political alternatives in Australia

Steven Armstrong is a prospective Sustainable Australia Party candidate for the upcoming federal elections. He has run before and has a history of hard work on the issue of sustainability and the unsustainable problem of our rapid population growth in Australia. His political experience and skill has grown along with his experience. Although Steven has financed previous candidatures, the cost of merely registering to run in the election has suddenly leapt from $350 to $2000 under the LNP coalition. This can only be in order to reduce democratic opposition. So please consider helping Steven in his gofundme campaign! He needs $2000.

Hi, my name is Steven Armstrong.

Soon we will be having an Australian General Election.

I have been pre-selected to run in the Division of Macnamara for the Sustainable Australia Party.

Politics is an expensive thing to undertake. The LNP coalition have increased the deposit (democratic entry fee) from $350 to $2000.

They fear an alternative voice of the people and seek to silence us. Show them that they will fail. This campaign will allow me to give a choice to those of us that seek a better and sustainable Australia.

Sustainable Australia is a community movement from the common-sense political centre advocating for an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable Australia. This includes secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment for all Australians.

We are a group of committed Australians from backgrounds in business, science, the environment, health, academia, demography, politics and many other ordinary citizens; from World War 2 Diggers to migrants born on every inhabited continent on Earth.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/core_values

The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, former Federal Member for Wills, is joining the Sustainable Australia Party. Mr Thomson served as an Australian Labor Party Councillor for the City of Coburg from 1981 to 1988, Member of the Victorian Parliament for Pascoe Vale from 1988 to 1996, and Federal Labor Member for Wills for over 20 years from 1996 until the 2016 Election. Mr Thomson will be advising Sustainable Australia’s first elected Member of Parliament, Mr. Clifford Hayes, who was elected as a Legislative Councillor for the Southern Metropolitan Region at the recent Victorian election.

Mr Hayes said, “Kelvin Thomson’s knowledge of all three levels of government, his campaign experience - he stood for public office 12 times in his career and was successful on each occasion - and his policy development expertise, having been a Shadow Minister for the Environment amongst other Shadow Ministries, Parliamentary Secretary and member of many Parliamentary Committees during his parliamentary service, will make him an invaluable asset to me, my office and to the Sustainable Australia Party.

Mr Thomson said, "I first joined the Labor Party in 1975. It was an honour and privilege to represent the Australian Labor Party in two Parliaments and three levels of government for a total of 35 years. To say the Labor Party has been my life is putting it mildly. So I have submitted my resignation from the Labor Party with a very heavy heart.

“For a decade now I have set out what I believe to be the myopia, greed, vanity and ecological illiteracy that drives Big Australia, Australia's policy of rapid population growth. I have arrived at a point where there are irreconcilable differences between the course I believe Australia and the world needs to chart, and the course that the Australian Labor Party is charting. I set out in my Valedictory Speech my great appreciation of the support I received as an MP from ordinary members of the Labor Party, and those sentiments remain true. I retain a hope that in time the Labor Party will embrace views about Australia's population that are more in keeping with the needs of this generation, the needs of those who will come after us, and the needs of the many other species we have the good fortune to share this ancient, beautiful and fragile country with.

"What this world needs now is not more people, but more courage."

Sustainable Australia Party Founder and President William Bourke said, "Kelvin Thomson played a key role in kick-starting the population debate in Australia 10 years ago, with a speech he gave in Parliament in August 2009, and with a media release he put out in September 2009, in response to Treasury figures showing that Australia's population would be 35 million by 2049, a massive jump from the previous projection of 28 million by 2049, made just a couple of years earlier. He described this as a recipe for environmental disaster and called for population reform."

"The Sustainable Australia Party, formed in the wake of that debate, is a party of the political centre, and Kelvin and other mainstream, like-minded Australians are very welcome here."

Kelvin Thomson's letter of Resignation from the Australian Labor Party 13 January 2019

Samuel Rae
Victorian Branch Secretary
Australian Labor Party
438 Docklands Drive
DOCKLANDS VIC 3008

Dear Sam

This is a very hard letter for me to write. I first joined the Australian Labor Party in 1975.

