? (23/3/15) | SMH, Mike Baird's caution on privatisation may affect NSW voters (8/3/15) | AFR.

Bob Carr's undermining of NSW Labor in 2015 is reminiscent of his undermining of Federal Labor Party's election campaign in 2004 as described by former Labor Leader Mark Latham in The Latham Diaries (2005). See also Ex-Labor treasurer downplays NSW privatisation boost (19/5/15) Herald Sun.

#fn2" id="fn2">2.#txt2"> ↑  In some parts, the words in the transcript differ to a small degree from Dr Faruqi's actual spoken words, but meaning contained in those words is virtually identical.

#fn3" id="fn3">3.#txt3"> ↑  Dr Faruqi's claim that a second harbour rail crossing may be necessary could be taken as a presumption that Sydney's population will continue for some years to come to increase at its current rate of growth. In fact, if Sydney does not achieve population stability in the near future, no amount of government investment in the second harbour rail crossing or other infrastructure can prevent Sydney from from becoming a miserable urban slum for most of its inhabitants.

The Hon Richard Marles, MP

The Hon Richard Marles, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, was a guest speaker at the Australian Institute of International Affairs Victoria, on 2nd July, 2014.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) is an independent, non-profit organisation seeking to promote interest in and understanding of international affairs in Australia.

(124 Jolimont Road, East Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3002)

As advertised for the event: “Associated with potentially contentious debates around population size and labour market flexibility, international migration is an undeniable feature of Australian society and future economic development. As such it warrants careful consideration from economic, social and political perspectives”.

Background

Marles comes from competent and illustrious parents. He was born in Geelong, Victoria. He is the son of Donald Marles, a former headmaster of Trinity Grammar School, and Faye Marles, Victoria's first Equal Opportunity Commissioner and later Chancellor of the University of Melbourne.

He was also the General Secretary of the National Union of Students in 1989

He graduated from Melbourne University where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Laws with Honours. He started his career as a solicitor with Melbourne industrial law firm Slater and Gordon.

He was Federal Legal Officer, Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU) 1994-98; Federal Assistant Secretary 1998-2000.
Assistant Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) 2000-07.

Marles was elected member for Corio on 24 November 2007 in the election that returned the Labor party to office under the leadership of Kevin Rudd.

He is now the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

Richard Marles MP spoke on "International Migration and Australia's Future."

This is a synopsis of some of what he said:

Without immigration, our population would cease to grow and then decline.

Marles concedes that the 457 visa program must come with protection, and local workers must come first.

A sustained and fair migration program means we all benefit. Investors want security. There is a visa for the wealthy, with $5 million, to invest in bonds, funds or Australian companies.
We need immigration to compete with international investors, and it has a strong role in our economy.

Australia also needs to promote cultural and social development in our region and the world. Working Holiday Visa is a key for Australia's youth. The reciprocal nature of it allows Australians to travel overseas.

Hospitality needs this flexible workforce, and cultural ties in our neighbourhood. It provides for Gap Years. More than 185,000 came to Australia on WHV and boosted our economy. Hospitality staff still need seasonal workers with temporary workforce, and it encourages the exchange of cultures.

Tongans worked in Cosco tomatoes. It's not just for business but has global impacts. Tongans got benefits for their communities.. Household poverty levels have increased. Migrants are the key to trade innovation and brings skills and perspectives. It should be a job creating activity, filling in the employment gaps.
There is an enquiry at the moment on 457 visas. They should not become industrial tools.
Attention is not the same as when we were in government. We will be watching it very closely.

There is care and horticultural sectors, such as child care, aged care and other areas in which temporary migration can work. These areas are where there are gaps, and employers embrace it. There needs to be agencies to drive it. There must be genuine labour shortages.

Some responses to questions from the audience, and predictably most of the discussion was about asylum seekers. While it's a contentious issue of human rights, and a global problem, asylum seekers granted visas account for only 1.2% of our population growth last year out of 59% due to migration )

-Asylum seekers:
Pre 2001, pre Tampa, we enjoyed a bipartisan situation with regard to migration. We were as a country able to deal with the problem of 7 million people seeking permanent migration to Australia. We must say NO to millions of people. Even if all the political parties were on the same page, it can become impossible to navigate.

