Corruption

Increasing private-public partnerships, contracting out, privatisation, creation of authorities 'outside government' etc over the past 20 years in Victoria "has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office." (Auditor General, Victoria) The forward plan also notes concerns about population growth and food security.

On Tuesday 24 May 2011 Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, tabled his Annual Plan for 2011-12 today in the Victorian Parliament.

The Annual Plan contains details of areas of audit interest for 2011-12, and a forward program of proposed audits for 2012-13 to 2014-15. Among these, are plans for ammendments to the Audit Act 1994[1]. Below we cite from that document, although some of the headings are from the editors of candobetter.net.

Amendments to the Audit Act 1994 are needed

Over the past 20 years, Victoria has seen an increase in the ‘arms-length’ delivery of public services through the private and community sectors. There has been increased private sector involvement in the delivery of public services through arrangements such as outsourcing and public private partnerships. There has also been a trend to create new legal entities ‘outside government’, such as companies, associations and statutory bodies, allowing these entities to access broader revenue sources and more flexible governance regimes.

Steady erosion of accountability

"This has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office.

Responding to these changes in the way government delivers services, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) held an inquiry last year into the Act.[2]

VAGO made several representations to the inquiry, including a formal submission.

The all-party report of this Parliamentary Inquiry made wide-ranging recommendations, seeking to prevent the erosion of public sector accountability, strengthen the independence of VAGO and update the Act to reflect contemporary trends.

PAEC unanimously recommended measures to:

• ‘close the gap’ on entities currently outside Parliament’s audit mandate
• allow access to public sector information held by private sector contractors
• introduce annual audits of performance statements and management controls
• enable joint audits with other Australian auditors-general
• improve the effectiveness of external performance audits of VAGO
• ensure agency comment included in our reports to Parliament is accurate, balanced and substantiated.

Urgent Need to repair the Audit Mandate

As indicated in our Annual Plan 2010–11, the Act is in urgent need of reform.

Auditor General needs access to public information held by private sector contractors

In April 2011, the government tabled its response to PAEC’s recommendations. The government response included support in principle for some of the key recommendations; in particular access to public sector information held by private sector contractors and ‘closing the gap’. A number of other recommendations were also supported.

Given the importance of the need to repair the audit mandate, a number of technical and legal issues will need to be discussed further with government as it considers how any amendments should proceed. VAGO looks forward to a strong role in the further development of amendments to the Act.

Population growth and diminishing oil supplies

Our scanning during development of the 2011–12 Annual Plan reconfirmed climate change and the environment; the ageing of our population; risks to sustainable development from diminishing oil supplies; population growth; and the continuing need
for transparency and accountability, as major challenges for government in coming years. In addition, the Council of Australian Governments Reform Agenda continues to affect the scheduling and focus of our program of performance audits, particularly in the health sector. [3]

[Candobetter.net Editor:] From reading this report, notably the attachments from page 58, it seems that in 2009 the Auditor-General looked into Victoria's food security and concluded that there were no significant risks. Since then, however, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) has suggested that the matter be revisited, i.e. that food security may now be an issue.

"The Committee supports the Auditor-General's commitment to environmental scanning of issues and understands this underpins the Office's multi-year audit program. The Committee considers therefore, it would be beneficial if the Auditor-General's Office updated its research with relevant information on food security from 2010 and 2011 prior to scopint this audit to consider more recent research on issues surrounding food security." (PAEC)

The Victorian Auditor General responds on page 60 by noting the PAEC's comments and undertakes to consider food security in the audit research and scoping. Here the Auditor General also agrees, "As advised in the conduct of its annual planning function, VAGO will continue to, consider issues such as population growth and its impact on current and future service delivery and public sector activity."

NOTES

Source of material in this article: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx

[1] "1.3 Amendments to the Audit Act 1994,"http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.3.

[2] "The former government sought to consolidate accountability arrangements for public bodies under one Act. The Public Finance and Accountability Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament in December 2009, however, the Bill lapsed without being passed through the Upper House when Parliament was prorogued in October 2010. Any further progress on these reforms will be dependent upon the new government’s priorities." http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx ,p1.

[3] http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.4.

Here is some documentation for the 18 May 2011 PAEC discussion on Energy and Resources by the way: Hansard proof report - not for quoting - http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/paec/2011-12_Budget_Estimates/Presentations/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf

From the point of view of many humans, the term "natural disaster" is a convenient scapegoat because it allow a person (or a whole nation) to blame nature for their own poor planning. From Natural News. Originally republished on this site here amongst comments relating to the Queensland floods.

From the point of view of many humans, the term "natural disaster" is a convenient scapegoat because it allow a person (or a whole nation) to blame nature for their own poor planning.

From Natural News. Originally republished on this site here amongst comments relating to the Queensland floods.

When a volcano blows and causes widespread destruction beyond what anyone could have reasonably foreseen -- such as Mt St Helens in the 1980's -- that's a legitimate natural disaster. But getting wiped out by a flood because you built your house right in the flood path of a local river is not a natural disaster.

Rebuilding the low-lying regions of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of mankind just begging to be hit with yet another "natural disaster." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some time in the next 50 years, a category five hurricane is going to strike New Orleans yet again and reclaim the very same regions that technically belong under water as part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Another example is when people build their homes in a giant forest, surrounded by trees, and then they seem surprised when those trees catch on fire and burn their homes to the ground. Did they really think that trees never burn? Most fires are caused by people, and thinning of forests by logging and developments, and more people, means more chances of fires.

Most "natural" disasters are actually caused by poor human planning. The cattle rancher who buys 500 acres of forest and then clear-cuts the trees to make room for cattle grazing (Brazil, anyone?) doesn't usually consider the fact that they have now removed the rainfall / water buffer zone that protected their lands from floods and erosion.

Not all floods are the fault of the people affected by them, of course. There are huge floods happening right now in Brisbane. In that case, it means the victims of the floods in Brisbane are suffering through no fault of their own but rather as a result of some destructive global influences on the planet's weather systems.

Just watch in amazement over the next twelve months as many Australians rebuild homes right back in the same exact locations devastated by this flood. It's not a characteristic of good planning.

Watch in amazement over the next twelve months as many Australians rebuild homes right back in the same exact locations devastated by this flood. It's not a characteristic of good planning.

What "natural disasters" are coming next due to poor human planning?

• It won't be too long before our food crops suffer a genetic pollution disaster due to the widespread use of GMOs.
• The massive life extinction event occurring right now on our planet will ultimately be traced largely to the mass chemical contamination of the world with pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, food additives and synthetic chemicals in consumer products.
• The next great dust bowl will strike within twenty years as abused, over-farmed soils continue to erode, transforming many food-producing regions of the world into food deserts
• The global use of fossil water -- especially in India -- will soon meet a geologic limit, causing widespread drought and desertification.
• The massive loss of food pollinators will accelerate, ultimately leading to emergency shortages of pollinators and a detrimental impact on the global food supply.

Humans continue to blame Nature (or God) instead of looking at the real source of these problems: Ignorant "scientific" progress and boundless human expansion!

The upshot is that many "natural disasters" are really only disasters from the point of view of people who don't respect nature in the first place.

While people have confidence that Technology and scientific advancements will solve the world's problems - energy, famine, water shortages, overpopulation, overconsumption, climate change - in reality, little has been achieved to alleviate true natural disasters. The powers of Nature can't be halted or harnessed, and true natural disasters will continue due to our planet's dynamic nature.

With population growth, more people will be forced to live in the extremities of our world, and the changes taking place to it's environments will ensure that lack of planning and environmental illiteracy will cause more so-called mass "natural disasters".

Read more on the web site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In and around Brisbane (population approximately 911,000), the worst flooding this century occurred during the Australia Day holiday weekend (25-29 January 1974). At least 6,700 homes were partially or totally flooded in the Brisbane metropolitan area and floodwaters entered the gardens of about 6,000 other houses.

A snapshot of the planning strategy for Brisbane to deal with massive population growth expected (ie planned, socially engineered) over the next 20 years shows high-rise development spreading to the outer suburbs, with concentrations of towers around transport nodes.

Queensland needs to build more than 900,000 new houses and units in the next 21 years to meet projected (targeted) population growth. Our "ageing population" threat needs to be addressed by more people!

This growth is expected to continue. The Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan requires Brisbane to accommodate an additional 145,000 dwellings by 2026.

Be it a sustainable Australia, capping migration, or turning back the boats, population is one of the issues that was discussed during the Federal Election campaign. Brisbane's Lord Mayor Campbell Newman is critical of the debate so far and has a different approach to population and growth. Using his city of Brisbane as an example, he says growth has made it a far better place than it was 20 years ago and if the challenges of congestion and infrastructure were addressed, the national conversation would be different.

Human and economic needs can collide. "Better place to live" is subjective, depending on values being held.

The best way to avoid natural disasters is to learn to live in greater harmony with the nature world, respecting its natural cycles of "destruction" which are actually crucial to life on Earth.

Please see nimby's comment. - Editor

See also: Forum discussion - Water policy after the flood, Crowded Flood-path: Lockyer-Valley, Wivenhoe Dam and Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 2011, Cost of Queensland floods made worse by government policy on land-use planning and population by Sheila Newman, Council rates system destroys urban rainforest and community in Brisbane by Geoffrey Taylor.

Congratulations Jill Redwood, leader of Environment East Gippsland! In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court has found that the government has a responsibility to look for and protect endangered wildlife before logging in the contentious Brown Mountain forests of East Gippsland. “This judgment has implications for all native forests that are set to be destroyed by logging,” said EEG spokesperson Jill Redwood. “If we hadn’t sued VicForests, Brown Mountain would have been illegally logged by now. And Brown Mountain is just one area. The government is logging publicly owned forests every day without endangered species surveys.”
EEG Website for more updates
To find out more about the history of this battle, which has demanded so much courage and committment from people like Jill Redwood and those who fight with her, see the section: Brown Mountain in Candobetter

Landmark decision enforces law to defend animals and trees

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court has found that the government has a responsibility to look for and protect endangered wildlife before logging in the contentious Brown Mountain forests of East Gippsland.

“This judgment has implications for all native forests that are set to be destroyed by logging,” said EEG spokesperson Jill Redwood.

Decision shows the battle was just and necessary

“If we hadn’t sued VicForests, Brown Mountain would have been illegally logged by now. And Brown Mountain is just one area. The government is logging publicly owned forests every day without endangered species surveys.”

“We are calling on the government to respect the judgment by stopping logging in native forests that may contain rare wildlife, until the full implications of this judgment are examined.”

“VicForests, the Government-owned logging monopoly, has a legal responsibility to protect endangered wildlife. They can’t just go in and log blindfolded.”

“Victorians have always known native forest logging is immoral, uneconomic, unaccountable, unsustainable and unpopular. Today we’ve proved that where endangered species are present, or likely to be present, it’s potentially illegal as well”.

Will the Victorian Government try to defy the courts as well as the law now?

“This extraordinary court case isn’t just about protecting Brown Mountain’s rich and ancient ark of rare wildlife; it’s about forcing the government to abide by its laws as anyone else would”, said Ms Redwood.

“This represents a win for the state’s rare forest dependent wildlife. It’s also a win for all Australians who are concerned about the environment.”

Next danger may be Government attempt to change laws to suit itself

Environment groups are now concerned that the government may attempt to alter the laws to allow the destruction of endangered species habitat, as happened in Tasmania in 2008.

“The government must now honour the law, not alter it”, said Ms Redwood.

Forest supporters will gather at Victorian parliament tomorrow at 1pm, to ask the Environment Minister, Shadow Environment Minister and Greens for their response to the judgment.

For comment:

Jill Redwood – EEG Convenor

Liz Ingham – EEG Secretary -
Vanessa Bleyer – solicitor for EEG –

For those who follow the stock exchange, building materials share values are the key to the boom and bust cycle of Australian (and similar systems) property, infrastructure and construction booms. When building materials values go down we know that overall market demand decline has settled in. It means that the developers and engineers have reduced their forward orders for bricks and mortar. At the same time Australian state governments have been told to reduce their own little-known immigrant-sponsorship programs.

ALP Investments

Are business forecasts another key to Julia Gillard's apparent sea-change in population policy and Rudd's disappearance?
The ALP doesn't rely on mere donations from developers; it has its own huge investments in finance, insurance, mining, development and property, which act as a barometer for the benefits of growth. Could ALP investments and other big business now be warning the Labor Government that construction will no longer be able to soak up immigrants? Sure, pumping up population pumps up demand, but only if there is money to invest. Problem is that the money seems to be drying up.

Boral pulling up sticks

Building materials giant, Boral, long a veteran investor in Australian population growth and an early vocal member of the 20th century Australian population growth lobby, is downsizing some of its Australian and US operations and heading north, presumably scavenging the last inertias of scale in the post-colonial malignant growth of China, India and South East Asian regions.[1]

The Australian Financial Review reported that Boral made a $49 million loss before interest and taxation in the first half of 2010.[1]

The most tasteless era of ostentatious spending on multi-management layers wining and dining big projects and buyers since the one preceding the Great Depression may be on its last legs. The US housing market has gone phutt. The Australian market will follow.

And Boral shares, running at around $10 in 2006, are now about half that.

"Deutsche Bank believes that although Boral's Australian construction materials arm has been one of its strongest-performing divisions, with earnings before interest and taxation up 12 per cent to $107 million in the first half, it could easily cut some $14 million in costs by eliminating several layers of management." [1]

This will be a relief for less exalted workers and managers in the sector. Survival is possible in such industries if they follow the post 1970s oil-shock European model of maintaining infrastructure and housing stock instead of investing in population and construction growth. However, there won't be room for wedding-cake management tiers.

States told to cut their 'secret' immigration programs

Another sign of terminal decline in bricks and mortar bubbles is the new Federal Government's request to the states to cut back their semi-secret immigration programs, including the 176 visas.[2] The states control land and derive income from its sale, notably through stamp duty. To generate land and housing sales they have been engineering population growth, in tandem with property developers and financiers. The associated state-sponsored immigration programs seem to have started in Victoria and are the most excessive there. Introduced by the Kennett government, one of their ploys was to make a low profile category of 'regional immigration' (once designed to assist low-population rural areas by facilitating skilled immigration and loosening definitions of family reunion) into one that applied everywhere, designating dense urban areas as in need of immigration. Long and short-term immigration in numbers previously unimagined has generated a demand for housing and jobs in construction. The same immigration probably supplies many of those non-English speaking construction-workers one sees moving like ants on roadways and tragically moon-scaped once green patches in Australian suburbs, carrying out orders at which most locals would bawk, if in control of the process.

State government spokespeople, including growth-corridor spruikers, have repeatedly claimed that immigration numbers were outside of their control, yet the states advertised aggressively for immigrants. See these articles, for instance: "Premier Bligh pretends Queenslanders cannot cap population growth although 60% want to" and "Melbourne 2008, Life in a destruction zone" and "Julianne Bell delivers resolutions to Planning Minister Madden in late impromptu meeting."

Yet the State Premiers continue to try to mislead the public on this, even subsequent to Gillard's new policies:

"We can't control who comes over our state borders, but the federal government can control who comes into Australia," (Anna Bligh) [3]

Tragically and wastefully the tendency of state governments to deny reality may see green wedges rezoned and destroyed even at this stage of construction detumescence by parliamentary rogues. See for instance, http://candobetter.org/node/2058 and http://candobetter.org/node/2067 Yet it may all be for nothing; those wedges might be sold at a financial loss in the end.

Women in power

We may gauge the panic of big business to the idea of a real debate on population through its mainstream media mouthpieces' hopeful perseveration with tying that rusty and irrelevant old racist can to the idea of sustainable population and Julia Gillard, reflected for instance, in this glowing chestnut where Gillard's red hair provides a cliched motif:

"Who can forget the last redhead to talk tough on immigration and protecting Australian values?

and "This isn't just about talking to voters in western Sydney but also in Queensland, which gave rise to Hansonism. Maintaining seats there is shaping as a major challenge in the federal election."[4]

The comments above evoke the medieval European stigmatisation of red-heads, not to mention witch-hunting. Starting with the new Primeminister, women in Australia may be in for an interesting time as the boys start fighting over the scraps, in the property sector and government.

Notes

[1] Jeremy Wiggins, "Boral set to offload dead wood," Australian Financial Review, 28 June, 2010, page 1.
[2] Sophie Morris, "States' visas blunt skills thrust: Migration," Australian Financial Review, 28 June, 2010, page 8.
[3] Marcus Priest, "Values, being sustainable are the keys: Population,"Australian Financial Review, 28 June, 2010, page 8.
[4]Marcus Priest, "Lurching to the right on boat people: Comment," Australian Financial Review, page 8.

Schapelle Corby was falsely convicted by the corrupt Indonesian judicial system for the ludicrous crime of having smuggled Marijuhana worth $35,000 in Australia to a country in which it would have been worth $5,000. Having been cynically abandoned by the successive Howard and Rudd Governments, she is now to be transferred away from the life-sustaining support she now receives from her sister Mercedes, a resident of Bali, to a prison in Java.

The following is taken from a promotion for 1 April issue of Woman's Day.

There are new fears for her life with a top secret plan to transfer her from her Bali jail to a remote prison in Java, reports Corby biographer Kathryn Bonella. The nightmare Schapelle Corby has been fearing for the past five years is now a reality, as a secret document outlining her transfer to a new faraway prison has been leaked exclusively to Woman's Day.

The document, from the Indonesian Ministry of Law and Human Rights, confirms Schapelle’s worst fears that she will be taken away from her lifeline of family and friends and forced to move to a remote East Javanese jail.

"Hereby ordering the Head of Kerobokan Detention Centre, Denpasar, Bali, to carry out the transfer of the convict in the name of Sceppele (sic) Corby … to be transferred to Women’s Detention Centre in Malang, East Java. The order becomes effective from the date the transfer is signed."