Within a few years I had become a Branch Secretary, then Branch President, then delegate to the Victorian State Conference and President of the Wills FEA, Policy Committee member, and member of a number of local, State, and Federal Campaign Committees. I was later elected as a member of
the Public Office Selection Panel and served for a time as its President.

In 1981 I was elected as an endorsed Australian Labor Party Councillor for the City of Coburg, and reelected in 1982 and 1985, serving until 1988. In 1988 I was elected as an endorsed Australian Labor Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for the electorate of Pascoe Vale. I represented Pascoe Vale until 1996 and served as a Shadow Minister and Manager of Opposition Business during that time.

In 1996 I was elected to the Federal Parliament as the Labor Member for Wills. I was re-elected in 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013, serving for over 20 years until I retired from Parliament in 2016. I served as a Labor Shadow Minister from 1998 till 2007. When Labor was elected to Government I became Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and later on served as a Parliamentary Secretary under 2 Labor Prime Ministers.

It was an honour and a privilege to represent the Australian Labor Party in 2 Parliaments and 3 levels of government for a total of over 35 years. To say the Labor Party has been my life is putting it mildly. As you know, I received my 40 Year Membership Medallion a couple of years ago. Since retiring from Parliament I have continued to provide assistance and support to Labor MPs and candidates in my area.

So I am writing this letter of resignation with a very heavy heart. There are many things I could talk about, but I accept this is always going to be true of any large political organisation. The one thing I cannot overlook is this. The world is undergoing unsustainable population growth – it has more than doubled in the last 50 years. I can’t do much about that, but Australia is one of the worst offenders. So too Victoria. So too Melbourne. The Australian Labor Party of the 21st Century has embraced Australia’s 21st Century rapid population growth, known by the shorthand expression of Big Australia. The 55,000 annual net overseas migration of the Whitlam years, when I joined, has turned into over 200,000 annual net overseas migration. Here in Victoria we have embraced Big Victoria
and Big Melbourne.

For a decade now I have set out what I believe to be the myopia, greed, vanity and ecological illiteracy that drives Big Australia. I won’t insult your intelligence by repeating my arguments. Suffice to say that I have arrived at a point where there are irreconcilable differences between the course I believe Australia and the world needs to chart, and the course that the Australian Labor Party is charting.

It is true that neither the Liberal nor the Greens Parties have any more enlightened approaches to the issue, but there is a Party – Sustainable Australia – which does get it. As they say in the US, everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. It is well established that an important ingredient of happiness is the opportunity to spend your days doing something you believe in. What I believe is that exponential population growth is not merely a problem, but that it is the problem that reinforces all others. I agree with David Attenborough – “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more”.

I have been given an opportunity by the Sustainable Australia Party’s Victorian MLC Cliff Hayes to do something I really believe in. It is an opportunity too good to pass up. Obviously that is not consistent with my remaining a Labor Party member, hence this letter.

I set out in my Valedictory Speech my great appreciation of the support I received as an MP from ordinary members of the Labor Party, and those sentiments remain true. I retain a hope that in time Labor will embrace views about Australia’s population that are more in keeping with the needs of this generation, the needs of those who will come after us, and the needs of the many other species we have the good fortune to share this ancient, beautiful and fragile country with.

Yours sincerely
The Hon. Kelvin Thomson
[email protected]
11 January 2019

Kelvin Thomson's resignation letter as pdf file - click here.

The Sustainable Australia Party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide Australians: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.
Related policies feature in the video.

Why vote for Sustainable Australia?

In short, our party has prioritised four key issues that unite rather than divide us: secure jobs, affordable housing, better planning and a sustainable environment.

We've featured these four issues in our new video:

We need your help

One of the unique selling points of our party is a genuine sustainable population policy. First and foremost, rapid population growth is an environmental problem, but it also impacts on our ability to achieve secure jobs, affordable housing and better planning.

For example, without slowing population growth, desperately needed housing affordability policies around taxation, bank lending practices and overseas buyers are negated by continued rapid growth in domestic demand.

Mainstream media

Unfortunately, when it comes to the mainstream media, our voice is drowned out by the extremes - pro-big Australia and anti-immigration forces. For a combination of commercial and ideological reasons, perhaps the mainstream media wants it that way.