We need a more bipartisan approach and take the politics out of it. We really need to return to first principle on the values that drive us, such as compassion, fairness, and generosity.

-We must ensure that multicultural aspects of migration can be extended and migration can be as seamless as possible.

-racism
-Process of globalisation has potential to reduce racism. We are more exposed to each other. Racism is not modern. Multicultural has been embraced well. Pauline Hanson distorted the political debate. We have to embrace it as what we have is as good as it gets.
Now, we have old throwbacks to the past, with knighthood and dames. Odd!
There was an attempt to change 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and the protection from the worst elements of racism. A campaign raged. Restoring of a sense of Australia as n outpost of the British empire is not the way. Our economic future is in S E Asia.

-Malaysia solution.
In 2009 there was a growth in the umber of people globally, and the number of people wanting to come to Australia. It was better not to close Nauru. More than 1000 people have lost their lives coming to Australia.
Significant proposal was in 2011. Turnarounds have now been reduced the numbers of asylum seekers. There cannot be more than 300 or 400 that have been turned around. We need to resolve this issue as a country.
As a country we must take some responsibility for loss of lives. Dismantling Nauru wasn't helpful.

-Why can't Australia tap into the skills of asylum seekers and contribute to the economy? Labor has never used the word “illegal”. It is not illegal to seek asylum. We opposed temporary protection visas. It puts people's lives in limbo. Labor disallowed it.
A High Court Decision meant that we can't close shop. The program needs to be implemented. People will then be able to be given work rights.

We need to deal with Manus to end suicides. We need a regional arrangement regarding displaced people. PNG arrangement is significant in reducing drownings at sea. Asylum seekers shouldn't be in hell holes. They need to provide humane, dignified and safe accommodation.

Lack of empathy and communication with Grass Roots

Marle's privileged upbringing and background has isolated and immuned him from struggles and contemporary issues that directly surround him. He exists in his broad landscape, imbued by the vocabulary of academia and political frameworks. He paints a broad picture, on a big canvas, with a wide brush. No details, or real world imperfections, are allowed to be focused on. His world is a global oyster. with rich pickings. He sees a world without limits, and pearls of endless resources for economic growth. There's nothing tainted by climate change, increasing scarcities, overpopulation and energy costs. His ideas have been incubated and absorbed from academic theories, political spin, economic and political ideals - and any contrary real-world limitation have been filtered out from his vision of cornucopia. There can be endless growth, and the benefits of the globe will come to Australia without any hindrances! Marle's policies are Kevin Rudd's “big Australia” but more subtle!

Previous statements by Richard Marles

In response to the government's hard-line approach to asylum seekers, Mr Marles put forward an alternative motion in the meeting, that “asylum seekers should be afforded safe, dignified and humane conditions while awaiting refugee status determinations”.

SMH: Labor MPs fail to reverse party's asylum processing stance

By 2030, it's expected that the majority of the world's middle class will live in our time zone in East Asia, in China, in India, in the ASEAN countries. And providing goods and services to them will be an enormous economic opportunity for this country, given that we are providing those sorts of goods and services to our own population.

The density of people, economic activities in the coastal areas, rich biodiversity, and natural resource based economies make ASEAN cities especially vulnerable to climate change.

NAB chief economist Alan Oster says
Australia's agriculture is too small to be a global powerhouse like the resources sector, therefore replacing the mining boom.

Nobody would question the benefits of immigration to Australia development and economic growth. Due to our unique history, immigration has brought skills, infrastructure, economies of scale and contributed to a great nation.