For the full story, including Mercedes Corby's exclusive interview with Woman's Day and the impact this move will have on Schapelle's unstable state, see this week's Woman's Day, on sale April 1, 2010.

Your Say: Do you think this move is necessary? Will this move destroy Schapelle? Share your thoughts below.

Editorial Comment: I wasn't able on my Firefox browser to find where to post my thoughts, although I did vote. Currently 5283 or 69% of the respondents want Schapelle to be brought home and 2337 or 31% think that she should remain in Indonesia. It the Australian newsmedia reported the evidence of Schapelle's innocence, the figure would be much higher still. The Woman's Day story appears to be an unusually sympathetic treatment of Schapelle by the Australian newsmedia. The treatment has otherwise been shameful.

What you can do: Vote for Schapelle to be returned home to Australia in an online Women's Day poll.

See also: freeschapelle.com.au and forum, Women for Schapelle on Facebook, A selective capacity for human compassion? of 24 Feb 10.

Article originally published as "Resistance Growing to Ecologically Devastating Chinese Mining Invasion of Madang, Papua New Guinea" on rainforestportal.org o 1 Apr 10. What you can do: e-mail China Metallurgical Construction Corporation to let them know of your objection to their invasion of Madang.

Article originally published as "Resistance Growing to Ecologically Devastating Chinese Mining Invasion of Madang, Papua New Guinea" on rainforestportal.org o 1 Apr 10.

The Ramu mine's 134 km long pipeline which ultimately dumps
waste directly on the seabed is easily prone to damage from
landslides or sabotage. Local peoples are protesting the
potential damage to their land, seas and way of life. (link)

Chinese government owned China Metallurgical Construction (MCC) Corp. efforts to establish the massively destructive Ramu Nickel mine in Madang Province, Papua New Guinea -- the largest investment in metal exploration and mining by the Chinese outside of China -- is in serious jeopardy. Local landowners are initiating court cases and protests to demand the mine be stopped. The nearly completed Ramu project will mine nickel and cobalt ore at Kurumbukari -- which is located in the foothills of the Bismarck Ranges approximately 75km south west of the provincial capital of Madang. Topsoil will be scraped off a mountainous area and then the nickel-bearing soil will be mixed with water and the slurry sent down a 135 km pipeline through heavy rainforests to an ore refinery and treatment plant at pristine Basamuk Bay on the Bismarck Sea.  The ore will then be shipped to China, and the waste -- some 100 million tons over 20 years-- dumped directly into the sea.

The Ramu Mine's waste tailings will poison fish stocks and cause extreme ecological destruction of the seabed. Although the mining company describes the tailings disposal as "deep sea", tailings will be dumped at a depth of only 150 metres. Tailings will not be covered or otherwise secured -- rather they will simply be pumped out of the end of a pipeline and allowed to spread freely through spectacular Astrolabe Bay. Almost certainly the tailings will not remain where they are placed, and will spread widely in one of the last intact tuna fisheries globally. With work on the overland pipeline completed, the Chinese are now planning a series of underwater explosions to blast a way through coral reefs for the undersea section of the pipe.

Despite competing and still unresolved communal land right claims, the Kurumbukari people at the mine site have been devastated by their forced removal from their ancestral lands by police operating on behalf of MCC. People all along the project are extremely anxious about the ecological and social impact of the mine in their area, and the blatant corruption. They worry the mine will devastate the Ramu river, that the shoddy pipeline will leak - devastating rainforests and communities, and that the seabed tailings disposal will destroy their abundant marine resources. Local peoples feel impotent in the face of the ruthless indifference of the Chinese to PNG law, and the corruption of the national and local politicians who are lining their own pockets at the expense of Madang landowners.

MCC - managed by the local subsidiary Ramu Nico - was about to start blasting coral reefs to allow the laying of the tailings pipeline, when a court decision last week - on a case brought by local landowners - granted a temporary injunction stopping pipeline construction and work on the mine's seabed tailings disposal system. During court proceedings hundreds of landowners and local people protested peacefully outside the court house by holding placards showing their dismay, and were not intimidated by a heavy police presence. Representative signs read "Madang not China". "No Blasting, No dumping", and "Where is Justice?". Many countries have banned the dumping of mine waste in the sea, but Wari Iamo -- the deeply corrupted Secretary of the Department of Environment and Conservation -- has deemed it okay in Papua New Guinea.  MCC is to return to court in Madang on April 12.

The entire project has been mismanaged, marked by shoddy construction; and disregard for local rights, life, and marine and rainforest ecology. Recently a devastating fire at the mine site caused the destruction of the kitchen as plastic pipes that were used to feed diesel fuel to the kitchen melted. Sexually transmitted diseases are rampant as Chinese workers have forced prostitution and even rape upon local women. Construction work has already destroyed local drinking water supplies. Lack of drainage and retaining walls along the shoddy pipeline have already caused large landslips and blockage of the only highway into the province. The pipeline is extremely vulnerable to sabotage by disgruntled local peoples.

Papua New Guinea is not a brutal communist dictatorship, but a liberal democracy where free speech and human rights are respected and enshrined constitutionally. China's rising influence in PNG threatens the country's freedom of religion, speech and land rights. The mine was conceived in the capital Port Moresby and is being forced upon local peoples without prior and informed consent. It has been alleged in local media that MCC recently provided USD 10 million to the government of Michael Somare to defend itself against a vote of no confidence, and additional huge bribes have routinely been made previously throughout the approval and construction processes. A leading Papua New Guinea geologist says the Ramu Nickel mine has been massively undervalued -- that it was sold to the Chinese for just 5% of its true value, and is worth $US34 billion and not $US1.7 billion This is another example of the "broad daylight rape" and exploitation of Papua New Guinea's resources -- already evident in Madang with grossly inappropriate foreign owned, industrial tuna and timber projects. Chinese mining investment in Madang against local wishes can only be described as an invasion of sovereign peoples, and will be resisted at all costs.

What you can do: e-mail China Metallurgical Construction Corporation to let them know of your objection to their invasion of Madang.

Article by Amanda Burchell

Aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world

One of the suggested topics for this discussion was: The aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world.

Though I had a problem in tweaking the word aesthetics to suit my purposes in relation to prosthetic, I learnt to use the latter word in a metaphorical sense and the rest found poetic license in its final expression by me.

And did I want to challenge the meaning of the word aesthetics in order to suggest precision, restraint, a certain punctilious and concrete approach?

Yes, I thought that I did.

So the translation for The Aesthetics of a prosthetic and over-regulated world would be:

The precise and concrete arrangement, to which a world propped up on plastic, is delivered in a rigid and untenable manner, devoid of joy and equity.

Welcome to Australia, folks!

Welcome to Australia, folks ~ this is the world we appear to be striving for.

… ‘A mundane metal cupboard in the bowels of the Australian Museum is a last resting place for lost mammals.’
… ‘In the past 200 years Australia has driven 27 of its mammal species to extinction.’

You may not give a damn that a Quoll or a Caladenia brachyscapa (Short Spider-orchid –Tasmania) – is rare or extinct but you might, however, spare a thought for your own survival, if it comes to that.

What's next? You perhaps?

Having ruined the habitat for other mammals and flora to boot, you might think – what’s next?

You, perhaps? Since it is always all about you, you may well consider that, if Australia keeps importing extra people – and you keep producing children yourself, you may just run out of room.

Perhaps each person who steps onto Australian soil, as well as the current residents, should be buying multiple blocks of land.
A man marries a woman and has two children: multiply that out by three generations - a house for the original couple, two more for each of their children and their families, and so forth.

Well, unless everyone stops procreating for a while, we are going to have serious problems in supplying sufficient housing, food, jobs and water, for everyone.

Water

Water… do you remember that, during Jeff Kennett’s regime, he made it illegal to buy and install water tanks?

That’s because during his time, water was privatized, and he, the politician – elected by the people - had a mandate to support the private enterprise that he and his government had further encouraged in the purchase of our public utility.

By the way if you’re wondering who would like to see Australia’s population expand infinitely, I would suggest that developers and real estate agents have a vested interest in population growth, wouldn’t you?

Immigration means more listings and sales – but, if you take a good look at where they’re building these house and land packages, they’re getting further away from real infrastructure and the CBD than ever before.

Now demographers are discussing self contained satellite cities where people are contained within, never needing to leave, really.

Is that what you want? Because that’s what they are talking about as a means to grow Australia, in a 'sustainable and manageable way'.

'They' includes those politicians I mentioned before; politicians like Jeff Kennett’s who just know what’s good for us and for Australia.

Well, I’d like the voting public to think about how tough things are at the moment – and how much tougher they are likely to get with a bigger squeeze on strained resources.

The Builders and Developers are Wrong

The builders and developers are wrong. More people does not equate to a cheaper, better standard of living.

I heard the case for increasing Australia’s population back in the 1980’s and I cannot see any proof to date, that an increase’ has served the interests of that population, in general terms.

And forgive me, my youngest son; I am not a racist pig, as you once accused me of being – I just want a country that will give you a job and home – and enough water to drink.

I want a sustainable population with equity for all – for a long, long, time to come.

Amanda Burchell

Online References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_flora_of_Australia
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3915&cn=394

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct. - Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria)

When the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing convened to hear from Peta Duke on 12 March 2010, she did not attend in answer to the summons. She had written the notorious Media Plan proposing a sham public consultation process to earn favour with the electorate. Mr Madden, who had not been summoned, sat in the chair reserved for the witness – his former Ministerial adviser - and said that he would answer questions. This was a blatant attempt to take over the inquiry being carried out by Parliament into his office’s conduct.

By his crass tactics in derailing the hearing of a properly constituted committee, the Minister of Planning has tried to frustrate the accountability to Parliament of himself and his office. The Premier and the Attorney-General have supported this tactic.

"Grave abuse of power"

This impropriety strikes at the heart of Parliamentary democracy and is a grave abuse of power.

Julianne Bell, Secretary of Protectors of Public Land, Victoria, (PPL Vic), attended the hearing. She commented:

“The Minister had the opportunity to explain himself during the nine hours of debate on the subject the previous Wednesday but chose not to attend. Why would he expect a hearing now?

Minister failed to use legitimate opportunities to explain himself

Over the last six months PPL has made extensive submissions to both the Planning Department and Heritage Victoria on proposed policy, and on planning decisions, including:
• the Review of VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal),
• the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary,
• the Mornington Peninsula Link (through Westerfolds);
• the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show in the Carlton Gardens; and
• the Windsor Hotel development.

Any suggestion that public consultation could be treated as a sham is of grave concern to PPL disclosing as it does a cynical attitude to the people of Victoria. The actions of the Minister have now treated the Parliament, to which he is accountable, and which represents the people of Victoria, with contempt. The community expects our democracy to be respected.”

"Scandalous situation made worse"

Brian Walters SC, President of PPL Vic, said:

“Minister Madden has made a scandalous situation far worse. As found by the Children Overboard inquiry in the Senate, ministerial advisers have no immunity from appearing before parliamentary committees, yet it seems the Government has attempted to direct or advise her to disobey the summons to do so. This undermines the rule of law and Parliamentary oversight. If the Minister’s office is not accountable to Parliament, we have lost one of the most fundamental checks of our democratic system.”

Source: Press Release from PPL (Vic), 14 March 2010

Article adapted from original report by Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands.

Hysteria in Victorian Parliament disrupts Hearing on Finance and Administration

In Parliament yesterday (12 March 2010) television cameras from several stations caught a remarkable fracas when Planning Minister Madden gatecrashed the hearing of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Madden's staff member, Peta Duke, was subpoenaed to attend but was apparently instructed by the Attorney General NOT to attend. ALP MP Matt Viney disrupted proceedings and effectively took over, upon which the Chair Gordon Rich Phillips left and then Peter Kavanagh, which meant that there was no quorum so the meeting collapsed.

What democratic Planning activists said to the Press

Following an interview with Madden there were excellent interviews with Peter Kavanagh, David Davis and Greg Barber. Community representatives, Mary Drost for Planning Backlash, Brian Walsh for Kew Cottages Coalition, and Julianne Bell for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, made brief statements to the press. They spoke of their dismay at revelations that public consultations over planning developments had been revealed as sham and said that the farcical proceedings at the Parliamentary Inquiry were an insult to Parliament and hence to Victorians.

See the the "Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes."

Purpose of the Hearing

On 3 March 2010, the Committee agreed to the following resolution: To inquire into and report on Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and, in particular, issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The Public Hearings were scheduled for today in relation to the Inquiry. In particular the Windsor Hotel redevelopment planning process was to be looked into. These hearings were to have included one with Ms Peta Duke, Media Advisor to Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Public Submissions invited until 26 March 2010
For display on Parliament Website

However your submissions are treated in the Inquiry, having them on the Parliamentary Website is your opportunity for a real democratic voice. Tell people what you know and have seen and suffered through the planning and population push by big business and government in Victoria.

The Committee is inviting any individuals and organisations, wishing to express views on the terms of reference. Instructions are on the Inquiry website Guidelines for submissions may be downloaded here. Submissions will close on Friday, 26 March at 5.00 p.m. Once submissions are received, they will be displayed here: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/Submissions/Index.html
Other contact details for this very important inquiry are as follows:

Inquiry into Victorian Government Decision Making, Consultation and Approval Processes
Council Committees Office
Department of the Legislative Council
Parliament House
Spring Street
East Melbourne, 3002
Phone: (03) 9651 8696
Fax: (03) 9651 6799

Parliamentary Press Release 3 March Terms of Inquiry

Here is a press release from the Inquiry dated 3 March 2010. In it we can see that the terms of the Inquiry were frustrated. This may be an indication of what is often said, that Victorian laws make it impossible to get answers from politicians so that corruption is unstoppable unless we change those laws.

Source was: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/SCFPA/PC/PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf
PRESS RELEASE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INQUIRY INTO VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING, CONSULTATION AND APPROVAL PROCESSES

The Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration today met and resolved to inquire into and report on:
Victorian Government decision making, consultation and approval processes, and any knowledge and/or involvement of Ministers, Ministerial staff and/or Victorian Government officers since 1 December 2006 and in particular issues arising from media plans prepared within the Victorian Government since 1 December 2006.

The initial focus of the inquiry will be on the Windsor Hotel redevelopment process. The Committee has resolved to conduct public hearings and take evidence from the following witnesses:

• Hon. Justin Madden, MLC, Minister for Planning
• Mr Yehudi Blacher, Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Mr David Hodge, Department of Planning and Community Development
• Ms Peta Duke, media adviser
• Mr George Svigos, Premier’s media unit
• Ms Fiona Macrae, Premier’s media unit

Hearings are scheduled to commence on Friday 12 March 2010.

The Committee has also resolved to seek access to the ‘Minister for Planning Justin Madden Media Plan’ document and similar media plan documents.

GORDON RICH-PHILLIPS, MLC
CHAIRMAN
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
3 March 2010

Haiti: There's no such thing as a curse
by

First published, in French at Mondialisation.ca, 15 January 2010
Translated by Sheila Newman

How often do we hear the expression "cursed" in conjunction with Haiti's situation? As if, rather than consider the real political causes, we would rather trust in God. It's easier. Less dangerous.

God doesn't send accounts, after all. God cannot be reelected or not reelected after 4 years. The recent history of Haiti is largely that of a dispossessed country, broken, a country that liberal economics has demolished.

US abolished law stopping foreign-ownership

It wasn't God that landed on the island in 1915 and occupied it for 20 years; it was American marines that allowed Washington to abolish the clause in the Constitution that prevented foreigners from owning businesses in the country. Thousands of inhabitants were dispossessed. Giant plantations were created. Because of an army that was busier fighting its own people than anything else, it was permitted for 1% of the population to own 50% of the resources of the country.

It wasn't God either that supported Duvalier's terrible dictatorship for decades, Duvalier who was more interested in enriching himself than in building a country worthy of the name. It was France and the United States.

Political and Economic interference disastrous

And it wasn't God who overthrew Aristide, in 2004, after he had again abolished the army (as he had done in the 1990s, but was then overthrown by a coup d'Etat) and after he tried to oppose the privatisations and the external control of the country, but clearly and simply the United States, Canada and France, who replaced Aristide with the neo-liberal economist, Gérard Latortue.

It wasn't God who destroyed this country; it was Men of flesh and blood, Men who preferred to fill their pockets rather than to fight against poverty, to support a central government capable of applying stricter standards of housing or of fighting the deforestation that makes cyclones so much more dangerous.

Many other countries are hit by natural disasters. How many times has Cuba been touched by cyclones as strong as those that have hit Haiti? How many times has Japan been the victim of earthquakes just as violent as those which hit Haiti yesterday? It wasn't God that destroyed Haiti; it was Men. It wasn't God that protected the other countries; it was Men who decided it should be that way.

Sending a few dollars to Haiti is good, but that won't change the system. No-one is against charity, but you don't build a society on charity.

We could bury Haiti under thousands of millions of million billion dollars and the problem wouldn't be fixed. Haiti is the failure of a country without a strong central state, corrupted to the marrow, dispossessed of itself by ideological choices made by foreign countries.

Haiti is the result of a catastrophic history to which have been added the catastrophe of economic reforms that have diluted the power of the State, whilst creating a de facto libertarian paradise built on luck and make-do, where the lack of any social cohesion gives rise to the worst aberrations.

The best way to help the Haitians isn't to send them money. It is by demanding that each of our governments but out so that, finally, once and for all, the Haitians can be responsible for their bad luck and their good luck.

So that, finally, we stop blaming God and instead we look at what we Men can do for this destroyed land.

And perhaps, also, remembering that our governments have Haitian blood on their hands and that they are directly responsible for that unspeakable catastrope because of their persistent interference to stop Haiti developing.