Despite a series of uncontested pro-big Australia articles and opinion pieces in The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian, none of these publications will print an evidence-based opinion piece I offered rejecting big Australia on environmental and infrastructure grounds.

Getting around mainstream media barriers in order to reach voters is one reason why it is so important that you watch and share our latest video.

We need rational voices to rise above intolerant ones. The alternative is even more polarised political discourse. Suppression of moderate voices simply drives people into the arms of extreme parties.

Sharing is caring

Please share our video via social media (Facebook, Twitter, online forums, etc).

Can you also forward it on to relevant family and friends?

Thanks for any help you can give.

William.

William Burke is the leader of the Sustainable Australia Party.

In November 2016 I co-wrote an article for New Matilda exploring why it is important for those on the left to discuss population sustainability. Although the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, it was suggested that the debate is invalid unless it is inclusive of migrants or indigenous Australians. Which got me thinking …

The literature of what our indigenous communities think is currently very scarce. Thankfully, there has been a recent opportunity for me to discuss with an indigenous representative in Canberra to interview on this very topic.

Richie Allan and Violet Sheridan

Richie Allan is involved in cultural awareness training and cultural tours and is concerned about over-development around Canberra and the repercussions of ongoing growth. These are concerns shared by his community. Richie’s mother, Violet Sheridan (also a director of Traditional Owners), ran as a candidate for Sustainable Australia in the 2016 elections.
When I met with him, this is what Richie had to say about population sustainability.
Q: Richie, what can you tell me about your community and yourself, including the main issues that are important to your community and that you are passionate about?

‘My community, the Ngunnawal people, are very concerned about over-development on our sacred lands. For example, the Ginninderra Falls is a very important site to my people where important business and initiation ceremonies are held. We want our future generations to be able to experience this tradition in nature and not in outer suburban development.’

Richie explained that there are so many rich and varied sacred sites, places of significance, song lines and stories, just in the ACT alone.

How can you speak of ‘diversity’ when you don’t know whose country you are in?

‘So many of these are unknown and invisible to non-indigenous people. Why is it that people speak of diversity through growth and development when they don’t even know whose country they are on or even how to say “hello” in our native tongue? We can’t maintain our links to our cultural heritage with all these houses and development projects going up.’

Richie also shared that it is hard for Indigenous groups to have an impact because much of the federal funding for indigenous affairs is lost to bureaucracy with only a small proportion ending up with grassroots groups.

Why run for the Sustainable Australia Party?

Q: Can you tell me how Violet decided to run for Sustainable Australia [political party] and why does she connect strongly with a political party that has a strong focus on population issues?

‘The smaller size of Canberra has a more inherent sense of community and therefore [it] was easier for two people from different communities, campaigning for similar issues, to find each other. Smaller spaces have a greater sense of community that may be lost in larger centres such as Sydney or Melbourne.’

Richie met Martin Tye (the Sustainable Australia candidate in the previous ACT election) through social media, and since then the two have regularly met up. They connected by finding lots of common ground in regards to environmental and developmental concerns. Richie was invited to participate in the last ACT election, but he found he did not have time to run as a candidate. Violet shared Richie’s concerns and ran in the 2016 ACT election.

Australia’s population growth killing indigenous culture and heritage

Q: In regards to population growth in the ACT, why is this particular issue a concern for you as an indigenous activist?

‘Rapid population growth is killing indigenous culture and heritage in the ACT.’

Richie shared his frustration that the indigenous community is not consulted adequately about town planning and development processes. For example, while the planning authorities claim that they have indigenous consultants in the planning processes, they often select individuals who tell the government and developers what they want to hear. Richie strongly believes that the communities, whose lands are impacted, are not consulted at the grassroots level and that they do not hear about planning proposals until it is too late.

Queries skilled immigration when indigenous talent under-utilised

Q: What is your knowledge of Australia’s population policies more broadly and how do you and your community feel about these? Is this a concern that resonates with indigenous communities across Australia?

‘It does not make sense to have a large skilled migration program when there are enough skilled people already here.’

Richie believes that there is a very considerable under-utilisation of indigenous talent and skills, especially considering the high levels of unemployment among indigenous communities. Too often, non-indigenous people are employed in indigenous programs. Richie stresses that

‘it is not about stopping migration, just slowing it down so that everyone in the community benefits better.’