Anyone who's studied science or the natural world knows that there are limits, thresholds and constraints to any growth. More of the same does not guarantee more of the benefits, without fallouts. While immigration has been beneficial and welcome, now our cities, economy, jobs market, infrastructure demands and natural systems are straining under our population overload. Bigger is not necessarily better! Nothing can be filled forever without experiencing internal pressure, or the fallouts from spill-overs. The benefits we had in the past from high immigration are now forcing job losses, unaffordable housing, the extinction of iconic wildlife species, overloaded infrastructure, higher costs of living and lower living standards.

The 2006 Productivity Report, the one being ignored, concluded that ongoing immigration to Australia would benefit the immigrants, and capital owners – and little for the general public! he research of the Productivity Commission confirms the findings of many previous studies -- that the overall economic impact of migration is very small, but probably positive. And that the benefits mainly accrue to the migrants themselves.

Actually, per capita wealth growth has largely stagnated in Australia! There is a much greater gap between the well-off, and a growing poverty problem in our country.

Richard Marles, the opposition immigration spokesman in an interview with The Australian noted, “The ageing population is going to see the size of the labour force plateau and within decades that will start to shrink.”

------------------------------------------------------------
OPPOSITION immigration spokesman Richard Marles says "the ageing population is going to see the size of the labour force plateau and within decades that will start to shrink" ("Welcome bubs, you'll live till 2101 in a very Big Australia", 27/11).
Does he imagine that by projecting our population to double its size by 2075 will stop the population from growing old? There won't be any reduction in ageing. In fact, there will be an even bigger ageing population by then.

If we need skills, our human resources should be used. Why is it imagined that skilled migrants from Asia would be better than our own?
We have seen university budgets slashed, TAFE funding cut, apprenticeship disappearing, along with manufacturing and jobs.
An economy based on perpetual population growth is unsustainable. If our budgets can't provide for pensions and care for the next generation, how will people be provided for in the future when their numbers will be even greater?

Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights, Vic
The Australian: letters/population mirage

-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were no counter arguments, points of view, or debate at this event. It assumes that, while our economic development was promoted by migration, our “future economic development” must follow suit – in strange kind of extrapolation of the past used for future policy making. It's a cornucopia attitude that if growth is good, more of it is even better. No constraints, no contemporary influences, no limitations, no realities on the real world to hamper this cornucopia vision of endless benefits from immigration and growth! It's one foot in the past without any new strategy or focus on present day implications.

See also: Mark Latham's political gift to John Howard of 19 Nov 2007; Labor Leadership Contenders' Views on East West Link - Albo opposes it! of 6 Oct 2013; Contendor for Australian Labor Party leadership defends Syria against US-sponsored terrorism of 21 Sep 2013; Appendix: "refugee rights" activist opposed to Albanese (includes video).

Former Labor Party leader Mark Latham and two mainstream corporate newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review have shown their particular dislike for Anthony Albanese, a candidate for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. Albanese's video speech in support of Syria against terrorism was embedded in an article published on candobetter on 21 September 2013. On 26 September 2013 the Australian Financial Review published an article by former Labor Party leader Mark Latham, Why Anthony Albanese shouldn't lead Labor. Judith Ireland of the Sydney Morning Herald referred to Latham's article in Anthony Albanese is an 'intellectual lightweight': Mark Latham. The article featured an embedded Sydney radio 2UE interview with Mark Latham.

The substance of Latham's case against Albanese was that he had failed to distance himself from NSW Labor member of Legislative Council Ian Mcdonald who had been found on 31 July 2013 by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to have behaved corruptly.

The article largely consisted of restatements of the economic neoliberal views he shares with Hawke, Keating and the late Margaret Thatcher:

"...The Hawke/Keating economic model of open, competitive markets can be used to appeal to Australia's rising aspirational class. Obstacles exist internally, but the sooner Labor stops thinking of itself as a trade union party rather than an aspirational party, the sooner it will regain power."

"After 20 years of economic growth and wealth accumulation, people have become more self-reliant. They have less need for government and less interest in government. This should work to the ALP's advantage. It no longer needs to juggle dozens of issues simultaneously, developing a labyrinth of new spending programs that drive the budget into deficit."

"...

"... he was wrong to endorse ... protectionism ..."