We can add these tens of thousands of deaths to the tragic total of savage capitalism; they are less visible than the victims of 'communism', but just as dead!

Maybe that's another advantage of having God at your sides ...

Source: Louis Préfontaine's blog.

http://louisprefontaine.com/

Articles de Louis Préfontaine publiés par Mondialisation.ca

Originally published: 8 Jan 10. Updated and revised: 12 Jan 10.

#EliteImposition" id="EliteImposition">How Australian "democracy" imposes "elite as opposed to popular views"

In the March 2009 Queensland elections, called early and conveniently before the Auditor General's damning reports on Health and Transport, Labor clung to power by concealing the likely privatisation of publicly owned assets and promising to maintain the state fuel subsidy. Regaining office, the fuel subsidy went, charges for registration and public transport rocketed and a $15 billion public asset fire sale was announced - although opposed by 79% of the Queensland public.

The citizens of most other Australian states are treated little better. So, in early 2010, Australians are not in any meaningful sense ruled by "government of the people by the people for the people."

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke actually boasted about his similar failure to democratically consult during a speech at a Bureau of Immigration Research conference, when he claimed that he had enforced "elite as opposed to popular views on immigration."_#main-fn1">1

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke imposed "elite
as opposed to popular views" on immigration,
privatisation, financial deregulation and other
economic 'reforms'.

Over the last 3 decades at least, "elite as opposed to popular views" have been imposed in regard to many other important policy decisions. Examples of such unconsultative policies implemented include the removal of tariff barriers to prevent the export of Australian jobs to slave wage economies; the removal of barriers which prevented foreign companies from buying our mineral wealth; the removal of barriers to foreign investors being able to buy up Australian real estate; the deregulation of our finance sector; the privatisation of our retirement income on a model similar to the one enacted by the Chilean military junta in the 1970's,_#main-fn3">3 the privatisation of government-owned businesses including Telstra, QANTAS and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories; and the corporatisation or privatisation of vital resources: water and power utilities, and of infrastructure normally owned and paid for by taxpayers, such as roads and public transport.

There have also been numerous disposals of public parkland, such as 20 hectare Royal Park in Melbourne, and the massive rezoning to urban of "Green Wedges" (environmentally beneficial low-impact rural and publicly accessible bush and recreational land)._#main-fn4">4

We have also lost publicly owned state banks, insurance companies, and local, state and national services, including road-making, land-development, public housing construction, the prison system and monopolies on marketing agricultural product - such as in the privatisation of the wheat board._#main-fn5">5 The public is the poorer.

We have also seen the imposition of the National Competition Policy on all levels of Government, the forcible amalgamation of local governments, the removal of the rights of local governments (and therefore of residents and citizens) to oppose local housing and other developments,_#main-fn6">6 the imposition of costly environmentally destructive projects against the wishes of the local communities, the destruction of farmland and bushland to allow the construction of mines, the threatened imposition of a Chinese-style Internet firewall, etc., etc.

Who can argue that these changes have not diminished our democracy?

#ElectiveTyranny" id="ElectiveTyranny">An elective tyranny

Nicholas Aroney, one of the authors of "Restraining Elective Dictatorship: The upper house solution?" (2008) describes our system, as the title of his book implies, as elective dictatorship_#main-fn7">7 A more accurate term in 2009 would, perhaps, be elective tyranny.

Amongst the latest examples of the enforcement of "elite as opposed to popular views" is, as mentioned at the start of this article, the Queensland State Government's plan to sell off $15 billion of assets: coal railway lines and the newly built Abbot Point coal loader; ports, tollways and state forests. This fire sale is on top of the already considerable number of publicly owned assets that the ALP dominated Queensland parliament has already allowed to be sold off since first winning office in 1998. This latest "fire sale" has been opposed by between 79% and 84% of Queenslanders according to the Courier-Mail's Galaxy poll._#main-fn8">8

The newsmedia still insist that this system that allows our Governments, as a matter of course, to thus "impose elite as opposed to popular views" is democracy.

Why?

Because every three or four years, voters are given a the right to vote out a Government that the majority has judged to have served them poorly and vote in another they hope will do a better job.

There are a number of problems with this.

1. By the time voters remove a government, much irreversible harm may already have been done.

   Many policies, even if made against the will of the people, will have been locked-in by contracts that typically are difficult or impossible to cancel. For instance, while they were successively in opposition, the NSW Liberal and Labor parties both promised to cancel tollway-construction contracts that governments of the day entered from the late 1980s onwards. Upon winning office however, the new Liberal or Labor government would invariably announce that the financial penalties so-incurred would make breaking the contract impossible.

   It is even harder to reverse privatisations, environmental destruction or population increases.

2. Even at election times, Governments are rarely held to account by the newsmedia.

   The snap elections of Queensland in March 2009 were a glaring example. Between them, the Labor Party and the media_#main-fn9">9 literally cheated the Queensland people out of having any say about privatisation at those elections. Having feared this and prepared for it by presenting as a candidate myself, I provided abundant evidence, to the media and to the ABC in particular, that privatisation was a major issue in those elections. Despite my repeated efforts documenting this, the media in question persistently, refused to seriously question the Government on the issue. As a consequence, the Labor Government was returned to office without once having been required to state clearly what its intentions in regard to privatisation were or to justify them.

   The power for an incumbent Government to choose the time of the election can also help it to evade scrutiny. For instance, if the Queensland elections had been held after the publication of the Auditor General's damning reports on Queensland's health_{#main-fn10">10} and transport systems_{#main-fn11">11}

   , the Labor Party probably could not have been re-elected.

3. Alternative candidates not backed by corporate funding are unable to present their views to the public.

   Even though polls taken during the 2009 elections showed that 59% of electors opposed Labor and 59% opposed the Liberal National Party_{#main-fn12">12}, the newsmedia refused to give air-time to alternative candidates so that the public could learn of their existence before they got to the ballot box and decide ahead whether or not they deserved their vote.

   Consequently, most voters would have seen no choice except to vote for the lesser of two evils promoted by the media almost as the only two on offer, rather than candidates who, finding Tweedledee and Tweedledum wanting, stood for different policies.

So, even at elections, the rare occasion upon which the public has any opportunity to have any say over the direction of their country, in our mainstream media-captive elections, the mainstream media does not provide the public with a real opportunity to make a properly informed choice. It fails to make public, or to adequately promote, all the available choices.

You would be right to call the media 'anti-choice'.

#BetweenElections" id="BetweenElections">Decisions between elections

Between elections, the situation becomes immeasurably worse as Governments assume the right to do anything that comes into their heads, which may benefit party investments or may be put to them by corporate lobbyists. Often they act behind closed doors, refusing to answer questions, claiming protection through "in confidence" agreements,

Yes, government decisions don't just fall out of the sky. They are discussed and agreed to behind closed doors by corporate elites and the political parties' negotiators, then they are conveyed to the parliamentary delegates to enact.

For instance, from former Labor Government member Cate Molloy, we know_{#main-fn13">13} that the disastrous and unpopular local government amalgamations enacted in 2007 by Premier Beattie and the then Minister for local Government, Andrew Fraser, and forced upon the people of Queensland, were made at the behest of the Property Council of Australia (PCA). The PCA behaved as if it considered the popular Noosa Shire Council and Douglas Shire Councils, and probably others, as impediments to its plans.

#CostOfLiving" id="CostOfLiving">The cost of losing democratic control is already measurable in our environment, quality of life and cost of living

In 2009, as a result of many years of what our anti-choice media continues to call 'democracy', the quality of life of Queenslanders has eroded enormously, whilst the cost of living in terms of housing, food, council rates, water charges, electricity charges, vehicle registration charges, public transport charges, traffic infringement fines, etc. has gone through the roof and is heading towards the stratosphere. Indeed we have no idea where, when, or if ever it will stop. For instance, the Courier Mail story "Monster power price hike" of Friday 18  Dec 09 reports:

The Queensland Competition Authority 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._{#main-fn14">14}

Thus in 2009, the heavy price already paid by Queenslanders for former Premier Peter Beattie's decision - similarly made without their consent - to privatise the retail arm of the state owned electricity utility, continues to climb.

Meanwhile, the Queensland Government seems barely constrained by the breaking of its explicit election-promise to retain the fuel subsidy or the failure to materialise of the 100,000 new jobs it promised at election-time to create.

As with the 2006 privatisation, Queenslanders are today being assured that the fire sale will be for the best. A significant number of respected economists dispute this, however. Among these dissenters are Professor John Quiggin and Professor Bob Walker. Both have written detailed studies which dispute the case for privatisation. Thus far, Andrew Fraser and the Queensland Government have not responded in any written detail to their suggestions.

But why should the people of Queensland have to wait over two more years to remove the Government from office? Why should they be expected to watch passively as a wave of privatisations sets in concrete along with other policies that will further degrade their quality of life and destroy their children's future?

#AssertingCitizensRights" id="AssertingCitizensRights">How can citizens assert their right to self-government?

Governments that have betrayed the trust of the public as the Queensland Government has done do not deserve to remain in office. Citizens must somehow establish their constitutional right to force such governments to face new elections.

On 11 December 2009, the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper set up online a petition_{#main-fn15">15} which called for the establishment of such a constitutional right in NSW. The petition is:

We, the people, believe the State of NSW is being neglected. The State government has failed to adequately address the crisis in hospitals, public transport, education and housing supply. Continuing factional warfare has paralysed the government. We should not have to wait until March 2011 to exercise our democratic right. To stop this happening again we need a mechanism to call an early election. By supporting this petition, we are calling for a change to the constitution to enable this to happen. We demand a referendum on this at the next State election.

I support the right of the people of NSW to call an early election.

The reasoning in support of this petition seems somewhat flawed. Although the petition calls for a structural change which would improve democratic rights, its reasons are quite undemocratic, for example, the petition's complaint of "Continuing factional warfare has paralysed the government." The article in support of the petition further complains:

The failure to privatise the power industry - an attempt undermined by Labor's union allies - has kept the budget on the edge of crisis.

Taken together, these words essentially parrot the stance of the NSW corporate media including the SMH and the ABC in favour of the privatisation that the Iemma state Labor Government attempted to undemocratically impose, without any electoral mandate, against the wishes of between 79% and 86% of the NSW public and against those of the Labor Party itself.

Whilst the factions in the NSW Labor Party are generally little better than fiefdoms to serve the political aspirations of Labor politicians, Labor apparatchiks and Union officials, at the expense of ordinary Labor Party members, union members and the broader NSW public, there is actually nothing inherently wrong with factions. A faction can also be a vehicle for disaffected rank and file members to regain control of a corrupted organisation. At the least it may provide the means to assert the will of the rank and file on an issue such as privatisation. In the fight against privatisation in 2008, the dominant right wing faction of the Labor Party stood for democracy and the people of NSW against the dominant clique in the NSW Parliamentary Labor Party and the NSW corporate sector. Whatever can be rightly said against that faction, they deserve credit for having taken that stance and not to have been pilloried_{#main-fn16">16} for that.

If there is anything worse than factional in-fighting, it would be the uncritical conformity and discipline that Premier Morris Iemma attempted somewhat unsuccessfully to inculcate in Labor MPs who were resolved to vote against privatisation in 2008.

Such an implicit condemnation in principle of a sometimes necessary vehicle in democracy should not be found within a petition calling for democratic reform.

It seems likely that media moguls think that they would be able to persuade the public to vote out governments which fail to do what the corporate sector and its media-mouthpiece demand._{#main-fn17">17} We should keep this in mind, whilst remembering that the media already run Australia's political show, so we still will gain by increasing our power through election referenda.

The petition therefore deserves the enthusiastic support of NSW residents despite its corporate baggage.

#e-petition" id="e-petition">Your support for on-line petition, calling for resignation of Queensland Government and new elections, needed

In Queensland, I have set up a Queensland Parliamentary e-petition, on the e-petition page, sponsored by Independent Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Dorothy Pratt. This petition takes a more direct approach than the NSW one and simply calls for the government to resign and for new elections. It does not also address the constitutional question that the SMH petition addresses. This is partly due to the 250 word-limit rule on both petition and preamble. Future petitions might address the question of citizens' referenda separately.

Meanwhile here are the words of the petition calling for the resignation of the Queensland government:

TO: The Honourable Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Queensland citizens draws to the attention of the House the Queensland public, the rightful owners of $15 billion worth of assets which are to be sold, were denied any say over this because of the failure of the Queensland government to reveal those plans during the course of the elections. We consider the stated intention of the government to proceed with the sale in the face of opinion polls, which show at least 80% public opposition, to be amongst the most serious breaches of public trust imaginable.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to call upon the Queensland Government to resign immediately to give the Queensland public a chance to elect a new Government which can gain its trust. Your petitioners also warn any private investors considering buying the assets, not to do so and call upon a future State government which does enjoy the trust and confidence of the Queensland people not to honour any such contracts for the sale of assets.

#WhatCanE-petitionAchieve" id="WhatCanE-petitionAchieve">What can this petition hope to achieve?

Queenslanders were outraged at the announcement of the $15 billion fire sale and the breaking of an explicit promise to retain the state fuel subsidy. The government responded to this by claiming that it had sought and received a mandate to take whatever tough measures it deemed necessary to get Queensland through the Global Financial Crisis. As put by Treasurer Andrew Fraser to me during the course of an interview on Sunday 29 November, 2009:

Well, as I said really clearly during the election campaign ... there were going to be tough choices that we had to face, and we've had to face those._{#main-fn18">18}

Andrew Fraser's apparent interpretation that, by voting the government back in, Queenslanders were giving it a blank cheque to flog off their assets came as a shock to many Queenslanders, 72% of whom in a Courier Mail Galaxy poll said they believed that the Labor Party had lied about its privatisation intentions._{#main-fn19">19}

The simple fact is that the Queensland Government would not even be in office today if it had given to the Queensland public any hint that an asset fire sale was a possibility,_{#main-fn20">20} or if it had not promised to retain the state fuel subsidy._{#main-fn21">21}

As such, the people of Queensland are entitled to view the Government itself as illegitimate and should say so at every possible opportunity, such as the one which this petition provides.

If this petition were to be supported by large numbers of Queensland citizens it could be a powerful demonstration that of their rejection of Bligh's and Fraser's implied rationale for proceeding with the fire sale in defiance of their clear wishes. It would be a clear message that it is wrong for the Queensland government to pretend that they somehow know better what is good for Queenslanders than Queenslanders do. It would show that Queensland voters expect to be asked about hard decisions and to have a full range of options considered, contrary to the implication that, deep down a childlike public wants the Government to proceed in an authoritarian way.

If the many Queenslanders enraged by this Government's high handed arrogance become aware of this petition, there should be no reason why it would not attract at least as much support as any other petition thus far, at the bare minimum. Whilst it is difficult to be able to predict just how many will eventually sign, the order of at least 100,000 signatures should be achievable.

To make this happen, a lot of people will need to sign the petition themselves and to make efforts to contact other people who they know are likely to want to sign.

Those in a position to help make this happen include:

• Independent members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly (MLA's)
• Liberal National Party MLA's
• Local Government Councillors
• Trade Unionists
• The Greens Party
• Other political parties such as the New Australia Party, the Democratic Labor Party, Australia First, etc.
• Environmental organisations
• Grass roots community groups fighting environmentally destructive infrastructure or mining such as the Save the Mary River Coalition, the Stop the Hale Street Bridge Group, Friends of Felton.
• Scientists and other public servants fighting to save their jobs from this Government's short sighted budgetary cutbacks._{#main-fn22">22}

Of course even if every voter in Queensland, who is not a member of the State Parliamentary Labor caucus, were to sign this petition, no constitutional requirement exists as yet to make the Government carry out the petition's request.

History has shown, however, that it is difficult for any Government to continue to act in defiance of an effective grass-roots political movement such as that which could emerge from this campaign if backed by the weight of massive public opinion.

#LaborPartyMembers" id="LaborPartyMembers">Why Labor Party members and trade unionists should sign the petition

Whilst Labor party members and trade unionists are as disgusted as the rest of Queensland with the fire sale, some are, nevertheless, unwilling to do anything that might entail the removal of the Bligh Government from office. They feel this way in spite of the large hoardings all over Queensland denouncing the Labor Government's betrayal of working people.

This reluctance is partly understandable for a number of reasons. The memory of the Federal Howard Government, the record of some extremely reactionary Liberal National coalition governments in other states holds them back. They may also not be altogether convinced that the LNP, in Government, would reverse privatisation.

They should still ask themselves: What possible good can come from the perpetuation of the misrule of the Bligh Government? They need to ask: When only two Labor Parliamentarians voted against privatisation inside Parliamentary caucus, where they are entitled to freely express their views and vote whichever way they choose, in early June, what possible good can come out of such a caucus? Yes, only two Labor caucus members voted against privatisation_{#main-fn23">23} even though the Government had no electoral mandate whatsoever for privatisation, 84% of Queenslanders opposed it, and it was against the Labor Party's own platform.

Again I ask, what good is such a caucus?

If the government manages somehow to scrape back into power in 2012, it will almost certainly claim to have been vindicated and feel emboldened to do even worse. What then will be safe in Queensland?

If the government is thrown out, despite continuing Labor Party member and trade union support, those supporters are likely to be seriously scapegoated (through savage industrial legislation and discriminatory electorate funding) just as the incoming Howard Government was able to scapegoat and victimise much of Labor's constituency upon winning office in 1996. This is likely to happen because they will be seen to have supported a rotten and unpopular government, through blind obedience or a pathetic desire to retain eroding positions of government influence._{#main-fn24">24}

Because of the cowardice of the majority of delegates at the Queen's Birthday weekend Labor Party conference, who voted to support privatisation,_{#main-fn25">25} formal Labor Party avenues to rectify the situation have now been closed off. Other practical alternatives need now to be found.