He made it clear that a generous humanitarian program is still essential, although cautioned that ‘refugees are struggling to afford to live in the city, as it is too expensive, but there are no jobs or livelihoods out in the bush.’

Indigenous culture conflicts with growth for growth’s sake policies

Q: How do you think national population policies might differ if indigenous communities were consulted and these consultations were successfully implemented?
Richie is pessimistic about more indigenous people being represented in government,

‘as it would not be considered by the main powers economically viable for treaties to be recognised and for the indigenous way of life to become mainstream.’

Richie does believe that although there is a diversity of opinions among indigenous peoples, that there would be less development and “growth for growth’s sake” if Indigenous people were more represented in parliament or policy-making decisions.

Ideology prevents the left from finding common ground with indigenous

Q: Many of the left believe in open-border policies while also being active in supporting Aboriginal people’s rights to their culture and land. Do you think these two aspirations can be balanced or reconciled?

‘People on the left can be stuck on their own agendas. It is only when people are able to put their own agendas aside and reach out to everyone that we can finally get things done. At the moment identity is more important to people than reaching out and finding common ground.’

As an example of this disconnect, Richie reflected that there was a lack of political presence during the Invasion Day protests in the ACT, even [among] the left-leaning politicians.
Richie also explored the idea that in modern Australian society there is personal identity but collective culture has been lost to greed and money.

Working collaboratively with indigenous community

Q: Do you have any advice on how groups advocating for sustainable population in Australia might work collaboratively with indigenous community activists?

‘Find a balance between the aims of the group and the objectives of the indigenous people you are working with. It is very important to bring elders into the conversation and work collaboratively so people don’t feel they are being used or being talked down to.’

Something’s going to have to give

Q: Any take-home words for environmentalists and left-leaning activists?

‘Population growth is killing people. My son and daughter-in-law have to live with me because they can’t afford their own home. At this rate of growth, it is impossible to plan properly. If we keep going at the rate we’re going, all the other issues, such as crime, will also jump. We can’t sustain this for much longer, something’s going to have to give.’

Final Thoughts

In interviewing Richie, I was personally taken by his insight into the relationship between his community with their local geographic area. What may have appeared to many of us as another group of trees, a gently undulating hill or another patch of cleared land for yet another Canberra suburb may very well be a place of deep cultural or spiritual significance. I was also touched by how many similar areas of opinion he and I shared, particularly concerns regarding town planning and economic growth at all-cost.
I would certainly not try to lay claim to the fact that Richie’s interview is totally indicative of what all indigenous people think in regards to population. Like the rest of us, I am very certain one would find a diversity of opinions depending on the individuals spoke to. However, his views have similarities to Nola Turner-Jensen, Wirandjuri Australian, director of CultuRecode, and member of Sustainable Population Australia. She says the following:

Time to bring the invisible people in

“To add the perspective of Aboriginal Australians in an article about the Australian population, captures the paradoxical situation of Indigenous people in this country. On the one hand, they are excluded from the policies and institutions who decide on such issues. They have been herded to the fringe of society and the economy, with a huge bank of knowledge on Ancient Australia, sitting invisible to most. On the other hand, the world is looking for sustainable solutions and we are starting to realise that constant progress, individualism and material accumulation is not creating a healthy future for Australia’s children or environments. For 50,000 years this country’s Ancient custodians lived everyday according to what was best for every single one of Australia’s living landscapes and people. As experts in creating local sustainable and harmonious societies, Indigenous people and their knowledge wait for the chance to contribute to looking after Australia again. This time in a shared custodianship. It is time to bring the invisible in, and share the spotlight together, before it is all too late. “

This also reflects with what can be found in the literature. For example, from the concluding comment of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee (1994):

“Ecologically our land is on its knees: with help it can survive and resuscitate itself, but with any major increase in population this land will die, and we will die with it.”

I would certainly encourage further discussions and collaboration with indigenous communities on this very important issue.
Michael Bayliss is President of the Victoria and Tasmanian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia. He would like to thank Richie Allan from Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation and Martin Tye from Sustainable Australia for making this article possible.