"If he wins next month's leadership ballot, he will be a case study in inner-city, left-wing bunkum."

Latham described Anthony Albanese's speech, embedded above, as "one of the worst speeches in recent Labor history" and a "a throwback to the 1960s, a narrow, insular pitch to the party's ever-shrinking industrial base".

Given Mark Latham's support for the re-election of John Howard in 2007 and his opposition to the ACTU's "Your Rights at work" campaign, his hostility to Anthony Albanese seems a very good reason to vote for him.

#appendix3491" id="appendix3491">Appendix: "refugee rights" activist opposed to Albanese

Another group who have shown hostility to Anthony Albanese are ostensible refugee rights activists. In this video, whilst campaigning for Labor Party Leadership on the railway bridge at Sydenham station on 29 Aug 2013, Anthony Albanese is confronted by a refugee rights activist who objects to Papua New Guinea asylum seeker solution of the previous Federal Labor Government.

In this video Albanese is denied a chance to state his view.

It is curious that, unlike Albanese, who spoke up for Syria, few ostensible Australian refugee rights organisations concern themselves with what drives many refugees to flee their own countries, namely wars fought against Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, Somalia, etc. by the US, the UK, France, Australia and their allies.

In an interview on the 4 Corners program, The Battle For Syria, on 4 October 2012, Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said to Kerry O'Brien, "... perhaps an assassination ... is what is required ... ."

Carr's support for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is consistent with allegations that for 40 years he was an agent of the United States Government within the Australian Labor Party. His relationship with the CIA is the subject of Bob Carr: Washington's man in Australia in the Melbourne Age of 8 April 2013 and the article, by Murray Hunter, Is Bob Carr a spy? of 11 April 2013 in the Independent Australian, which cites evidence from the Age article and which we republish below. The US, which Carr uncritically supports, has used assassins, and worse, against the people of Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. A number of its own Presidents including JFK and a number of popular American political leaders have also fallen to the bullets of assassins.

See also: Assange slams Carr as a 'well-known liar' in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 May 2013.

How Australian governments helped kill 3.3 million Iraqis

Since 1990, Australia has participated in two illegal wars against Iraq._#fn1">1 The Hawke Labor Government led Australia into the first war of 1991 whilst the Liberal/National Coalition Government of John Howard led Australia into the second war of 2003. In addition, Australia participated in the imposition of sanctions which have prevented vitally needed food and medicine from reaching the people of that devastated country. It is now well known that the pretexts used to launch these wars, including the Kuwaiti Incubator babies story and the claim that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were lies.

According to one estimate, 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children consequently died. To escape death through war, disease or starvation, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fled. According to Wikipedia, 1,300,000 fled to Syria.

Syria, which gave refuge to Iraqis fleeing Australian aggression, now bullied by Australia

No aid has ever been sent by Australia to help Syria deal with the consequences of Australia's shameful past actions. Instead, on 27 May 2012, Australia's foreign Minister, Bob Carr, expelled the Syrian ambassador and tightened Australian sanctions against Syria supposedly in reprisal for the demonstrably false claim that the Assad Government had masssacred its own supporters at Houla on 25 May.

Carr calls for the assassination of Assad

Prior to that on 4 October 2012, in an interview on the 4 Corners program, The Battle For Syria, Bob Carr said to Kerry O'Brien, "... perhaps an assassination ... is what is required ... ."

Carr's support for the assassination of the Syrian President seems consistent with his alleged 40 year record of being an agent of the United States Government within the Australian Labor Party . The US, which Carr uncritically supports, has used assassins against the people of Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. One of its own Presidents and a number of popular American political leaders have also fallen to the bullets of assassins.

Carr's record has been documented in the Age article Bob Carr: Washington's man in Australia of 8 April 2013 by Phillip Dorling and by the Independent Australian article Is Bob Carr a spy? of 11 April 2013 included below.

The above introduction was written by Geoffrey Taylor for candobetter.net.

#IsCarrASpy" id="IsCarrASpy">Is Bob Carr a spy?