#WhatRisks" id="WhatRisks">What are the risks?

If the elections to be held were fair, unlike those of March 2009, in which the ABC and the corporate media deliberately censored news of alternatives to the major candidates, there is every chance that the new Parliament would contain a large number of Independents, Greens and representatives from other minor parties, who would be able to wield considerable influence.

An outcome which also seems possible is a Parliament in which the Liberal National Party might comprise an outright majority.

It can't be be known for certain whether such a government would not turn out to be in the mould of an extreme, "Shock Doctrine" style government similar, for example, to that of Jeff Kennett's, which ruled Victoria from 1992 until 1999, rather than one merely governing in the public interest within the constraints of its electoral mandate.

#CounteringRisks" id="CounteringRisks">How can the risks be mitigated?

Even if the worst fears were realised, the precedent established by the removal of the Labor Government would be every bit as applicable to an LNP Government, the moment it was seen to have exceeded its electoral mandate.

Whatever the outcome, the known risks for Queenslanders in meekly acquiescing to the dictatorial misrule of the Bligh Government are greater than the risks of the unknown, as I have argued above.

In all likelihood, removal of the despised Government of Premier Anna Bligh would be the first step on the road to politicians becoming, once again, the servants of ordinary people, instead of the other way around.

Further steps along that road, would include making a change to the constitution to formally incorporate the right of citizens to recall unsatisfactory elected representatives, as is now being sought in NSW (see above) and the enactment of laws that enshrined the right of ordinary citizens, upon demonstrating a threshold of support in the community for a proposal for a legislative change, to initiate a binding referendum. These measures would comprise strong safeguards against politicians ever being able to abuse their office in the way that the Queensland Government is doing today.

A grass-roots political movement (perhaps not altogether dissimilar to that which let to the formation of the original Australian Labor Party in the 1890's, before it become so thoroughly corrupted by the influence the wealthy corporate benefactors and, more recently, private party investments_{#main-fn26">26}) could help propel that process forward.

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

• If you are Queensland citizen, please sign this petition yourself without delay. The sooner you sign it, the more others will feel encouraged also to sign. It will be active until 2 March 2010.

• If you are a New South Wales citizen, please sign this petition. It is important that you do so, without delay as the close-of day has not been specified. It appears to have been set up on or before 11 Dec 09. When signing, please be mindful of the unfortunate anti-democratic baggage contained in it, as discussed #AssertingCitizensRights">above.

• Tell others about the petition and urge them to sign. Please send e-mails containing this article or links to this article and a link to the petitions.

• Publish this article on your web site, or post links to this article and to the online petitions.

• Post links to the article and the online petitions to mailing lists and to online forums.

• Write letters to the paper in support of this petition.

• Phone radio talkback shows to announce this petition.

• Post your own thoughts about these petitions, whether wholly supportive or critical.

See also: Murdoch media contradicts itself on immigration of 18 Feb 09

#Footnotes" id="Footnotes">Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ Cited in Overloading Australia (2009) by Mark O'Connor and William Lines, p186. Cited earlier in This Tired Brown Land (1998), p179. From "This Tired Brown Land":

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke boasted at the Bureau of Immigration Research's National Outlook Conference in Brisbane in 1993 that his government had enforced "elite as opposed to popular views on immigration." By "elite" he did not mean "expert", for, as explained in a previous chapter, he had ignored advice not only from the Australian Academy of Science and CSIRO, but also from the government's two main sources of economic advice, Treasury and EPAC. By 'elite' he was referring to the bipartisan political support for high-immigration that existed in Australia throughout the 1980s and much of the 1990s, supported by large sections of the media -- especially by most of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation -- and by most of the public service and the most tertiary teachers.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. ↑ See, for instance: "Review of ABC 7.30 Report on Australia's steeply rising population" of 13 Oct 09, "Bernard Salt on the Population 'debate'" of 10 Oct 09, "Concerns about the Age, the Australian and the ABC censoring population debate" of 14 Dec 09, "Growing population calls for big picture focus" - Democracy, immigration and the politics of the Age Newspaper" of 12 Feb 09.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ In "Australia's neoliberal path" (p3) in Dissent Magazine number 23 of Autumn/Winter 2007, Kenneth Davidson writes:

A major 'reform' imposed on Chile on the advice of the 'Chicago Boys' was the privatisation of public pensions, which was replaced by privatised superannuation (adopted in Australia in 1986, proposed by President George W. Bush in 2004 and rejected by a Republican-controlled Congress).

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ See articles grouped by the tag "Protectors of Public Lands" at http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/1231 .

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ See "Why privatisation is wrong" of 10 May 08.

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ See "Bligh Government tramples on community rights to impose over-development" of 11 Jun 08.

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. #main-fn7-txt">↑ See transcript of The National Interest story "Upper houses: relics or champions of democracy?" of 20 Mar 09.

#main-fn8" id="main-fn8">8. #main-fn8-txt">↑ At least three polls of public opinion have been taken by the Courier-Mail's Galaxy Poll. The first two both showed 84% opposition. The first poll was reported in the Courier-Mail story "Voters believe Bligh lied before election" of 19 Jun 09. A subsequent poll reported in "Queensland anger over Anna Bligh's asset sale on the wane" of 3 Dec 09 showed that this opposition had dropped by 5% top a still overwhelming 79%. I wrote of this in my article "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09.

#main-fn9" id="main-fn9">9. #main-fn9-txt">↑ The LNP's record was also questionable as I reported in my articles "Independent candidate seeks categorical assurance against privatisation" of 11 Mar 09 and "Media release: Lawrence Springborg out of step with the public on privatisation" of 20 Mar 09.

However, since the elections, the LNP under its new leader John-Paul Langbroek have consistently argued against privatisation. However, the fact that one of their stated reasons for opposing the fire sale is that they don't think that assets should be sold when the market is depressed could leave the door open for that policy to be changed in future. Conversely, the fact that a Courier-Mail article in December or November by Paul Williams exhorted John-Paul Langbroek to abandon his naive 'idealism' is a clue that it is by no means assured that the LNP will reverse its current stance against privatisation. Moreover they appear to be vastly more responsive to the will of their constituencies, who are opposed to privatisation, than are the Labor Party MLA's. On at least one occasion that was barely reported in the media, John Paul-Langbroek called upon the Government to put the question of privatisation to the people of Queensland.

#main-fn10" id="main-fn10">10. #main-fn10-txt">↑ See "Auditor questions hospitals' patient flow system" by Petrina Berry in the Brisbane Times of 29 Jul 09. Download report (PDF, 647K) and executive summary (PDF 310K) from http://www.qao.qld.gov.au/pages/publications/pub_ag.html.

#main-fn11" id="main-fn11">11. #main-fn11-txt">↑ See "South-East Queensland transport planning in disarray" by Daniel Hurst and Tony Moore in the Brisbane Times of 23 Jun 09. Download report (PDF, 534K) and executive summary (PDF 285K) from http://www.qao.qld.gov.au/pages/publications/pub_ag.html.

#main-fn12" id="main-fn12">12. #main-fn12-txt">↑ The first Galaxy poll was reported very early in the campaign, whilst the second was reported on the 20th March, the day before, the election from my recollection.

#main-fn13" id="main-fn13">13. #main-fn13-txt">↑ "Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia" of 7 Sep 07.

#main-fn14" id="main-fn14">14. #main-fn14-txt">↑ "Monster power price hike" in the Courier-Mail of Friday 18 Dec 09.

#main-fn15" id="main-fn15">15. #main-fn15-txt">↑ The petition is at http://polls.smh.com.au/index.php?sid=36127&lang=en. The article in support of the petition is "It's time the people of NSW were heard" in the SMH of 11 Dec 09.

#main-fn16" id="main-fn16">16. #main-fn16-txt">↑ The Four Corners program "Off the Rails", whilst providing a useful account of the mismanagement of the public transport system by the NSW Labor Government, inexplicably and falsely blamed that on its decision not to privatise the publicly owned electricity generating assets. This is explicitly stated in the promotion for that program:

When talking with Labor insiders, Wendy discovers that this latest project is simply the end game in a bitter battle waged over the past ten years between Labor's MPs and the union dominated party machine.

In that decade two Premiers, who wanted to sell public assets to provide decent public transport, have been sacrificed so that union leaders could protect their members' jobs and their own political power. Meanwhile, major tracts of Sydney's west go without adequate public transport.

Another example of the ABC parroting the corporate media view on privatisation is described in the story "ABC gives free kick to Iemma, NSW electricity privatisation" of 21 Jul 08.

#main-fn17" id="main-fn17">17. #main-fn17-txt">↑ One famous attempt to use recall provisions to oust Governments which are genuinely acting in the interests of the people and not corporations is the ultimately unsuccessful attempt to recall Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. One successful recall attempt which appeared to have been inspired by corporate interests, in this case Enron, was the Californian recall election of 2003, which removed sitting Governor Gray Davis and allowed Arnold Schwarzenegger to come to office. In spite of these examples, the right to recall still seems far more likely to strengthen the hands of ordinary citizens against corporations that the reverse.

#main-fn18" id="main-fn18">18. #main-fn18-txt">↑ "Anti-privatisation candidate confronts Queensland Treasurer" (updated) of 2 Jan 09.

#main-fn19" id="main-fn19">19. #main-fn19-txt">↑ "Voters believe Bligh lied before election" in the Courier-Mail of 19 Jun 09. I initially wrote 66%. This is the figure I used in the interview with Andrew Fraser, referred to in #main-fn18">(18). The Courier-Mail article, which refers to the Galaxy Poll, says 72%.

#main-fn20" id="main-fn20">20. #main-fn20-txt">↑ As mentioned above, it was not clear during the course of the election campaign that the LNP was opposed to privatisation. However, in the unlikely event that the LNP as well as Labor explicitly endorsed privatisation, voters would have flocked to the Greens and Independents. On top of that there would have been a huge outcry against privatisation from much of the LNP's own rural base of support, who are at least as much opposed to privatisation as ordinary Labor supporters. The very best that Labor could have hoped for in these circumstances would have been to able to form a minority Government dependent upon the votes of a large number of Greens and Independent MPs. Had the LNP opposed privatisation there would have been a landslide against Labor.

#main-fn21" id="main-fn21">21. #main-fn21-txt">↑ In fact, in the light of looming petroleum depletion, a case can be made for abolishing fuel subsidies, in order to encourage business and private individuals to limit the rate at which they consume petroleum in their day to day activities. The Queensland Government has not made this case, however. Instead it has committed public funding to costly, impractical and unsustainable infrastructure that will increase both population and car dependency. However, whatever the reasons for the scrapping of the subsidy were, they should have been put during the course of the elections.

#main-fn22" id="main-fn22">22. #main-fn22-txt">↑ An example is the 40 workers at the Leslie Research Centre whose jobs were axed in December. After years of running down its once world-leading agricultural research facilities, the Government of the "Smart State" decided just before Christmas to close down the Leslie Research Centre in Toowoomba, together with irreplaceable staff with many years training and experience. Stories about this include: "Primary industries staff won't be sacked: minister" in the Brisbane Times of 21 Dec 09, "Aussie ag 'losing edge'" by Peter Hunter in the the Weekly Times Now of 30 Dec 09, "Foundation cries foul over sale" in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 1 Oct 09.

#main-fn23" id="main-fn23">23. #main-fn23-txt">↑ "Only two Labor MPs -- Jo-Ann Miller and Evan Moorhead -- are believed to have voted against the plan,..." from "Premier defies angry backlash over assets sale" in the Courier-Mail of 2 Jun 09.

#main-fn24" id="main-fn24">24. #main-fn24-txt">↑ A lot of letters and online comments against privatisation, in fact, proffer the solution of savagely cutting back on employment in the public service. A number have expressed disgust at the refusal of Trade Unions claiming opposition to privatisation yet failing to seriously oppose the Bligh Government on this matter.

#main-fn25" id="main-fn25">25. #main-fn25-txt">↑ "Delegates give green light to push ahead with $15b sale" in the Courier-Mail of 7 Jun 09, "ALP conference gives Bligh an ovation" in the Age of 7 Jun 09, "Electricians split from Labor left over asset sell-off" in the Brisbane Times of 10 Jun 09, "Documents are real eye-openers" in the Gladstone Observer of 21 Jul 09.

At the conference 44 delegates from unions claiming to be opposed to privatisation abstained from the critical vote. If those 44 votes had been added to the 156 votes against privatisation, the vote would still have been 207 to 200 in favour of privatisation. However, the abovementioned story in the Gladstone Observer reports that three delegates from the Gladstone branch, which was opposed to privatisation, voted for privatisation on the floor of the conference. If they had voted against privatisation, the majority would only have been 204 to 203.

How many other votes that made up the pro-privatisation majority would have similarly been cast by delegates against the wishes of branch members?

In any case, if the vote had truly represented the views of unionists and rank and file Labor Party members supposedly represented by the delegates, the vote would have been overwhelmingly against. As an example, it seems inconceivable that a majority of members of the Australian Workers Union, which voted as a bloc for privatisation, would have been in favour of privatisation.

#main-fn26" id="main-fn26">26. #main-fn26-txt">↑ See "John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform" of 4 Dec 09.

Ban Developer Donations Now!

Send to: drostmary[AT]gmail.com

NSW former Premier Nathan Rees told the ALP State Conference in Sydney last month that 'a clean slate' ban on all donations from developers would apply to all levels of the party in NSW.

[Hmm, is that why he was replaced?]

The challenge for Victoria, other States, and the Commonwealth to follow NSW's example and reform their own political funding models without further delay is now clear.

Political campaign reform here in Victoria is long overdue. The public has had enough of the stench brought about by large political donations that appear to be closely linked to contentious property developments and favourable planning decisions.

Political donation disclosure is a joke. The next Victorian State election is expected to be held on 27th November 2010, but loopholes in election campaign disclosure law mean that political donations made between now and June 2010 will not even be disclosed to the public by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) until 2011, and donations made between June 2010 and Election Day will not be disclosed to the public until a year later in 2012 !

This lack of transparency is undemocratic, and must not be allowed to continue.

A Victorian Parliamentary Report earlier this year recommended the 'Harmonisation of Victorian and Commonwealth electoral law' including funding and disclosure obligations.

So Brumby has no time to lose. The Premier must act swiftly to ensure bans on developer donations and other changes necessary are all firmly in place for the next election in November 2010.

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF

or

SIGNED

Fill in your organisation or just your name.

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.

Real estate speculation occurs on previously unknown levels via the global Internet, with rapid convergence and mushrooming of of speculative industries and professions across government and private sector. At Federal level, the National Foreign Investment Review Board (NFIRB) promotes foreign investment in local real estate and encourages housing purchases by temporary immigrants for high turnover. Local realtors tout Australian property internationally, using private migration agents and local solicitors. At State level (where land use planning laws are made), organizations like the Property Council of Australia (PCA) are closely involved with determining government policy. The Australian citizen has less and less say in any of this.
Illustration a collation of old icons from sites encouraging foreign investment and immigration.

Consequences for the economy of big rises or drops in housing prices

Various convoluted explanations exist for why high land prices (= land/housing prices) would not affect general inflation. These arguments do not hold, however, when a major factor in inflation comes from outside the local economy. In this article I draw attention to the likely impact of the addition to the Australian property market of more and more home buyers and property investors purchasing from overseas using foreign currency that has greater value than our local currency. Some may be from poor countries but they may also be among the world’s richest citizens.

Australia as a Pacific Island economy with little protection for citizens

The impact ressembles the effect of first world tourists on a third world economy.

Prices go up to meet the pockets of the tourists and locals are priced out of the market and reduced to living from a sort of fringe economy, as the more lucrative tourist economy takes over. Those locals that have held onto property are able to interact with the foreign-based currency holders on a more equal footing, since their assets have benefited from the
inflation. They become the elite. Rentals, like hotel prices, go up way past the affordability of the bulk of the locals, who are more and more marginalised. The rents still seem quite cheap to the tourists and foreign residents as long as these foreign residents hold substantial foreign currency and as long as their currency remains better than the local currency, or they remain wealthy by world standards.

A better system of land-tenure does exist, but we don't have it

The continental European (Napoleonic) system developed in France after the Revolution does protect citizens from this kind of impoverishment.

First world tourists will often complain about the outrageous prices of everything in tourist-affected economies like Noumea, French Guyana, the Seychelles etc. It is not so easy in these places to find little indigenous hotels where you may stay for a
song, and dine at little cost. At least one of the reasons for this is that in the overseas French territories the French system safeguards adequate public housing at affordable prices, as well as prioritising the employment of locals, the education of locals, the health system for locals, and unemployment benefits etc. This means that much of the earnings from foreign currency are passed on throughout the economy and to most of the population. So, whilst prices remain so high that only the rich really tend to stay in French resorts, the locals have sufficient incomes for them to be able to live within that economy without becoming marginalised into a secondary economy. This is a source of frustration to those who expect all resort economies located in third world areas, like the South Pacific and the Caribbean, to provide for cut-rate tourism. It is, however, a great thing for those who actually live on the islands.

Unfortunately Australia has a bad land-use planning system which leaves its citizens vulnerable.

Globalisation of Australian real estate

Real estate speculation has been made possible on a level never previously conceived of due to the global Internet, through property dot coms like the media-owned www.realestate.com.au and www.domain.com.au. This has permitted rapid convergence and mushrooming of speculative industries and professions across government and private sector. We have at the Federal level, the National Foreign Investment Review Board (NFIRB) ramping up foreign investment in local built and off-the-plan real estate and facilitating built housing purchases by temporary immigrants for high turnover. On the local level we have realtors touting local property internationally with the assistance of private migration agents and local solicitors. At State level (where land use planning laws are made), organizations like the Property Council of Australia (APC) are closely involved with determining government policy.