"The Affordable Housing Party: the single issue party dedicated to solving Australia's housing affordability crisis. Australians are now living with some of the most unaffordable housing in the world, but it doesn't have to be this way! Obscene tax incentives to invest in property. Our lawmakers profit from the status quo. We opened up our housing market to investors all over the world. Australia's rapid population growth. Home buyers are paying too much to try to compete with investors. This can't go on forever!" Former journalist, Andrew Potts, Sydney, registered the Affordable Housing Party (AHP) with the Australian Electoral Commission earlier this month. Policies include: Phasing out negative gearing and capital gains discount on investment property sales; Stopping overseas buyers from buying Australian properties; Taxing properties left empty by investors; Cutting down immigration to 70,000 annually; Banning full time Airbnb properties; Ending “no fault” evictions for rental properties. Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/AffordableHousingParty/

The text below is taken from the Affordable Housing Party site at https://www.affordable-housing-party.org/. The new party was also reported in the Murdoch Press at this URL: http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/investing/affordable-housing-party-launches-claiming-renters-and-first-home-buyers-are-being-ignored-by-canberra/news-story/2113945ffb746837789d0af8e12d7818. On the Sustainable Australia Party site at http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/120 it describes Andrew as " a former Australian Greens supporter and a former editor of the Sydney Star Observer weekly newspaper."

Australians are now living with some of the most unaffordable housing in the world, but it doesn't have to be this way!

​
In 1986 in the Inner West Sydney suburb of Dulwich Hill you could buy a newly renovated three bedroom home with a big backyard for $150,000 and pay off the mortgage in under a decade

In 2017 to buy the same home would cost you $1.5 million and you will probably be paying off that mortgage for the rest of your life.

Wages in Australia didn't increase by 1000% in the three decades since 1986. So what happened to make Australia have some of the least affordable housing on the planet?
​
​

Obscene tax incentives to invest in property

​
Negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount on real estate have turned housing from a fundamental human need in Australia into a giant tax minimisation scheme for wealthy Australians.

Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue collection in Australia by $13.2 billion in the year 2010/2011 and that number has only risen each year since then.

Our lawmakers profit from the status quo

​
Most of Australia's politicians are property investors. In 2016 the 226 members of the Australian Parliament owned 563 properties – a combined property portfolio worth over $300 million.

Put simply, a majority of our politicians have a vested interest in keeping this tax minimisation scheme in place and not intervening in other policy areas that are driving up property prices in Australia because they stand to benefit personally from the current arrangements.
​
​

We opened up our housing market to investors all over the world

​
Another factor driving up house prices is Australia's weak enforcement of its laws governing overseas investors buying property in Australia.

Even just temporary residents are allowed to buy property in Australia and there is no checking that they sell those properties when they leave.
​
There is also no requirement for real estate agents to check that purchasers are legally entitled to buy in Australia and only a fraction of these illegal sales are later discovered by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

At the same time domestic issues are driving capital flight out of mainland China which has seen many ordinary Chinese people choose Australia as a safe place to park their money in real estate in case the Chinese Government clamps down on their banks.

Many of these buyers do not want the trouble of managing a rental property remotely and do not get tenants in so the property will be in pristine condition when it is sold again. This is not unique to Australia. The same phenomenon has been observed in Vancouver, Hong Kong and other major cities where mainland Chinese investors have bought in large numbers.

A 2015 study of water usage in Victoria by the group Prosper Australia found that there were 82,724 homes in Melbourne that are being left deliberately empty by investors. That's nearly 20 percent of the investor owned homes in Melbourne and it is likely that there are similar numbers of deliberately empty properties in our other capital cities as well.
​
The 2016 Census suggest that there may be as many as 300,000 of these deliberately vacant investor owned properties across Australia- enough to house every homeless person in this country many times over.
​
If these properties were made available to renters there would be a significant drop in rents and house prices in Australia.