Republished from Independent Australian admin in Australian history, International, Politics on 11 April, 2013 12:01 am / #commentspost">24 comments

The Age exposes the Australian foreign minister as an "agent" under US influence; Murray Hunter asks -- is U.S. influence in Australian politics destroying policy objectivity?

Foreign Minister Bob Carr (image courtesy ABC).

JUST AROUND a week ago in Beijing, Australia's Foreign Minister Bob Carr entered the US-Korea conflict by trying to persuade the Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi to adopt sanctions against North Korea.

On Monday (8 April), an investigative journalist from The Age, after going through 11,000 cables from the U.S. embassy in Canberra and consulates in Sydney and Melbourne, leaked by US Army Private Bradley Manning and published by WikiLeaks, found that the current Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr had been briefing the US embassy since the 1970s on both the internal decision making of the Australian Government during the Whitlam Labor Government (1972-75) and internal workings of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

Bob Carr has been Australia's foreign minister for 12 months, replacing Kevin Rudd, who resigned after challenging Julia Gillard for the prime ministership. Carr has been involved in the Australian Labor Party for more than 40 years and was New South Wales premier from 1995-2005.

Carr began his relationship with US embassy officials in the mid 1970s, when he was president of Young Labor and education officer of the NSW Labor Council. According to The Age investigative report Philip Dorling he would regularly brief the US Consul General over labour issues and the prospects of the Labor Government in Canberra. From the information gathered from Carr and also NSW Labor President John Ducker, intelligence reports on Australian politics and labour issues would be sent onto Washington. Leaked US cables to WikiLeaks also indicated that the former Labor Senator Mark Arbib was also a "protected" US embassy source passing on information and commentary on Australian politics.

Bob Carr is very well known for his staunch support for the Australian-US alliance as an non-negotiable pillar of Australian foreign policy and often dismisses critics as being in "emotional silly expression lacking in any substance and characteristic of the silly leftwing fringe of the ALP".

With such rigid advice to the prime minister and cabinet at a time where many academics and commentators like Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University are calling for a re-appraisal of this alliance and much more strategic engagement with China, it is very difficult to see how the Australian Government's pending 2013 Defense White Paper will signal any major shifts in policy on this matter.

At the very least, hanging on to the Australian-US alliance without any objective appraisal and redefinition may not serve the country's strategy interests in the Asia-Pacific Region well if the U.S. continues a competitive stance against China.

These revelations add to past suspicions by many in the labour movement about members of the party and government (when Labor was in power) who have been involved in close relationships with U.S. officials.

Labor suspicion of U.S. intelligence operating in Australia mainly stems from the election of the reformist and nationalistic Whitlam Labor Government in 1972, after 23 years in opposition. Whitlam immediately pulled Australia out of the Vietnam conflict, recognized the Peoples' Republic of China, campaigned for a nuclear free Indian Ocean, spoke up for Palestinian rights in the United Nations, and opposed French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

In 1973, the then Attorney General of Australia Lionel Murphy led a raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the equivalent to the U.S. CIA, over concern with the organisation's involvement with the training of fascist Croatian groups, and the launching of terrorist operations from Australian soil. According to the Hope Commission back in 1977, ASIO was handing over to the CIA information on Australian opposition politicians and kept files on all ALP members.

The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) was assisting the CIA in undertaking clandestine operations in Cambodia and Chile, even though Australia was officially neutral in Cambodia and supported the Government of Salvador Allende in Chile, without the knowledge of the Australian Government.

Many felt that when the Whitlam Government took measures to control the operations of the US Naval Communications Station on the North-West Cape of Western Australia, the Defence Signals Directorate in Melbourne, the Joint Defense research facility at Pine Gap and Nurrunger in South Australia, that the U.S. became vitally concerned.