Australians as islanders without effective rights of citizenship

Australian citizens are in the same predicament as the indigenous populations of small pacific island colonies when international developers decide to turn them into resorts and start building hotels and up-market housing. Resources and ammenities become limited commodities which only the rich can afford, and pretty soon the locals are barely subsisting in shanty-towns.

In the late 1980s people started to see that what was happening to Australia was the same thing that happened in Hawaii, where real-estate prices are notoriously high and related to the presence of a high volume of foreign investment capital.[10] During the pre-internet hike in Australia's land/house prices, beginning around 1988 and following the highest total net immigration in Australia prior to the current record-breaking period (2006-), there was an out-cry. The Australian government responded by barring foreigners from purchasing established dwellings in September 1987.

Urban researcher, Peter Rimmer[11] observed, however, that this did not prevent "Australians living abroad, immigrants with permission to settle permanently in Australia, and foreign companies seeking accommodation for executives from purchasing residences."[12]

Continuous erosion of our foreign investment laws

Subsequent amendments to the Acquisitions and foreign takeovers Act (1975) have considerably watered down even these weak protections.[13] The FIRB now seems almost to be leading the charge in touting Australian real estate to foreigners with superior currency.[14] Foreigners on short-term visas, such as students staying for one year, are positively
encouraged to purchase established dwellings, providing they sell them when they leave at the end of one year. Short-term immigrants also provide a good market for rentals. The effect of this rate of turnover on land/housing prices must be hugely inflationary. A strong indication that it is considered a source of big money by the speculative real-estate suppliers to the market is the aggressive promotion of this opportunity for purchasing Australian real estate by migration agents with real estate and legal firm connections on the Internet.[15]

The 1973 Oil Shock

These trends to opening up Australian real estate and other equities began after the 1973 oil shock, in 1975, with Prime Minister Fraser. From less than 10% in 1972-75 under Whitlam, foreign investment in Australia increased to 49% of GDP in 1990-91. By 1986 more than half was destined for real-estate investment.[16] Prime Minister Fraser initiated a long series of amendments of the Australian Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act (1975) with the effect of increasingly facilitating foreign investment in property development and real estate.[17]

In post-oil shock Japan opportunities for newly formed construction companies and developers shrank. Rimmer wrote that those major Japanese construction companies, which had been hurt by policies of zero public sector growth, preference for regional contractors, and sluggish private sector activity in Japan, particularly through fiscal policy in the early 80s, adapted to the situation by seeking work in other countries. They brought with them the funds invested by Japanese investors and banks, offering "the most favourable fixed price" and "to take an equity in the project if necessary, arrange loans at low interest rates from financial institutions in Japan or Australia" and guaranteeing "any money required if the project [went] over cost".

Australia, which was keen to attract major projects during the recession of the late 1980s, largely in the hope of job creation, responded to these inducements. Australian States vied with each other to attract these Japanese construction projects, many of which were in real estate. [18]

Rimmer wrote that "keen for the economic benefits and political spin-offs, the states, as we have seen, are prepared to override the usual planning role performed by local government of directing development into preferred locations to meet economic, social and spatial preconditions."[21]

This obviously remains the case.

The other consequence of concentrating investment on the property development/housing sector is that a growing population provides an easy, constantly increasing market for raw materials produced here, but for cheap imports produced overseas. This perpetuates the many problems associated with a commodity bound economy, dooming us to ever increasing foreign debt, with a widening rather than deepening economy, restricting our skills and systems bases.[22]

NOTES

The notes begin at [10] since this article adapts extracts from another document.

[10] In a land-planning system with many of those hall-marks of the US system.

[11] Peter J Rimmer, "Japanese construction contractors and the Australian states: another round of interstate
rivalry", in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, E. Arnold, London, Vol.12., no.3.,
pp.404-24.

[12] Peter J. Rimmer "Japanese construction contractors and the Australian States: another round of interstate
rivalry", op.cit., p.421.

[13] Information about these changes to The Foreign Takeovers Act )1975), now known as the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act (1975) over time is available from the Foreign Investment Review Board in appendixes to its Annual General Reports, which are available on internet from http://www.firb.gov.au/policy_pubs/publications/AnnualReports/1999-2000/appd.htm Note that the Act is not confined to property investment but this seems to be a large part of its business.

[14] www.escapeartist.com/australia, which is an immigration and property investment internet site, announces, “Expatriates Build Wealth in Australia - The Aussie dollar is at an all time low against the American dollar and the strong Pound Sterling. Consequently there is strong purchasing power for Expats and UK residents in Australia. Australia welcomes foreign investment in real estate. Overseas investors can therefore obtain the benefit of freehold title. …”

“To take advantage of this, major developers such as Central Equity apply to the Federal Government Foreign Investment Review Board to gain permission to sell their residential apartments to foreign investors prior to releasing their development to the public.”

[15] Here are some examples of these kinds of internet sites. Migrate Australia www.migrate-australia.org/ are owned and operated by My Great Australia Pty Ltd. Like many members of the Migration Institute of Australia, they deal in real estate, finance and conveyancing, as well as arranging all sorts of visas and providing legal advice.

Some others are: www.James Tan Immigration lawyer.htm, www.escapeartist.com/, which has pages for many other countries in the world and www.australiaforyou.com.au. Australia For You has remarkable graphics. In fact many of these sites are graphically innovative, information packed, multi-lingual, specialise in a particular language, may offer a specialty, such as romantic introductions, and seem impressively connected and serviced. They generally lead with the information that they have registered immigration agents on board.

[16] R.H. Fagan, "Foreign Investment", in Australian Encyclopaedia, Terry Hills, NSW, Australian Geographic, Pty. Ltd, 1995, p.1394. For more about the FIRB, see S. Newman, The Growth Lobby and its Absence, Op cit., Chapter 3 heading, “The Residential Construction Industry”

[17] Information about these changes to The Foreign Takeovers Act )1975), now known as the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act (1975) over time is available from the Foreign Investment Review Board in appendixes to its Annual General Reports, which are available on internet from http://www.firb.gov.au/policy_pubs/publications/AnnualReports/1999-2000/appd.htm or see more current information here. Note that the Act is not confined to property investment but this is a major part of its business.

[18] Rimmer, Op cit p. 405 and 418.

[19-20] These notes are not used here.

[21] Rimmer Op Cit., p.417.

[22] “Going for Growth – Business Programs for Investment, Innovation and Export”, also known as “The Mortimer Report”, to the Federal Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, Australia, 30 June, 1997. The Mortimer Report drew a distinction between absolute growth and per capita growth. It pointed out that economic growth resulting solely from increased population serves no economic purpose. The true measure of economic progress, the report stated, is economic growth per head of population. That being the case, the Mortimer Report declared its brief to recommend measures that would enhance per capita economic growth.

Taking its data from OECD reports, the Mortimer Report found a negative correlation between per capita GDP and population growth over the period 1970-1995.

A paper correlating population growth rate and per capita economic growth rate was prepared by Dr John Coulter for the 2003 ISOS conference on sustainability. For the purpose of his analysis, Coulter divided the countries of the world into two groups, rich and poor. For each group, he correlated per capita GDP growth with population growth, using rigorous statistical techniques. He found that for rich countries absolutely no correlation between per capita GDP growth and population growth. For poor countries, the correlation is strongly negative: the higher the population growth, the poorer is the country.

For countries like Australia that rely on their resource base for their income, the argument is particularly significant. In 1860 about 70% of the country's exports were mineral and agricultural products. Almost the same ratio applies today. For Australia’s situation, the more specific question than what do countries have to win or lose from population growth is - what does a country with a commodity-based economy have to gain economically from population growth?

The answer to this question lies in the external trading account. For population growth in commodity-based economies:
• almost no relation at all exists between exports and population.
• an almost linear relationship exists between population and imports.

Extreme cases often make telling points. A country which is entirely reliant on commodity exports and has an extreme level population growth may reveal an outcome that a less extreme country might achieve at a more leisurely pace.

Saudi Arabia is an extreme example of a commodity-based economy experiencing excessive birth rate. Saudi Arabia earns over 90% of its export earnings from products based on one basic commodity – oil. Saudi Arabia’s rate of population increase is about 4% per annum. Saudi Arabia’s population is doubling in less than every twenty years. Half the population is under 15 years of age.

For more on this see S.Newman for SPA VIC First Home Affordability Enquiry Submission.

(Parts of cartoon based on one signed "V.D." which is all over the net, but no attributions available.)

Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC)

From Beveridge in the north, Werribee and Melton in the west, to Cranbourne in the south-east, thousands of Victorians have recently been notified of the Victorian Labor Government’s intention to introduce what they are calling a ‘Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution’ (GAIC) for selected areas around Melbourne.

What kind of government just dreams up new taxes of $95,000?

In effect, this ‘contribution’ is a $95,000 per hectare tax on all vacant properties over one acre, and all properties over five acres with homes when you sell, regardless of the sale price.

Imagine the young couple who are struggling to pay the mortgage on a small property of six acres where they have built, or hope to build their dream home and raise a family. One of them loses their job due to the current economic climate and they decide they can no longer afford their dream. What chance would they have of raising enough from the sale of their land in a depressed market to cover what they owe the bank, plus over $230,000 for the Labor Government’s share?

Imagine the farmer who has put his blood, sweat and tears into life on the land and is coming to the end of his working life. His plans have always been, to sell his 100 acre farm. He’s struggled through years of drought to make ends meet and now, out of the blue, he has to pay the government over $3.8 million for the privilege of selling his property.

In the likely event that he doesn’t sell, Mr. Brumby and Mr. Madden will simply pass the $3.8 million debt (indexed annually) on to his children or widow when he dies. Whatever you do, Mr. Farmer, don’t get divorced and sell your property as part of the settlement, as they’ll take it from you then!

Who will stop this dictatorship?

When Victorians elected the Labor Government did we give them a mandate to simply take a large portion of our great Australian dream - a home which we have worked hard to get? We need to tell them, NOW, that we will not stand for a government that believes it has a right to introduce legislation such as this. The theft of privately owned property by force is something that we expect to hear of happening in communist or fascist countries, not in the lucky country, our country, Australia!

If you believe that it is unfair for Mr. Brumby’s duly elected State Labor Government to take a large portion of our homes in this manner please let them know that it will be political suicide for them to proceed with this legislation. Remember there’s an election next year! Today, email them, fax them or even just mail this page to them with a note voicing your disapproval at them stealing our homes by stealth.

Your home could be in the next lot that they steal, so tell them now, that it’s not acceptable!

John Brumby - Premier
Level 1, 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne Vic., 3002.
Ph: 9651 5000 Fax: 9651 5054
[email protected]

Justin Madden - Minister for Planning
Level 17, 8 Nicholson Street, Melbourne Vic., 3000.
Ph: 9637 8087 Fax: 9637 8921
[email protected]

Source of article was Michael Hocking, Taxed Out Inc., PO Box 113 Beveridge, 3753. Backhouse & Thomas 3869TO

ABC Australian news reported that someone somehow placed rocks on the road where rally cars would pass at some time prior to the Repco Rally event. Apparently stones or rocks were also thrown. See Rally rock-throwing 'could have killed', ABC news, September 5, 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/05/2677430.htm

First day of the rally

The picture of the car trailing dust has been included for educational purposes because it shows how much dust is being thrown up by a rally car on the unpaved roads that pass through national parks of World Heritage significance. One can imagine the noise and the speed from the picture. Unless you like noise, speed, metal and dust, this would be a very unpleasant experience. For wildlife it could be a fatal experience. Politically it could represent a fatal breech in the wall of law that has preserved Australia’s wild spaces to date.

Would Repco race cars through a cathedral?

The idea alone of racing cars through national parks is appalling to many. With the position of National Parks in Australia it is a bit like racing cars through cathedrals in Italy or France, except that the damage it is likely to do in the long term is that much more significant.

It may not result directly in the extinction of endangered species but, whether it does or not, it is like a big breech in the wall. If government can get away with doing this to our National natural cathedrals, they may soon be running the equivalent of brothels in cathedrals there. Indeed, the same NSW government which overturned local democracy (the most immediate form of democracy) to force this race on Australians, is also apparently prepared to allow the Shooters Party to shoot indigenous animals in National Parks.

The car is not exactly an endangered species

Many of us live on highways or have to drive to work and find this difficult enough. It is amazing to think that the NSW Parliament actually legislated away 12 environmental laws in order to import such a rally to this area, which, to date, was a sanctuary for animals, trees and humans. The local inhabitants have complained of the risk to life for humans and other animals in the area.

Today we received a letter to candobetter.org claiming that “Greenies” threw rocks at the rally drivers.

“Rally Australia"

On September 5th, 2009 Jack (not verified) wrote:

"You greenies who are responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks might get charged with attempted manslaughter or murder if you are not careful. It is not a joke to do these things, one could expect it in a third world country but one would have hoped that in a so called educated society things like this would not happen. If you want to protest then do it in a more effective way than risking the life of another human being!”

The writer assumes that ‘Greenies’ were responsible for putting boulders on the road and throwing rocks. In fact we do not know who was responsible. However, let us take his other assertions in this paragraph. He says that we could expect such activity in a third world country, but not in an educated society. However it has been the anti-rally protesters’ contention that an educated society would not put a rally through international heritage rainforest national parks including 16 km of koala habitat. To many people the notion that we are an ‘educated society’ does not hold up because of this. Regarding third world societies: what are the criteria that make this kind of protest likely in the third world? Perhaps the quality of not having any other means to protest?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally?

Is the writer actually unaware that 12 environmental laws were overturned to permit the rally? This event has been enabled by the NSW Motor Sports (WRC) Bill 2009, which overrode 12 different planning, environmental protection and heritage laws and removed all right of appeal.[1] Or has his enthusiasm for the rally diminished the importance of this fact in his eyes? If that is the case, I suggest that he reconsider these inconvenient facts.

What more effective ways are open to people in the Green Cauldron? They have protested peacefully in the streets, written to politicians, and invoked the law. The response from the government was extreme: The government abrogated the very environmental laws that the people had invoked to stop the race. Then, when a councilor took the matter to the courts, she felt that it was given the bum’s rush. Behind the abrogation of the 12 environmental laws was pressure from Repco, a global corporation of retailers of car parts, which apparently had far more pull with the NSW Government than the democratic wishes of members of its electorate.

Even some of the competitors sound as if they understand.

"Some people don't like us in front of their house but I didn't ask to come here," French competitor, Loeb reportedly said.
"I can understand why some people don't like the rally, but I have to do my job."

Indeed he does. But the problems are not the fault of the people defending their rights and their environment. (Source: "Rock throwers halt Rally Australia", ABC News, 4 September.)

What would have been much better is if the FIA had adhered to its stated high principles of environmental standards and good governance, saying, “No, Premier Rees, we want to be good global citizens. You must find a venue for this event which is acceptable to your citizens. We cannot stand by and let you overturn your own peoples’ laws in order to run a mere race. It will not do our reputations or yours any good. People have a right to self-government. We cannot impose things they hate on them. The French Revolution taught us that.”

So much for an educated, first world society.

“And do not bother denying it had anything to do with your movement, you ARE tarred with the brush in the same way that you like to tar motorsport with the "hooning" brush.”

Why didn't the FIA or drivers stand up for democracy against Repco and the NSW Government?

It would be reassuring if people in the rally movement had stood up for democracy. Since they have not it is hard not to see them as hoons. And since their representatives have not spoken up, they look like representatives of hoons. Those perceptions will change when rally-people stand up for democracy and justice along with the environmentalists. As long as you do not you defend the wholesale destruction of laws by a dictatorial government. Candobetter.org cannot comment on allegations about people who used rocks as weapons since we have absolutely no idea who those people were. It is even conceivable that people wishing to give the environmentally concerned a bad name threw the rocks themselves. That would seem to me more likely since, from the point of view of an environmentalist – a person who defends wild spaces – throwing rocks is rather similar, although not as bad, as driving racing cars through world heritage landscapes and biodiverse hotspots.

False argument pretends area not worth protecting

"I watched the you tube video and I have never seen so much rubbish in all my life,
Mostly it looks like farming country, overgrown with weeds, so much for the environment."

I am not a resident of the area, but, to me this is what the videos have conveyed. We saw a koala crossing the road and we have been told elsewhere that the rally passes through 16km of koala habitat. We know that koalas are endangered. That, to me, is enough to tell me that the area cannot be totally degraded.

Secondly, it would not be surprising if the area is being degraded, given the kinds of forces it is subjected to. That is not the fault of environmentalists. The area was rural with forested parts. There is obviously a tension between rural, other commercial values and the environmental values of local constituents. Environmental has to win out, however, because the area is internationally recognized for its biodiverse and landscape qualities. Car races, shops and farms already take up substantial parts of this country and if we still cannot make a go of what we have already got economically, then destroying more wildlife habitat is not likely to help.

Impact of farming

"Farming does far more harm to the environment than Rally could ever do!

After having experienced Rally Australia in Western Australia for 18 years I can assure you that there will not be hundreds of wild animals killed, in any way!
If the people who live and run businesses in the towns involved have any clues they will see the prospects for adding value to what they do or in fact even starting up new ventures all because of the Rally."

Farming is certainly problematic because it converts wild-spaces for food. However the farms are already there. The rally was not. It was an additional stressor. As for the damage it might do. I have compared it to racing through cathedrals and I stand by that. This country is absolutely covered and ringbarked with roads, for Pete’s sake – how could racing car drivers possibly justify taking roadspace in National Parks? And, I do not see how you could argue to put a koala at risk just for some ephemeral potential ‘profits’ which will not sustain any human in the long term.

Little evidence for much touted 'economic advantages' and no amount of money could make this right

The Rally will bring economic benefit to the area and to the state in general, you lot rave on about eco tourism, I can assure you that if the area does indeed have something to offer then the Rally will bring thousands of international tourists.