But as things stand, these unavailable properties create an artificial scarcity of housing for renters and buyers which pushes prices up even higher.
​
​

Australia's rapid population growth

​
Adding to the pressure on housing and infrastructure is record high immigration under the Liberals while they simultaneously demonise refugees - adding up to a quarter of a million new people each year to the country who need to find housing in Australia.
​
The Affordable Housing Party supports a multicultural Australia and we should never single people out by their race, nationality, culture or religion when it comes to migration into Australia. However the immigration targets that the Australian Government sets need to be at levels that are sustainable in the long term when it comes to the demand for housing, schooling, public transport and other forms of infrastructure.
​
We fear that Australia's rapid population growth is eroding the laid back quality of lifestyle that attracts migrants to this country in the first place, and we don't want them to be disappointed when they arrive here and discover they will spend most of their lives sitting in traffic jams, struggling to pay off huge mortgages, and probably working until they are 70 before they can retire.
​
​

Home buyers are paying too much to try to compete with investors

​
Fear of missing out and easy lending by the banks has driven more and more desperate people into the housing market, paying more and more ridiculous prices in the belief that property prices will always go up – but they don't and all these things combined are fuelling a dangerous property investment bubble that could send thousands of Australians broke if it finally bursts.
​
​

Australian housing is a haven for money laundering by international organised crime groups

​
For over a decade our federal politicians have failed to subject real estate agents, lawyers, accountants and other associated professionals with roles in the property sector to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 because of push back from industry leaders despite our international partners urging us to close the loopholes.
​
As a result, Australia remains an attractive place for international crime groups to "wash" their dirty money in our real estate market. This sort of shady economic activity also contributes to the price of housing.
​
​

This can't go on forever

​
All of these factors have combined to form a perfect storm for housing affordability in Australia, but this is not sustainable in the long term.

It is now estimated that property in Australia is probably overvalued by as much as 30 to 40 percent over its real worth. So if you're buying that $1.5 million house in Dulwich Hill it's probably only worth $1 million and you might as well have just burnt your deposit.

However a controlled demolition of house prices in Australia by making property a less attractive investment option compared to other forms of more productive investment over time can prevent an economic disaster from occurring and better policies by government can make sure another bubble does not occur.

All five ACT electorates to be contested by Sustainable Australia. Sustainable Australia’s first state/territory campaign will see the party contest all five ACT electorates, represented by a diverse range of candidates from an Indigenous Elder to a 20 year old ANU science student.

Sustainable Australia (ACT) president John Haydon is representing the party in Kurrajong, and says he's delighted to have all five electorates covered in the party's first non-federal campaign.

Mr Haydon says, "Our campaign will focus on three key points: Save Canberra from overdevelopment; Lower rates; and Protect our trees."

"We will provide for proper community consultation in all development applications across the ACT.

"By slowing population growth, we relieve the ACT of the need to build and/or retro-fit so much budget-breaking complex infrastructure - like ever more trams, hospitals and schools. This budget relief will achieve lower rates than would otherwise be the case.

"And by saving Canberra from ever more sprawl and infill overdevelopment we are the only party with a sustainable plan to protect our trees and green space."

Ngunnawal Elder Violet Sheridan is standing for the party in the seat of Yerrabi, covering Gungahlin.

Ms Sheridan says, "It is important to provide better education opportunities for Aboriginal youth and all young Australians, as well as housing affordability for first home buyers and renters. I'm also passionate about protecting the ACT's Aboriginal and European heritage from overdevelopment."

The party's Ginninderra candidate Martin Tye obtained a Bachelor of Applied Science in Geography from the University of Canberra, and also has an extensive background in small business, running successful retail outlets for over 30 years.

"My extensive campaigning around Belconnen has told me that many voters are tired of the same old political choices, and want something different. Most voters want a common sense party from the political centre, and support our aim for an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable ACT," said Mr Tye.

Mr Tye's son Oliver is also running for the party, in Kurrajong in which his university sits.

"I'm loving studying science at ANU but would go to part-time study if I had the privilege of representing younger voters in the ACT Legislative Assembly," said Mr (Oliver) Tye.

Full details on the campaign can be found at our website:

http://www.votesustainable.org.au/act

Policy Platform - Sustainable Australia

The Sustainable Australia Party's slogan is "Better not bigger" and presents a welcome relief to big business's, Turnbulls and Shorten's "Jobson Growth".[1] Inside find candidate Georgia Nicholls' stump speech.

NOTES

[1] A popular play on words in Victoria parodying the repetitive mantra of "Jobs and Growth".