After Whitlam discovered that ASIO and ASIS had secretly assisted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, he dismissed the heads of both organizations. Whitlam then hinted that he may not renew the Pine Gap agreement with the U.S. due for signing on 9th December 1975, which would have severely dented U.S. intelligence gathering ability. Labor mythology believes that the U.S. ambassador to Australia at the time, Marshall Green, had a hand in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in November 1975 by the then Governor General Sir John Kerr. Of course, Kerr's time working for a closely aligned Australian intelligence organization to the U.S. OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, has always added spice to such conspiracy theories.

After Whitlam discovered that ASIO and ASIS had secretly assisted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975, he dismissed the heads of both organizations. Whitlam then hinted that he may not renew the Pine Gap agreement with the U.S. due for signing on 9th December 1975, which would have severely dented U.S. intelligence gathering ability. Labor mythology believes that the U.S. ambassador to Australia at the time, Marshall Green, had a hand in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in November 1975 by the then Governor General Sir John Kerr. Of course, Kerr's time working for a closely aligned Australian intelligence organization to the U.S. OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, has always added spice to such conspiracy theories.

During the first week after the dismissal of the Labor Government, the army was on stand-by at their barracks in case there were mass demonstrations. However, it was the Australian Council of Trade Unions then president Bob Hawke who summoned the labour movement to be calm. US diplomatic cables also implicate the former prime minister, saying he regularly conferred with the U.S. Consulate in Melbourne during his ACTU years. It was generally believed that the Labor Attaché at the U.S. embassy in Canberra was in reality the CIA station chief (McKnight, D., "Labor and the Quiet Americans", The Age, February 20, 2003, p15). The future Hawke Government, elected in 1984, went on to implement many pro-U.S. initiatives, and prevented public disclosure of documents relating to the Nugan Hand Bank during his term as Prime Minister, which were believed to implicate the CIA with drug trafficking and organized crime.

This is the first time that leaked U.S. documents have confirmed what many believe to be the truth surrounding U.S. infiltration within the Australian Labor Party. The issue is likely to be very quickly dismissed in Australia by the argument that the U.S. is an ally. However, within these documents there is some proof and support that the U.S. has meddled in the affairs of the Australian union movement and political parties for many years. What is even more astounding is that some Labor politicians showed disloyalty to their party to a foreign power during the Whitlam years.

Bob Carr has been forthright in exposing past politicians as members of the Communist Party of Australia, so should take the accusations against him seriously, either stepping aside for the duration of an inquiry or resigning outright. David Combe's relationship with a Soviet diplomat Valery Ivanov back in 1984 led to swift action on the part of the Hawke Government at the time. In the interests of transparency and sovereignty, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO should conduct an inquiry.

Somehow I doubt this will happen.

Footnotes

#fn1" id="fn1">1.#txt1">↑ See UK Chilcot Inquiry: "The Iraq War Was Unlawful". Unanimous Legal Opinion of Foreign Office Lawyers of 4 Jan 2013 by Carl Herman on #10;<p>This work is licensed under a <a href=" http:="">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

#YarraAbbas">See also : Yara Abbas, Syrian TV Reporter Assassinated in Qussayr, republished from www.syrianews.cc/yara-abbas-syrian-reporter-assassinated-qussayr

Martyr Yara Abbas Syria’s Ikhbariya TV Reporter

The Queensland Liberal National Party leader, John-Paul Langbroek tried to restore some democracy in Queensland last week. Perhaps it is because his party can see that if democracy is not restored - by restraining the pursuit of the ALP's private financial power through government - no other political party may ever have a chance to govern again, simply because the ALP has become so rich and its power so far-reaching, and arguably it is less a government than a commercial corporation. Langbroek's reforming initiatives have taken two forms: 1. to call for a referendum into privatisation and 2. to submit a bill to make inquiries into corrupt systems and specific activities in Queensland. Predictably this bill was killed by the ALP on the 2nd reading.
See also"Anti-privatisation e-petition calls on Queensland government to resign"

LNP Leader should not give up trying to restore democracy to Queensland

The Queensland Liberal National Party leader, John-Paul Langbroek, has attempted to restore some democracy in Queensland over the past two months. Perhaps it was because his party can see that if democracy is not restored - by restraining the pursuit of the ALP's private financial power through government - no other political party may ever have a chance to govern in the foreseeable future, simply because the ALP has become so rich and its power so far-reaching, that arguably it is less a government than a commercial corporation.