The insistance that this rally will bring lots of money to Tweed has been knocked down over and over. Our definitions of what constitutes 'economic benefit' must differ.

"Same Rally cost WA tax-payers $6m+ p.a.

Previous speakers who praised the rally indicated that it will bring $100 million of value to the area. They do not understand what they are talking about. For example, $100 million over what period? It is certainly not for this one race that is coming up; nor for the one in two years time or the one in 10 years time. It is the accumulated value they think they might get if everything is done and all options are accepted between now and 2027. A more true picture comes from Western Australia. The Western Australian Government no longer wanted the rally, indicating that it was costing Western Australia $6 million a year and it was not getting economic value to make up for that $6 million." Source For more on the debate read here.

Our definitions of ‘eco-tourism’ must also differ. Who want’s tourists in national parks who come to watch noisy cars go round and round and tear up the earth and vegetation, kill wildlife, and pollute the atmosphere with petroleum fumes and dead soil organisms from the dust? How could anyone consider that desirable? For someone who likes quietly walking through a forest amid a community of other species, just like someone who might enjoy praying in a cathedral and looking up through the stained-glass windows and imagining they were in God’s house, your idea that racing cars through these quiet and otherly places might add to their ‘value’ seems really strange.

And the thing is, nature preservation does not cause the extinction of car-rallies, since there are roads for rallies everywhere, but roads and rallies do destroy nature. I mean, what environmentalists do and like does not stop rally fans from doing what they do and like somewhere else. For instance, the Goldcoast Super GP Rally will be staged next month, through city streets, just across the border from this one. However, if you want to do your thing in our quiet places, you destroy what we have. Look around you: the world is absolutely full of roads and noisy cars. Your kind of ‘paradise’ is proliferating daily. Ours isn’t. It is disappearing. Have a sense of proportion.

There is a huge contingent of International Rally people who follow the WRC around the world, just like the people who follow Tennis or Cricket or Footy, Yep just the same, and they will be coming to your part of the world, generally speaking they have a few bucks in their back pocket and have great fun unloading the stuff, so do not think there is no money to be made.

Obviously money is very important to you, much more important to you than beauty, wildlife, peace and quiet and democracy. Even if money were more important than place for environmentalists, it has already been shown many times that the rally has brought a net financial loss when costs are taken into account or no benefit to other communities where it has been held.

You need to try to see that environmentalists need to protect what they love and that rally values will harm what they treasure most. The rally is invading green environmental space and trying to change it. It has also destroyed democratic space, by forcing the overturning of laws. That alone should signal "Danger! Danger!" On the other side, environmentalists are not invading road-space. The huge contingent of International Rally people have lots of places made of concrete and tar and cement where they can go and they will possibly even be welcome there.

"If you think however that you should just need to stand in line with your hand out to get your share then you have your head in the sand (or somewhere else!)"

Honestly, this stuff about making lots of money out of these rallies just sounds like pie in the sky. After the rally has been run, however, I think that residents would be justified in demanding compensation for the trauma of having their democratic self-government annihilated and their environmental laws overturned, as well as their peace disturbed and their happiness destroyed by the need to go out of their way to try to protect what they love due to the failure of their governments to enforce protections which were available at law prior to the rally and were overturned because of the rally and for no other reason. Those environmentalists would be justified in demanding ongoing compensation since the intention is to continue to stage this rally for decades.

Democracy is the big question

"An event like this will always have those who are against having it, well we live in a democracy, so if it is taking place then there must be a higher number of people who want it than don't, bad luck!"

But that is the very problem. We DON'T live in a democracy in Australia anymore, and things have got particularly desperate in Tweed Shire due to the Repco Rally. By removing legal protections from the community's right to environmental protection and self-government the NSW Government has left the community in a situation of lawlessness and injustice. Did you not realise that 12 laws were put aside to run this rally? Why would the NSW government and Repco have had to go to such extraordinary lengths to impose the rally - and overturn democracy - if so many people, as you believe, wanted this rally? Why did they not just allow democracy to prevail, instead of removing it?

"I suggest that you greenies would be better off spending your time and money trying to fix up a couple of the countries biggest environmental disasters which are on your back doorstep, like the Murray Darling disaster for one!"

At candobetter we continue to represent problems with the Murray Darling and other threatened waters. If environmentalists were not busy defending multiple cherished places under attack by developers and now democracy under this rally, they would indeed have more time to dedicate to these ongoing other threats. If the rally were withdrawn from the Green Cauldron we could all get on with the other jobs.

[1] "" Source: http://www.norallygroup.org/

PM urged to take acting lessons from Californian Governor

Comparison of the water crises currently gripping California and the Murray-Darling Basin reveals stark similarities in their causes and effects, but a glaring contrast in the willingness of those in high office to act appropriately, according to Australia’s largest public water rights advocacy group.

Fair Water Use (Australia) has scrutinised the Proclamation of a State of Emergency, issued earlier this year by Californian Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in response to the Californian crisis and has defined that many of the parameters which were sufficient to cause the Californian administration to act are exceeded in severity and duration by those which apply in the Murray-Darling Basin.

“More and more Australians are stunned by apparent inability of the Commonwealth Government to take meaningful action on this issue,” national coordinator of Fair Water Use, Ian Douglas, said earlier today.

Dr Douglas added, “We have provided the Prime Minister with a draft proclamation, incorporating the concerns which were sufficient for the State of California to apply the necessary, urgent measures and comparing them directly to those which apply in the Basin.”

Fair Water Use hopes that this will convince Mr Rudd that the plight of the Murray-Darling is at least as grave as its Californian counterpart, requiring Canberra to make similarly decisive moves.

“We are urging the Prime-Minister to follow Governor Schwarzenegger’s lead by acting appropriately,” Dr Douglas concluded.

The draft SOE proclamation can be viewed at: http://www.fairwateruse.com.au/content/blogcategory/14/47

See also: "Environmental group calls for declaration of State of Emergency to save dying Murray-Darling system" of 5 Sep 08, www.fairwateruse.com.au.

Injunction to prevent suffering to native animals fails in Australian World Heritage National Park

Councillor Katie Milne of Tweed Shire Council, NSW, failed in her attempt to prevent the staging of a 3 day long international car rally through Tweed and Kyogle Shire national parks, state forests, World Heritage areas, nature conservation areas, major koala colonies, core koala habitats and habitat where over 12 nationally-threatened species live. In September 2008, the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett dubbed the area as the ‘Green Cauldron’, one of 8 national iconic landscapes.

On 27th August, 2009, in Milne v. Rally Australia Pty Ltd, Federal Court Justice Stone was assigned to hear the case in Sydney for 3 hours. The Judge had only just received the last of the reports an hour before the hearing and admitted she had not had time to read all the material.

Fastest case in the history of Tweed Shire?

“It was the fastest case in the history of Tweed Shire. The Judge was able to somehow determine the case in about 10 mins flat after we began," commented Cr Milne. "We didn’t even have a chance for all the issues to be heard. The rally has assigned 600 police for 5 days including training, but they couldn’t even assign a Judge for a proper full day trial to hear all the evidence."

She said, "We knew we were gone when the Judge said, 'Times up, you’ve got one more issue you can raise’.'"

"We had barely started. We had only just got past our argument when the judge dismissed both our ecologists’ reports."

Ecological expertise wasted

Ecologist Dr Stephen Ambrose was there to present his report which challenged Repco's assertion that there would be no significant impact on any nationally-listed threatened species. Dr Ambrose had presented a 12 page resume of his qualifications, his published papers, committees he had chaired and court cases he was involved with. He had supplied a huge dossier of issues including a comparative study and a raft of arguments refuting Dr Phillip’s methodology and many assumptions made. For instance, he claimed that there is a higher probability of mortality as animals actually frequent roadside verges.

Councillor Milne said it was frustrating that he had been available as a witness but the court wouldn’t interview him.

"Dr Ambrose was the key ecologist in the V8 Homebush Supercar case. He is a bird specialist and familiar with the problems a rally is likely to cause. There is a population 35-45 Black Breasted Button Quails near the Mebbin locality Byrill Creek stage of the rally route and it is believed that the loss of one or disruption to their breeding cycle could be fatal to the viability of the entire population."

She added that another ecologist, Mr Mark Graham, who also presented a damning report "had extensive and specific local experience of the area, having coincidently carried out a 3 month ground survey of the endangered Giant Barred Frogs on the Byrill Creek route. The spray of dust can settle on their eggs and larvae and totally destroy their breeding cycle."

Arcane-seeming technicalities defeated community’s try for justice

“The Judge said we had not presented the argument in the manner required by the Courts. It was our ecologist’s case that this was not possible. She made no attempt to ascertain the validity of the arguments with Dr Ambrose. The whole crux of the ecological case was not even argued. It was absolutely appalling” said Cr Milne.

She went on to say that Repco Rally Australia had employed Dr Stephen Phillips (Biolink Pty Ltd) to conduct an ecological report on the impacts on species living on the rally route in autumn. As a result many species that were not visible at that time were visible in spring, breeding season for many species. Had Dr Phillips found any significant impacts to any of the nationally-listed threatened species, the matter would need to be referred to the Minister for the Environment for assessment as these are matters of national environmental significance.

"In the first report released by Repco in April 2009, Dr Phillips actually did recommend that the rally be referred to Minister Peter Garrett. However Repco claimed in the Court that this was a mistaken release of a draft document. Dr Phillips was not in court to confirm or deny this." Cr Milne said that regardless of whether the document was a draft or not, Dr Phillips had actually stated that the rally should be referred to Minister Garrett up until July and therefore the community had believed this would happen. While Dr Phillips may have changed his mind in his July report, it shows that the matter was in contention and that a precautionary approach should have been taken. The matter of referral to the Minister should have been debated by the ecologists but never was. "It feels like we haven't even had a proper hearing and it feels extremely unjust," said Cr Milne.

Late timing issue a non-sequitur and not our fault

Cr Milne said “The late timing of filing for this injunction was being used as if it was something we were responsible for. The fact that the community has been asking the Environment Minister Garrett to make a decision on this right from the start, and that the Minister had failed to do so, did not seem to worry the Judge at all. Nor did the fact that the community was misled up until July by the Repco report and that a Development Application was also promised up until July, seem to worry the Judge.”

"When were we supposed to take an injunction?" she wondered. "We only had between July and August after the special legislation Motor Sports Bill 2009 was brought into force. The community have done everything in their power to seek a legal outcome including commissioning not one, but two, ecological reports. Minister Garrett has joined with the State government and local Council to ignore this community and this World Heritage environment completely."

She said, "Rally Australia's claims that 'this is going to be the most environmental friendly rally in the world' is a joke. How can this rally be 'environmentally friendly' when it needed to bypass State environmental laws to be held? Many of our environmental laws have had to be extinguished to force this otherwise illegal event through. This race will set a new environmental standard but it’s an absolutely appalling one, one that allows such extreme sports races to run between World heritage corridors and through National Parks and Conservation areas."

Non-profit organization well-provided for in legal counsel

Repco Rally had five lawyers present in court at a cost of $40,000 in three days. “They won on legal technicalities, not on issues”, said Councillor Milne. She added that she was surprised that a non profit organisation could afford such representation. "They have threatened that they will vigorously pursue costs. The costs order case is going to be rushed through as well, in less than a week for this Wednesday", she concluded.

This rally is intended to become a bi-annual event until 2027.

Not a good look for the Fédération internationale de l'automobile

These political and environmental impacts must also be doing great harm to La Fédération Internationale de l'automobile and the road safety and green reputation it promotes on its pages:

"Formula for the Environment: As the governing body of motor sport and the representative of more than 100 million consumers worldwide, the FIA has been actively putting the environment on the top of its dual agendas. Formula for the environment outlines the FIA’s environmental efforts, from proposals for global emission benchmarks by policy makers to forward thinking environmentally relevant initiatives in motor sport such as the introduction of energy recovery systems in Formula One, highlighting what the FIA is doing to reduce the impact of motoring on the environment." Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mobility/policy/Pages/FIAPolicyCentre.aspx

Residents of the community are reportedly devastated.

One has written to candobetter: I am so sad!! Today I drove on most of the rally routes and saw so many beautiful animals, right by the road. Many kangaroos mostly, wedgetail eagles, low-flying little birds, lots of snakes, very sad looking cows and sheep and horses all looking at me as if to say 'please save me, take me away from here' .... the grief is so deep inside me right now....I am utterly inconsolable."

The making of a new law to disempower environmental laws and local government powers in order to hold the rally means that democracy has been extinguished in Tweed Shire. Environmental damage and loss of democracy always seem to go together. This is surely a matter which should concern judges all over the land.

How to make donations to court costs

Something just as bad could easily happen to a place you love, now that it has happened in Tweed Shire. Downsizing democracy is a pernicious trend in Australia. Australians need to fight these trends as hard as they can and prevent communities from being destroyed by financial costs. Perhaps there will be an appeal. People can make donations towards the $40,000 court costs. It has been suggested that if 200 people can donate $200 each the shire will be able to pay.

Bank details are:
No Rally Group
BSB 062 580
A/C 10275161
Commonwealth Bank

See also: Repco Rally route - the calm before the storm of 26 Aug 09, URGENT! Contact Peter Garrett re Injunction to stop Repco Rally of 29 Aug 09.

VicForests sued for illegal logging Tuesday 25th August 2009

Today, Environment East Gippsland commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

A writ was filed with the court this morning and has just been served on VicForests.

“We ask the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain” said Jill Redwood, Coordinator of EEG. “We also ask the Court to declare that the logging of Brown Mountain is unlawful”.

Brown Mountain is known habitat for at least five species of wildlife listed as vulnerable or threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

The Court has not yet set a date for the hearing of the case.

Australian 'terrified' by Amazon pirate attack
August 11
Twelve Australians were on board a small cruise ship robbed by pirates on the Amazon River. MV Aqua, owned by Aqua Expeditions , was ransacked by pirates in Peru last week. They took advantage of heavy rain and poor visibility to stage their raid.

Ms Ibbotson and her partner Keith Lawson, both financial planners of Melbourne, waited, terrified, as the pirates ransacked the cruise ship MV Aqua on the Amazon in Peru, working their way from cabin to cabin. "It was just a terrifying, terrifying experience," she reported back from Peru to ABC Online

There were two undercover policemen on board after the previous attack but both were quickly overpowered by the six bandits despite their grenades and automatice weapons! They were robbed at gunpoint of all their cash, cameras and jewellery.
Speaking from Peru, Melbourne woman Ms Christina Ibbotson, 60, reported to Sydney Morning Herald reporters that the worst thing was not being told that there had been a similar attack on the same boat in the same place the week before. Ms Ibbotson said most of the passengers were angry they had not been warned of the first pirate attack and said they had not heard anything from the Peruvian company Aqua Expeditions since.

The boat's owner and the police were reported to have been slow to react!
Police reinforcements arrived after crew radioed for help. Officers later recovered some of the holidaymakers' belongings after discovering them in the gang's jungle base camp, where they also confiscated guns and walkie-talkies the armed gang are believed to have used to coordinate their well-planned attack.

Crime amoungst police, and collaboration between police and criminals, is not uncommon in Peru!

Read the statements from Aqua Expeditions on the 'bandit attack'

In a similar attack on 6th August gunmen stormed Aqua Expeditions tourist cruise ship in Peru in a dawn robbery.

Masked men with guns and hand grenades stormed a cruise ship (the same criminals?) stealing thousands of pounds worth of valuables from tourists, including several Britons, in the dawn raid.

Nine armed bandits bound the hands and feet of the 20 holidaymakers, including Britons, Americans, Australians and Spaniards, on a small cruiser heading up the Ucayali River in the Peruvian Amazon to the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve.

The Peruvian Minister for Tourism, Martin Perez, has reportedly vowed to provide Coast Guard and National Police escorts for cruises in the region, to step up patrols and to increase security officers on board vessels in a bid to salvage the area's tourism reputation.

Aqua Expeditions has reportedly changed its itinerary to avoid the area of the latest raid. Aqua Expeditions has a section on safety on its website which says: "A crew member is assigned on our navigation deck to keep watch around the clock, 24/7, whether the vessel is sailing or docked." Was this enough?

Under new legislation, submitted to the British Cabinet in July, 2009, the State will be entitled to recover “all or part of the expenses ... for rescue operations abroad for people who have deliberately exposed themselves to risks which they could not ignore”.

The authorities will be able to take action against travel agents, shipping companies and insurance companies accused of encouraging journeys to areas deemed hazardous.

If a new French law gains currency around the world, all cruising sailors who visit countries which are on a list of countries 'considered to be dangerous' could be faced with a bill if they get into trouble. Regions considered dangerous are published on the Foreign Ministry website in a regularly updated list. French travellers are at present advised against visiting countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and parts of Peru , Tanzania, Colombia, Sudan and Venezuela.

If you travel for any length of time in Latin America, chances are the police will attempt to extract a bribe. Police are often underpaid and find tourists an easy source of income, so any foreign vehicles or people on the road will often be targeted.
The easiest way out at this point is for you to hand over the bribe in cash, or at least bargain him down further.

While there are statistics about the frequency of such crimes, they are sketchy because the offenses often go unreported, or they are not reported outside national media! U.S. officials say they are concerned about the increasing sophistication of such crimes. In what used to be an uncommon occurrence, groups of tourists recently have been attacked on the road and even in crowded hotels, officials say.

In Peru, crimes against tourists are a fact of life, and Peru's crime problem is not unique. It fits into the increasing trend in many South American countries and cities.
SmartTraveller.com.au (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade)

We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Peru because of the high levels of serious crime. Pay close attention to your personal security and monitor the media for information about possible new safety or security risks.
Petty theft, including pick-pocketing and bag snatching, has been reported in public areas, including in hotels, conference centres, internet cafes and restaurants. You should remain vigilant in crowded public places.

Theft on inter-city buses, including buses on the Lima, Ica, Nasca and Cusco routes continues to increase, often when passengers are asleep or distracted. You should avoid placing luggage or other personal belongings on overhead racks or under your seats.

Violent crime including sexual assault, armed robbery, muggings and car-jacking occurs, particularly in the cities of Lima, Cusco and Arequipa. Travellers walking alone after dark, especially when leaving bars or nightclubs, have been targeted by criminals.

There has been a significant increase in reports of serious crimes, including robbery, assault and rape, against travellers using unlicensed taxi operators, particularly in Lima and Cusco. You should arrange transport at taxi counters within the international terminal when arriving at Lima's international airport and seek assistance from staff at hotels, hostels, restaurants or places of entertainment to book a licensed taxi. The name and contact details of the taxi company should be recorded.

'Express kidnappings', where victims are forced to withdraw funds from ATMs to secure their release, have occurred.

Assault and armed robbery of hikers travelling on the Inca trail have been reported. Use of an experienced guide may reduce the risk of assault and robbery while hiking.
Travel by road outside of major cities after dark is dangerous due to the risk of criminal activity which has often involved the use of bogus road blocks or check points.
The real dangers of travelling in Peru and South America should be upgraded. Travel agents should warn of dangers, but there is a conflict of interest in revealing the real risks. It is a case of making sure that tourists themselves do the research before embarking on a tour where anarchy, corruption, crime and violence are way of life, the “norm”! Maybe tourists should have to pay for their rescue if they insist on travelling to "hot spots" on our globe and get into trouble?
Innocence abroad can be costly, even fatal!

In a media release on behalf of the Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), branch secretary Peter Simpson questioned the Queensland's decision to pay as much as AU$200 million to two companies Merrill Lynch and the Royal Bank of Scotland, who recently went bankrupt for advice on privatisation, for advice on its privatisation fire sale.

Media release, 23 July 2009: ETU's "Light on the Hill" campaign against privatisation of State Govt assets - update Second billboard goes up in the Premier's electorate Choice of advice consortium raises more questions

The Electrical Trades Union's second billboard attacking the State Government's decision to sell a number of State Government assets has been erected on Gladstone Rd, Highgate Hill, in Premier Anna Bligh's electorate of South Brisbane.

The first billboard was erected earlier this week in Transport Minister Rachel Nolan's electorate of Ipswich. The next one will be erected in Rockhampton in the next few weeks.

The billboard advertising is part of the second phase of the ETU's statewide Light on the Hill campaign and comes as the State Government announced the advisory group for the sale of the assets.

ETU secretary, Peter Simpson, said yesterday's announcement that companies such as Merrill Lynch and the Royal Bank of Scotland will advise the State Government on the sale is a further blow to the credibility of the decision.

"I mean, what a team. A couple of companies that had to be bailed out recently by governments are now back advising Queensland on privatisation. The Royal Bank of Scotland has effectively been nationalised in recent times with the United Kingdom Government announcing it would move towards a 70 per cent ownership stake. In January this year the RBS announced the biggest corporate losses in British history.

"Merrill Lynch in the USA basically went broke in 2008, due to debt risk from the US sub-prime collapse, and was bailed out by a merger with Bank of America, which I am told then had to go to the US Federal Treasury asking for US$20b in public money.

"The appointment of these companies to advise on the privatisation raises even more questions about this unpopular and unnecessary plan. The people of Queensland are entitled to a detailed outline of their recent performance and their role in the global financial crisis.

"The people of Queensland are also entitled to know just what fees these companies will be paid. There is speculation it could be as much as $200 million, the majority of which could go overseas. Surely the State Government is kidding?

"That is good money that could be used on stimulating the Queensland economy and funding Queensland services.

"The appointment of advisers also suggests the State Government is trying to tough it out on this issue, which regrettably means we will be campaigning against these asset sales right up to the next State election by the looks of it.

"Given the negative public reaction to the proposal, that is not good news for the State Government and many Labor MPs," Mr Simpson said.

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

The Light on the Hill campaign is being run until, at least, the next State election to stop State Government plans to sell a number of State Government entities, including most of the profitable sections of Queensland Rail and massive State forests, which contribute to national and international sustainable logging practices.

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

The Electrical Trades Union (Qld & NT)
Communications Electrical Plumbing Union
Electrical Division - Qld & NT BRANCH
Secretary: Peter Simpson
41 Peel St South Brisbane Ph: 07-3846 2477

Discrepancy

Ms Pennicuik, Greens member of Victorian Parliament, has drawn attention to discrepancies between figures apparently given the Auditor-General by the Port of Melbourne Corporation and figures obtained from them by the Supplementary EES statement process and the hearings and the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration.

If it is true that 96% of ships were able to use the Port of Melbourne with no problems, does this discrepancy mean that the Auditor General will have to review his report and the validity of the PoMC's business case, quality of information and practice?

Dredging has cost Victorians enormously already financially, socially and environmentally. Confidence is not high in the PoMC. It is to be hoped that Ms Pennicuick will follow this matter up urgently. Any member of the public wishing to find out more could put questions to Ms Pennicuik to ask in Parliament.

Ms Pennicuick (Greens) (Southern Metropolitan)

"I am speaking today on the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project. This project has been the subject of much public interest since it was first announced in 2002. That interest continues as, unfortunately, dredging is under way. It is a mega-project with a scale of dredging way above anything seen before in Port Phillip Bay -- or pretty well anywhere else in the world. "

"I have read through the Auditor-General's report on the channel-deepening project (CDP), and he concludes that after a very poor start the Port of Melbourne Corporation had developed an effective channel-deepening project. On page 2 of his report he says that the CDP included: "

" a robust business case, complying with better practice guidelines and providing government with the type and quality of information it needed to endorse the project "

" an environmental management plan that addressed the requirements of the environmental assessment process and was endorsed by ministers under the state and commonwealth environmental legislation "

" contracting arrangements, where the corporation followed sound processes in determining how works should be procured and the contractual terms. "

"The Auditor-General concluded that all of these were in order. "

"I am pleased that the Victorian Auditor-General's Office chose to audit the channel-deepening project, because due to public and community concern about the scale and risks of the project it certainly needed independent analysis, which has been sadly lacking hitherto. This report is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the pros and cons of channel deepening, which, it must be remembered, is still happening. It is not a finished project, a point the Auditor-General himself acknowledges. It is still continuing, and he has not in fact audited a completed project. "

Was Channel Deepening needed or will it ever be needed?

"The Auditor-General's report is, perhaps, unable to answer some of the fundamental questions about channel deepening. The first question is: is it, was it or will it ever be needed? The second question is: will it provide any benefits to either exporters or importers or to the people of Victoria? These questions cannot be and are not answered by this report. "

"The fundamental question regarding the channel-deepening project has always been the need for it and the extent to which ships are actually depth constrained in the port of Melbourne. "

Wide range of figures has been quoted by PoMC

"Over the last few years the Port of Melbourne Corporation has quoted figures ranging from 25 per cent to 38 per cent of ships being unable to enter the bay fully loaded, but during the supplementary environment effects statement process and the hearings, and in the Report on Port Phillip Bay: Channel Deepening by the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration released last September, the port admitted that the true figure is around 4 per cent of ships that cannot come into the bay or leave it fully loaded. That means 96 per cent of ships are able to come in and out of the bay fully loaded. "

"The Auditor General's report states that 50 per cent of ships are unable to come into the bay fully loaded. I asked the Auditor-General at his briefing yesterday where he obtained that figure from; he replied that he had obtained it from the port. Elsewhere in this report it states -- in fact, it recommends -- that the Port of Melbourne Corporation start to collect figures on this. "

PoMC does not collect data on number of depth constrained ships entering/leaving Port Phillip Bay

"In fact it does not collect data on what ships are able to come in and out of the bay and are depth constrained. That was an assertion by the port, and it is unfortunate that that figure was used in this report. "

"The Auditor-General then went on to say that in order to measure the benefits the port should start collecting figures on what ships it feels has made use of the benefits of the project. "

Costs of shipping in Port Phillip Bay rising due to 'Channel-deepening levy'

"The other benefits of the project, as they were raised in the briefing, are to be measured by reduced costs to exporters and importers. Certainly information that has come to us is that costs to exporters are rising, because they are paying a $60 channel-deepening levy, whether they need it or not. Many exporters have said throughout the lead-up to this project that they did not need or want the project, and they did not want to be paying for it. They are now paying for it. "

"It will be interesting to see whether, through the life of the project, that measure -- the reduced costs to exporters and importers, when they are in fact rising -- ever comes to be seen. "

Source: Member Sue Pennicuik, Council, Statements on Reports, Auditor-General: The Channel Deepening Project, Hansard, 7 May 2009, p.2141

ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, is ACT's inaugural full-time Commissioner in the role, yet what relevant environmental qualifications and experience does the incumbent have, or indeed lack, to be officially condemning another local indigenous popluation of Australia's iconic marsupials, our kangaroos, to slaughter for pet food?
The Environment Commissioner's own website lists her formal qualifications in the areas of Environmental Planning, Environmental Design and Environmental Science. All these 'environmentally' friendly prefixes sound impressive, until one realises that each of these areas of academic study are not fauna focused, but indeed all about human-centric utilisation of the natural environment for the benefit of humans. That is, these qualifications are all about maximising the convenience of the environment for humans. A wolf in charge of the kangaroos?

Such qualifications offer no insight into the survival and habitat needs of Australian wildlife. "According to ACT's inaugural Environment Commissioner, kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site. Where's the bloody independent zoological evidence, who would attest to this view under the test of peer scrutiny?

Now if our roo-shooting redneck commissioner had a more relevant Bachelor of Science in Zoology from say the University of Melbourne, she may be of a contrary mindest, less aligned to human planning needs and monetary gains more empathetic to ecological needs of nativa fauna. The introductory paragraph for the University of Melbourne it Honours degree in Zoology online instills the followng focus:

"How animals live and why they live that way are questions addressed by zoologists. Most of the Australian fauna are poorly understood or not even formally named, yet informed management and resource use of Australia's flora, fauna and habitats depend upon zoological knowledge. We need to catalogue what species exist and how they survive in their natural environments. This requires knowledge of their physiology, breeding and reproductive systems, ecology, evolution and behaviour."
[SOURCE: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/areas/SZOOL.html]

Maxine Cooper, where are your qualifications in zoology and in the conservation and Australian wildlife to entitle you to officially condemn thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos to slaughter for cat an dog food?

Can you guarantee the Australian public that none of these kangaroos is to be minced for cat and dog food?

The standard setting for the job prerequisites for the ACT's Environment Commissioner are woeful and clearly not in the best interests of the target subject - our natural wildlife. What were they thinking by employing a planner in environmental management?

Belconnen May 2008

In May 2008 a total of 514 healthy kangaroos were exterminated on the former Belconnen Naval Transmission Station by the Department of Defence.

RSPCA-ACT chief Michael Linke insisted that the kangaroos were ‘starving’ even though eye-witness accounts and photographic evidence showed no starving kangaroos. They do after all, eat dry wild grasses, and have been doing so for the last 40 million years.

According to Dr Maxine Cooper, Environment Commissioner, the kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site (Ginninderra Peppercress, Striped Legless Lizard and Golden Sun Moth), even though the EPBC Act lists threats other than kangaroos (such as weeds, feral animals, domestic dogs and cats, land clearing, agriculture, slashing, inappropriate burning, livestock, rabbits, rock removal and vehicles).

Yet cows were grazing in the adjacent paddock, apparently not a threat to the species listed (as if moths and lizards recognise fences!).

So if both excuses of starvation and threat to endangered species were untrue, what was the real reason for the Belconnen massacre last May?

#Housing Scandal" id="Housing Scandal">Housing Scandal

In The Canberra Times dated 18th March, 2008 an article titled Roo Cull Land Contaminated raised the issue of soil contamination in relation to part of Belconnen being released by Defence for housing. Soil remediation would be necessary.

Then again on 27th September, 2008 The Canberra Times printed another article, by Rosslyn Beeby, titled Revealed: Toxic Waste Dump which showed serious lead, heavy metals, asbestos, carcinogenic dioxin and PCB contamination in the soil and groundwater, even down to Lake Ginninderra.

The scandal was that ACT government wanted to build housing on contaminated land. As if remediation could possibly clean it up!

Defence has been aware of the problem since 1985. A 1991 report by Snowy Mountains Engineering Corp. called for a scientific assessment of the potential for pollutants to build up in native wildlife or people with frequent access to the site. The reports warn that

''no information is to be given out regarding the nature of the potential contaminants on the site''

for public information at community consultations and ministerial briefings about the clean-up.

The ACT has previously denied it plans to develop the land for low-cost housing. But ACT Planning Authority documents obtained by The Canberra Times indicate the Government has at some stage considered the site in plans to expand the suburb of Lawson.

The Defence reports recommend excavating 6000 cubic metres in some areas, to a depth of at least 6m from a former rubbish dump at the site, as well as removing 900 sq/m of topsoil from grassland where federally- protected plant and insect species occur. Just where are they going to put this toxic soil?

Local groundwater is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxins that accumulate in the environment and have been linked to cancer, liver damage and immune and reproductive disorders. Petroleum hydrocarbons are leaking into soils and groundwater from disused underground fuel tanks that still ''contain product'' in several areas. Does Defence think that local residents won’t connect the dots?

The land was assessed by Defence contractors for use as low-density housing and recreational. A Queanbeyan Wildcare spokesperson said that

if Defence had approved the proposal to move the kangaroos instead of killing them, health checks on the kangaroos would have revealed pollutants. In the past, blind sheep have been found grazing at Belconnen.

#The Majura Connection" id="The Majura Connection">The Majura Connection

A starving Majura kangaroo family,
busy 'degrading' their grasslands

There is a shortage of land in Canberra to develop housing and commercial estates. Developers are leaning on Defence to release more land, as at Belconnen. Could Majura be next? And is Majura Training Area contaminated too? We do know that the 514 contaminated Belconnen kangaroos were buried at Majura in a large pit. I can't help but wonder if Defence could be moving the toxic Belconnen soil to Majura.

The Hon. Mike Kelly, Secretary for Defence is gearing up to kill aproximately 6,000 kangaroos on Majura Training Area, which is 8,000 acres.

Nobody really knows how many kangaroos there are but the estimate is less than two kangaroos per acre (hardly excessive) yet Kelly claims that the kangaroos are starving and degrading the rare grasslands.

Where is the scientific evidence of starvation or degradation of grasses? There isn’t any, as with Belconnen.

Across the fence, a hobby sheep farm illustrates accepted ACT land management practices. This land is now a dust bowl (see picture next).

Yet the kangaroos at Majura are blamed for degrading rare grasslands. Which looks like it could support life and threatened grassland? Certainly not the clapped- out sheep farm.

Furthermore, according to locals, there is a plague of rabbits at Majura. Why is Defence more worried about kangaroos than rabbits who do far more damage to grasslands?

How ironic that our national icon is blamed for damage to the environment actually created by humans, especially when you consider that kangaroos benefit the land in many ways. They eat dry grass that livestock won’t eat, grass that ignites easily in bush fires. By eating native grasses (that livestock don’t eat) they regenerate the grasses, helping many other species to survive. Their long claws aerate the soil allowing soil ecosystems to thrive, whereas livestock compact the soil and cause deserts. The more kangaroos, the healthier the ecosystem!

#Other Reasons?" id="Other Reasons?">Other Reasons?

The D.O.D. plans to turn Majura into an internationally-significant night manoeuvres firing range. But they could never justify killing thousands of protected native animals to upgrade their night training.

While high-tech night responsive equipment may be sensitive to night ground movement from kangaroos, they could use ultrasonic devices such as Roo Guard (endorsed by the Qld. Grain Growers’ Association) to keep them away from those areas and create corridors to surrounding acres with water and proper fencing.

Why does the government protect special interests (i.e. developers) but make no effort to protect native Australian land or animals? Kangaroos are not the problem. Human activity and livestock grazing are.

The government may not care about kangaroos, but many people around the world do. As people learn about what is becoming known as Australia's Dirty Secret, they're not only outraged, but are choosing not to visit Australia and spend their tourism dollars.

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

Please write to:-

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister, Parliament House
CANBERRA, ACT, 2600
www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm

Martin Ferguson, Minister for Tourism
Parliament House, Suite M1 23
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
www.alp.org.au/people/vic/ferguson_martin.php

Visit:
www.australiansocietyforkangaroos.com
www.stopkangarookilling.org

See also: "Majura demonstration in Canberra" on www.canadianvoiceforanimals.org, "Another Slaughter of kangaroos planned" of 14 Apr 09 on Quaker Concern for Animals web site.

Greater glider, illustration by John Gould

Media Release

We have received this information from a media release dated today, Wed 28th January 2009, on the occasion of a media conference with Senator Bob Brown on the Environment, East Gippsland, held at Treasury Gardens, outside 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

Call for immediate halt to logging

Environment East Gippsland has called for an immediate halt to logging at Brown Mountain, following the discovery of endangered species in the controversial area on the Australia Day weekend. They have obtained legal advice that the area should be set aside from logging.

The discovery of threatened species in the controversial area of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland will now have to be confirmed by Government biologists this week. Under threat of arrest, volunteers carried out wildlife surveys in the old growth forests.

Both professional and amateur surveyors discovered the presence of the threatened Orbost Spiny Crayfish, the endangered Sooty and Powerful owls and a large population of Greater Gliders.

“The place is literally teaming with endangered species.” said Jill Redwood from Environment East Gippsland.

“The government and logging industry knows it is one of the most diverse and wildlife rich sites remaining unprotected, but refused to identify these animals before they started cutting down their habitat. We had to prove it.”