Langbroek's example should be followed by other politicians and other States.

Reform needs to take place on at least two levels - reigning in corruption by legislating for transparency and to limit cronyism between government, political parties and private entities - and to engage the public more vigorously in their self-government - i.e. democracy. Greater engagement of citizens is imperative because this is the only power left in politics which may be capable of overcoming commercial corporate power which has now merged with a government whose only weakness is its estrangement from the actual electorate.

So far Langbroek's reforming activities in in this regard in parliament have taken two forms:

1. to call for a referendum on privatisation (see p.3143 of Hansard) i.e. public engagement in an issue it knows the public don't agree with the government on [1] and

2. to submit a bill to make specific inquiries into corrupt systems and activities in Queensland.

This bill was first read on 28 October 2009. It was voted down, not surprisingly, by the majority Labor government on 25 November 2009.

The bill was of extraordinary importance, but to understand it, you need to understand what has been going on with ALP finances. It was of extraordinary importance because it potentially affects the Federal government and potentially every state government. This is because of a massive blurring of boundaries between the ALP, government and business, at Federal and State level, notably involving Labor Holdings P/L, Labor Resources P/L, the Progressive Business organisation and the Advance Lobby Group, and various State Investment Companies, such as the Queensland State Investment company.

The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has rightly accused the Liberal National Party of doing the same thing, i.e. having 'holding companies' where moneys coming in need not be called political donations because they are not going directly to the political party and can mingle with other earnings. So the argument, on the face of it, is the Wolf's when he is accused of eating little lambs. "Didn't you have roast lamb last Sunday yourselves? Why does that make me bad and you good?"

The problem is that this very big ALP wolf might eat all the sheep and leave none for anyone else, so it means that all the other wolves will have to start regulating their industry and cooperate with the lambs for the stability of the whole. Of course the wolves are the political parties and the lambs are the voters. The industry is politics and the problem seems to be that it has become confused with financial investment, notably in property assets and development.

All over the country, State parliaments are making laws to ensure that the interests of financiers and developers take precedence over those of the electorate.

Cliche's like, "We were elected to make hard decisions," do not justify the failure to consult the community.

Regulation of the industry means rigorously separating political parties from exploiting their positions in government for private sector or party profit. This is especially necessary if ALP financial interests - private, personal or party - have lead ALP governments to pursue unpopular policies and to make undemocratic laws in order to create an advantageous economic and regulatory climate for their members, friends and organisations. The reason that it is especially necessary is that the ALP is allegedly probably one of the richest political parties in the world and rules this land from coast to coast against mostly puny or unenthusiastic opposition parties.

Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour Bill - details:

The Commissions of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour) Amendment Bill 2009 was a Bill for An Act to amend the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 by inserting new terms to have it inquire into corruption, cronyism and unethical behaviour. Its terms are particularly informative of problems in the Queensland Government, but the same processes and some of the same people and organisations seem to be involved in similar activities in other states. People should encourage Opposition politicians in other states to try to bring in similar bills.

Details from the bill

‘(7) The commission is to inquire into the following—

(a) the matters and circumstances that led to, and permitted to continue, the breakdown in integrity and incidences of misconduct in the public sector in relation to the payments received or sought by Mr Gordon Nuttall whilst a Minister, despite the Crime and Misconduct Act2001 and the bodies and powers created under it;

(b) the circumstances and procedures relating to all contracts of Queensland Government departments, or Queensland Government owned or controlled entities or appointments to Queensland Government boards or boards of Queensland Government owned or controlled entities in relation to which Mr Gordon Nuttall had Ministerial responsibility;

(c) the allegations made by Ms Jacqueline King that she and Mr Scott Zackeresen complained to the office of the former Premier, the Honourable Mr Peter Beattie, in 2002 about misconduct by Mr Gordon Nuttall, and the circumstances surrounding the cessation of their employment allegedly as a result;