Legal advice

“Our legal advice is that the Minister has the power to halt logging while confirmation surveys are carried out. However, we have had no assurances from government that logging will cease meanwhile - destroying giant old owl and glider nesting trees every day that it continues.”

“The great tragedy with the crayfish is that VicForests have already bulldozed very close to its rainforest creek edge destroying much of the buffer zone needed to protect it’s habitat.”

Government should cease arresting environmentalists and halt logging

“Before more threatened forest wildlife is destroyed the government must cease logging and cease arresting people for trying to protect these critical habitats.”

For comment: Jill Redwood – 5154 0145

See also: "Bob Brown: Threatened animal find must stop Brown Mountain logging, "Sue Pennicuik: Heartbreak at Brown Mountain", "Sue Pennicuik: Logging on Brown Mountain is state sanctioned vandalism", "Brown Mountain Rape".

Why is it that the Australian government, and other governments, principally in the anglophone world, deliberately encourage population growth when common sense and intuition, not to mention the hard evidence, tell us that a larger population cannot possibly be in the interests of the current inhabitants of this country or of the rest of the planet?

Republished on Eye on Immigration and Online Opinion (in a slightly abridged form) together with forum discussion.

See also: "Bligh Government tramples on community rights to impose over-development" of 11 Jun 08, "Redland City to pay with increased water charges for population growth" of 19 May 08, "More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland" of 14 May 08, "About immigration" of 14 May 08, "Shared accommodation a necessity and no longer a choice for many in Brisbane" of 30 Apr 08, "How to end the Queensland economy's addiction to population growth?" of 26 Apr 08, "The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections" of 30 Mar 08, "The Courier Mail beats the drum for more Queensland population growth" of 30 Mar 08, "Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community" of 8 Mar 08,
Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's Thesis: "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France" downloadable from here, in individual chapters plus five appendices and here, the whole main thesis.

Why is it that the Australian government, and other governments, principally in the anglophone world, deliberately encourage population growth when common sense and intuition, not to mention the hard evidence, tell us that a larger population cannot possibly be in the interests of the current inhabitants of this country or of the rest of the planet?

We are long past the point where adding extra numbers in any way increases the synergy of the inhabitants of this country. Consequently any additional population growth must necessarily make each and every one of us poorer on average as the per capita access to natural resources necessarily decreases in proportion to the increase of the numbers of people.

However, it gets even worse than that, because of the dis-economies of scale inherent in large populations. An obvious example is that Australians are paying extra water rates to finance costly water desalination and sewage recycling plants required to provide water for additional people.

Had we stabilised our population, this would have been totally unnecessary. We could all have been adequately supplied by our existing less unnatural and less technologically complex water infrastructure.

Similar points could be made about transport, electricity, health, education and other services.

To cope with increasing numbers, it is necessary to destroy ever greater tracts of native bushland, to abuse our topsoil and waterways, and to unsustainably dig up ever more of our finite endowment of mineral wealth.

Three and a half decades of extreme 'free market' economic policies have further compounded these problems. These policies hinder governments from making use of what economies of scale are possible. They prevent effective planning in the interests of all members of society. Obvious examples include the huge inefficiencies of the private property market and the shambolic state of Australian urban planning, a result of the dismantling of Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD) by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in the late 1970's.

In some ways it may be the case that immigration does indeed enable the transfer of wealth into, as well as out, of Australia:

• The purchase of a home by wealthy or middle class immigrants as a means of buying Australian citizenship, which is effectively a transfer of wealth from the source country into Australia;
• The poaching of skilled workers, often trained at the expense of taxpayers of other countries, including of poor third world countries - a practice, for which the Queensland Bligh Government has become infamous;
• The selling of Australian university degrees and vocational training, which has notoriously become yet another means of purchasing Australian citizenship_#main-fn1">1.

Little, if any of this wealth trickles down to ordinary Australians and whatever benefit they do gain is more than negated by the loss of previously available educational, training and employment opportunities, and consequent housing inflation (also discussed below). Even if it can be shown that Australia, as a whole, gains, rather than loses wealth through immigration, that wealth will most likely evaporate within this generation_#main-fn2">2.

In any case, on a global scale such wealth transfer is a zero-sum game, at best.

All things considered, it seems far more likely that we are not only becoming more impoverished, but we are becoming even more impoverished than we might expect to be if we had simply divided the existing wealth amongst larger numbers of people!

In a perverse way, it seems to me that this may have actually made it harder, rather than easier, to argue the case against population growth and immigration.

Whilst I can't know for certain if this was true for others, I will try to summarise some of the ways that this fed into my own conscious and sub-conscious thought processes and caused me to avoid questioning our high immigration policies for many decades.

My own intuition caused me to conclude that, if, somehow, immigration made us worse off on the whole, it would surely be harder, rather than easier, for any group to gain from immigration. Therefore, when faced with the strident assertions from all the seemingly credible authorities that immigration was economically beneficial, I found it easier to deny my own gut instincts and not to make the considerable investment of emotion and time necessary to question this pervasive message. Instead, I just quietly hoped that the advocates of immigration, who promised me a more prosperous, vibrant, interesting and sophisticated society, were right.

Alternatively, on occasions when the economic arguments did not seem to quite ring true to me, then the only other likely plausible motive would have been an underlying altruism of an enlightened elite more willing, than the ordinary, backward, redneck, xenophobic masses, to share the wealth of this country with others less fortunate than ourselves.

However, the conclusive evidence, after many decades of this social engineering, is that Australia has, instead, become a poorer and more dependant country as consequence and this has not been brought about because Australia's elites are self-sacrificing and altruistic.

Contrary to what I expected, a small group has, paradoxically, not lost, but rather gained from this chaos and suffering, at our expense. That group is the growth lobby. First identified and described in detail in Australia by Sheila Newman in "The Growth lobby and its absence" (2002) and Growth lobby thesis without appendices.[1], it is really a group of land speculators and landlords operating in an organised way on a corporate level.

Land speculators and landlords openly welcome the way that growing demand increases the price of vital resources over which they have acquired a monopoly. They profit from commodifying and then controlling access to resources and services which include water, land, power, housing, roads, food production and transport, which each one of us needs in order to live a dignified life, or even simply to live.

As one consequence, in Brisbane at the start of 2009, even previously well-off professionals are being impoverished by insatiably greedy landlords, who exploit these circumstances to increase rents at every possible opportunity. A surveyor, who lives near me (who acknowledges that his own work entails the destruction of bushland to build new housing developments to cope with population growth), told me how he was unable to travel back to Germany this year for his holidays, because of being personally affected by recent rent increases.

The growth lobby also includes property developers, financiers, building companies and suppliers of building materials. There are also others that gain from population growth through high immigration, such as immigration lawyers, employment agencies and cheapskate employers.

Whilst these activities may provide a facade of economic prosperity, none are capable of increasing the underlying ability of this society to provide for its own needs.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh in April 2006, then Deputy Premier, ludicrously defended population growth on the grounds that it was necessary to keep people in the construction industry employed_#main-fn3">3.

How could Premier Bligh, supposedly an intelligent person, have failed to ask herself the obvious question: How are those additional people then to be employed? Must we build yet more houses to keep them employed and import yet more people to Australia in order to provide a demand for those houses?

At some point such 'growth' has to end and Queenslanders must be able to find gainful employment by meeting the needs of other Queenslanders instead of

future inhabitants.

The longer Australians put off stabilising our population and establishing a steady state economy, the worse will be our circumstances.

But the growth lobby wants this situation to continue indefinitely. To ensure that the forced march to dystopia continues, the growth lobby pours funds into the coffers of Australia's major political parties, including Anna Bligh's Labor Party. It creates obligation and dependency in our political parties and governments. In turn, our governments endlessly facilitate the real-estate economy, in the face of every democratic objection, merely to keep themselves in Government.

If we are to hope for any kind of a decent future for ourselves and our children, these corrupt arrangements must be brought to an end and the power of the growth lobby must be broken.

The above article has been expanded upon the original version, published on 24 January - JS, 26 Jan 08

Republished on Eye on Immigration and Online Opinion (in a slightly abridged form) together with forum discussion.

See also: "Bligh Government tramples on community rights to impose over-development" of 11 Jun 08, "Redland City to pay with increased water charges for population growth" of 19 May 08, "More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland" of 14 May 08, "About immigration" of 14 May 08, "Shared accommodation a necessity and no longer a choice for many in Brisbane" of 30 Apr 08, "How to end the Queensland economy's addiction to population growth?" of 26 Apr 08, "The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections" of 30 Mar 08, "The Courier Mail beats the drum for more Queensland population growth" of 30 Mar 08, "Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community" of 8 Mar 08,
Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's Thesis: "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France" downloadable from here.

Footnotes

[1] Sheila Newman's theory on the Growth Lobby: "The Growth Lobby and its Absence :The Relationship between the
Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France", Masters by Research, 2002: downloadable from here, in individual chapters plus five appendices and here, the whole main thesis. UPDATE: See also more recent publications including three books by Sheila Newman here. http://candobetter.net/node/1882

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-txt1">↑ See ABC Radio National Background Briefing program "Paying to be permanent" of 17 Aug 08.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-txt2">↑ As Sheila Newman put in "Expanded Australia" in the June 2006 edition of the Sustainable Population Australia newsletter:

"For these unimaginative and exploitative reasons, we are losing access to bushland, water, good soil, beaches and pleasant lifestyle for everyone, in favour of an 'economy' built on land speculation, class division, middlemen, and with a complete absence of recognition that we are trashing the last great Pacific paradise in return for money that will evaporate within this generation, leaving us a poor and overpopulated island, similar to all the other Pacific islands that have become victims of colonisation since the 18th Century."

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-txt3">↑ "Qld govt rejects population cap" in the Age of 22 April 2007. (A similar story was published in the Courier Mail around the same, but the URL is unknown.)

From an article, "Panic Grows In Ca As Welfare Checks Set To Stop,
by SmileySam, Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 10:18:20 PM PST

Imagine living hand to mouth already, barely squeaking by. Come Feb 1 the State has warned you may not see another check for months. No Rent money, no money for food for medicine and even worse for some of the disabled, your Caregiver that comes by daily to feed, clean, shop, and generally make sure you are cared for, isn't coming anymore.

California's fiscal future lurched yet another step toward oblivion on Friday as state Controller John Chiang announced he could no longer make payments for services to disabled and blind people who need the money to pay for rent and food.

Chiang said payments would most likely have to be stopped by Feb. 1.

"Delaying these payments will hurt real families," Chiang said.

About one million people would be affected by the non-payments, Chiang said.

Disabled, Blind People to Lose Disability Payments

* SmileySam's diary
*

I am disabled but my check comes from Social Security, but my Sig. Other, who is also disabled, gets her check from the State. It's not that much but helps with the bills like the cost of the electricity to run her oxygen machine that runs 24/7. She also has a daytime Caregiver paid for by the State because I cannot care for her like I used to. Her caregiver also rents a room from us which helps with the rent, but since he is going to be laid-off we are really going to be screwed.

I don't want to get too much into our personal business but to show just how damaging this will be just to my family alone I will have to use a few more details. I'm a chronic pain sufferer. I have what are known as Cluster Migraines which are just like your everyday migraine except they never go away. They don't have a clue what causes them but we do know that stress makes them much worse. I also have a extremely bad back and neck, emphysema, and a few other problems. My SO has Diabetes, COPD, CHF, emphysema, Fibromyalgia, and is considered Terminal. She is bedridden most the time and uses a electric wheelchair when she can. She can neither cook, or bath herself any longer, and can barely dress herself most the time. You can see why her Caregiver is so important to us. He does the shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry as well as taking her to the Doctor at least once every two weeks. He does much more but that should give you a sense of what my life will look like after Feb.1 and I'm not alone.

Even if State Controller John Chiang finds a way to make these payments Arnold is trying to make major cuts on the backs of the Disabled and Poor. Arnold is good republican after all.

The Governor’s proposed cuts – including those proposed by the Governor and enacted by the Legislature in previous budget years, include major cuts proposed to Medi-Cal, regional centers, mental health services, CalWORKS (State’s "welfare to work" program that includes thousands of parents and children with special needs), In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), SSI/SSP (Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Payment) grants to the lowest income persons with disabilities, the blind and seniors, the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) that provides small state funded grants for legal immigrants with disabilities, the blind and low income seniors who do not qualify for SSI, cuts that impact public and accessible transportation and housing and cuts to public education that impact special education for over 650,000 children with special needs.

Hundreds Protest Against Governor’s Spending Cut Proposals

It's my hope that someone on the Obama Team will read this and see that the States like Ca. aren't let out of the coming Stimulus Money because it doesn't seem that the Republicans and some of the Democrats in Ca. aren't in any hurry to fix this coming disaster. I now know how those in New Orleans felt as they watched Katrina come and go and no one there to help. This will be a State of Emergency in my home and millions like mine. Somehow I don't think FEMA or the Red Cross will be handing out food and water anytime some. I wrote about this whole deal in a open thread earlier and I made a comment about how I feel. I should give you a hint at how many people feel.

Who can afford to sue ? The perfect victim, one too poor to have a atty. I have not found one article about blowback on the rebate cks we didn't get. Who will sue Arnie if they don't have a apt, phone or food ? The poor are treated as invisible, which for the most part we are. We are too afraid of losing what little income we get to rock the boat.

I don't have the answer here but I am hoping someone who does will read this, or that someone pass it on to someone who does. I haven't reached my limit yet, but it's coming fast. For someone who worked hard for over 30 yrs and paid all my share of taxes and dues this is a hard place to be and getting harder by the day. In some of the larger cities I believe we can expect growing violence if this isn't fixed and quick.

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

Developer reveals last minute meeting with Planning Minister and Council bastardry condemns Western Sydney Woodland at ADI Site.

These sites and sounds files reveal just how important and beautiful this site is. Anyone should be able to see that not to preserve it is to defile traditional Australian values as well as environmental integrity.

Residents shocked as their democracy trashed for development

Concerned residents sat in amazement last night as Penrith Council voted to condemn hundreds of hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland which NSW Scientists claim is verging on extinction. Council voted 14/15 to enter into a Planning Agreement with developer Delfin Lend Lease to build 3500 houses and clear approx 300 ha of Cumberland Plain Woodland from the ADI Site.

Penrith Council had recently exhibited Delfins Western and Central Precinct Plans as well as the Planning Agreement. Concurrently the Planning Minister had exhibited amendments to the zoning plan for the ADI site allowing the public to call for radical changes to the development.

Councillors were urged by residents that addressed the meeting to defer their decision to enter into the Planning Agreement if they did not understand fully what it is they were voting on and in any case until after the Planning Minister publicly made her final determination and after Councillors had assessed and adopted the Precinct Plans.

Delfin urges Councillors to dismiss views of residents

Arthur Ilias, Delfin Project Manager, addressed the meeting and urged Councillors to dismiss the views of residents urging the protection of more of the site. He went on to claim a meeting occurred that day with Kristina Keneally the Planning Minister and that she assured Delfin that the NSW Government would not amend the zoning plan to protect any more of the site.

Residents Action Group ADI alleges undeclared vested interest

According to Geoff Brown, spokesman for the Residents' Action group, "Several Councillors who supported Delfin Lend Lease, including the Mayor, failed to declare a pecuniary interest. Council Officers presented a clearly misleading email to Councilors prior to the meeting from Peter Goth, a Dept of Planning bureaucrat, claiming the Planning Minister had limited authority to rezone and protect more bushland. Council officers also led councilors to believe there would be further community consultation on the Agreement and that there was also the spurious claim by Planners that the NSW Government may at any time put restrictions on how Councils can collect and use developer levies and therefore the need to rush and lock in this decision."

Brown claims that "The 6 Liberal Councillors who supported the developer voted in contradiction to NSW Liberal policy which since 2003 has been to seek a 100 ha reduction in Delfins housing development."

In his opinion, “This was one of the worst, most undemocratic decisions of all time. These Councillors had no idea what they were supporting and clearly wanted it that way."

Councillor Kevin Crameri alone stood up for Woodlands

"Only one councillor, Independent Kevin Crameri, voted against it. Crameri declared a 'non-pecuniary interest' in that he lived near the proposed development. Prior to the vote he stood up and peppered the council officers with questions on detail, eliciting very confusing responses."

Brown says Council appeared confused

Geoff Brown, who addressed Council for the Residents Action Group, states that these responses seemed to him to indicate that the Councillors had not gone into the matter seriously. On the morning after the Council meeting he said that it had appeared to him that the council were all confused.

"They showed no concern that in allowing the clearing of hundreds of hectares of endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland that they were pushing it towards extinction. They seemed to have no concern with locking ratepayers into a deal with a developer before they had even debated and adopted the Precinct Plans. They had no concern for the fact the Planning Minister had yet to make a final determination on public submissions calling for more of the site to be protected.”

Mayor is himself a real-estate agent for the region and other councillors have pecuniary links

Brown gave his opinion that, “Jim Aitken the Independent Mayor, who heads the massive Jim Aitken and Partners Real Estate group, should not have voted as he will eventually make money from this development approval." He added, "I think that, arguably, Greg Davies the Labor Clr should have declared a pecuniary interest as he is employed by Diane Beamer the Member for Mulgoa and Delfin have financially supported the re-election campaign of Diane Beamer. The evidence for this is available from NSW electoral office. We intend to explore this dodgy approval process further. This is yet another sorry chapter in this planning debacle.”

Residents Action Group will seek urgent clarification from Planning Minister, Kristina Keneally

“These Councillors did their parties a great political disservice and this may play itself out at the NSW Election. We will seek urgent clarification from the Planning Minister about her position as she told the Sydney media only a week ago she was considering protecting more of the site,” said Brown.

Further Comment Geoff Brown 0431 222602
Source Media Release and interview with Geoff Brown
ADI Residents Action Group