(d) the circumstances that led to Sunsuper Pty Ltd, a superannuation fund with over $12 billion of funds under management, a substantial portion of which funds are the superannuation investments of Queenslanders, deciding to withdraw $100 million of the funds from the management of Queensland Investment Corporation and place those funds under the management of Trinity Property Trust (‘Trinity’), or a Trinity-related entity, and the coincidence of the payment by Trinity, or a Trinity-related entity, of $1m to Mr Ross Daley (or his company Veritate Pty Ltd), the then senior executive of the political lobbyist Enhance Group, and any other person;

(e) the dealings between Ministers, former Ministers, ministerial staff, former ministerial staff or persons exercising delegated authority on behalf of the Queensland Government, or Queensland Government owned or controlled entities, with lobbyists concerning access to government, the grant or withholding of approvals, the awarding of tenders, the entry into contracts and other decisions;

(f) the relationship between members of the Queensland Government and persons who have been appointed to the judiciary or magistracy by Labor Attorneys-General between 1998 and 2009;

(g) the termination of the employment of Mr Scott Patterson by the Labor Government and the failure of the Crime and Misconduct Commission to adequately address matters raised by Mr Patterson;

(h) the adequacy of the following legislation and government policies, with a view to advising on a coherent, uniform, consolidated and harmonised scheme for stipulating standards of conduct and supervising the integrity of government business in Queensland—

• Auditor-General Act 2009
• provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with
misconduct in public office
• Electoral Act 1992
• Financial Accountability Act 2009
• Charter of Fiscal Responsibility under the
Financial Accountability Act 2009
• Government Owned Corporations Act 1993
• Judicial Review Act 1991
• Local Government Act 1993
• Ombudsman Act 2001
• Police Service Administration Act 1990
• Public Sector Ethics Act 1994
• Public Service Act 2008
• Right to Information Act 2009
• Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994
• Witness Protection Act 2000
• Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff under the
Public Sector Ethics Act 1994
• Codes of Conduct for Public Sector Entities under
the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994
• Code of Ethical Standards issued by the Members’
Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee of
the Legislative Assembly of Queensland
• Queensland Contact with Lobbyists Code and the
Register of Lobbyists
• Ministers’ Code of Ethics published in the
Queensland Ministerial Handbook;

(i) any other matter raised with the commissioner during the commission of inquiry that the commissioner considers worthy of investigation for the purposes of the inquiry.’.

NOTES:

[1]
On 10 November in the Queensland Parliament Mr Langbroek said to Premier Bligh, "Last week the Premier admitted that her Labor government had spent $62.7 million on advertising in 2008. Given that the annual report of the Electoral Commission indicates that a referendum could be held for less than a quarter of that amount, will the Premier now hold a referendum on privatisations to give Queenslanders a chance to have their say, or is it the case that the Premier wants to be heard but refuses to listen?

Ms Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, responded by attacking the opposition for its past record of failing to oppose her government's privatisation. Bligh thus avoided dealing with the two substantial issues:

1. that the wide population does not support privatisation
2. that they were not asked by the government prior to the election because the issue was not put to them
3. that Mr Langbroek is asking for their opinion to be sought and empowered now via a referendum.

Mr Langbroek also asked Premier Bligh why surveys being distributed to householders still did not canvas citizens' views on privatisation.

"Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the ‘Have your say’ surveys currently being distributed by Labor MPs in their electorates seeking community feedback. Given that the Premier and her Labor Party are spending $1.9 million of taxpayers’ funds to sell the privatisation agenda, will the Premier explain why her local MPs ask for feedback on 11 issues, none of which is privatisation?"

The Premier's response was that Mr Langbroek's party had prepared the way and that the government stand for "jobs" and that it was selling off assets to pay for "a modern Queensland with better services and better infrastructure."

In other words, she failed to answer the question, talked of a very vague mandate, and implied, by reiterating the government's usual justification of privatisation that the ends justify the means and the citizens have no say.