Sustainable Population Party is pleased to endorse a truly local candidate for the 2015 Canning, West Australia, by-election - Angela Smith. Angela is an environmental scientist and resident of Canning, with links to the region going back 30 years.

Angela Smith - Environmental scientist, Carer, Mature-age student

From Angela:

I was born on a farm and grew up in the country. As a child migrant, I understand and appreciate the significant contribution that migration has made to Australia.

I have over thirty years of work/life experience in science and environment, health and social welfare, mining, primary production, stay-at-home caring and most recently, further study as a mature age arts/law student at Murdoch University. I also volunteer at the Mandurah Community Museum.

In my ’spare time’ I enjoy singing (amateur choir), cycling, dog walking and canoeing (the Peel Harvey Estuary and rivers), and bushwalking in Jarrah woodlands on the Darling Scarp. I'm a member of Mensa, Exit, Animals Australia, Australian Society of Authors, Copyright Agency and the Royal WA Historical Society – I am also a recent past member of National Seniors, WA Council on the Ageing and the Alzheimer’s Association.

I have a passion for sustainability, social justice (notably regarding age discrimination, sexism, racism and homophobia), animal rights and human rights. I believe in a sustainable environment for all people, plants and animals - not just the chosen few. I am a strong advocate for the increasing number of vulnerable and downtrodden.

I believe that all Australians (including mature-aged) should be supported with education and training to fill skills shortages - rather than the government and business prioritising skills through high immigration. We have the labour and talent in this country and, especially given our increasingly longer living population, it is not sustainable to continue to waste it.

I also believe the major parties are too closely aligned to vested interests (including the big end of town and big unions) and should get back to their core business of essential services for the public interest i.e. health, education, justice and infrastructure.

In recent decades our politicians have let slide Australia’s once proud ‘fair go for all’. And, while some are unquestionably better off, may more are falling through the cracks. Egalitarianism is a central objective of the Sustainable Population Party's core values.

There are a number of key issues I will be campaigning on for the people of Canning, including:

• Education
• Paid jobs
• Infrastructure
• Health care
• Renewable energy
• Housing affordability

All of these key issues and many more are addressed in our policies page.

Unlike many politicians, the late Don Randall actually listened to his constituents. I was in communication with Don - about infrastructure problems in Canning (including the NBN access and telephone reception) and worker exploitation - when he sadly passed away.

Like Don, I'd like to communicate with as many residents of Canning as possible. So, please contact me with your questions and any feedback.

We need to redefine 'growth' to secure a better, not bigger Canning.

So don't forget... Vote SUSTAINABLE

With thanks and regards,

Friday 17 April 2015: The Animal Justice Party has won in a race against the No Land Tax Party for the last seat to be finalised in the New South Wales Upper House. Mark Pearson, a former psychiatric nurse, now holds the seat. What an incredible win for animals everywhere, but especially in New South Wales. Now they have a champion in government with a knowledge of human psychology.

"Mark Pearson is Executive Director of Animal Liberation in Australia. He is employed full time via funds from the Christina Fitzsimons Trust. Before this he had been Team Leader of the Newcastle Community Mental Health Service in Newcastle and worked as a Clinical Acute Adult Psychiatric Nurse Specialist. In his current position the main focus is on farm animals – particularly factory farming for the past 21 years and recently kangaroos.

Two recent successes have been in relation to sheep and kangaroos. The phase out of the most invasive mutilation of any animal without analgesia – ‘mulesing’ in sheep and convincing the Russian Federation to ban imports of kangaroo meat by exposing inherent cruelty and hygiene problems. He enjoys opera – even trying to sing some- and stopping live export death ships from entering Australian ports." http://animaljusticeparty.org/about/committee/.

Animal Justice Party National President and founder Professor Steve Garlick revealed that the party's total budget for the election was a tiny $12,000.

Save our Suburb's Planning Survey exposes some fascinating trends among independents and small parties on population policy. I have put together some data on Victorian candidates for this coming election with regard to the population question on the poll plus any remarks. This was a late night operation and some candidates' remarks were partly obscured in the copy I made. Some Greens said they were in favour of such a policy, but I note that their own policy has for years avoided mentioning immigration and places the issue at a vague global level. It is well-known that this is a contentious issue with the Greens and that members and candidates tend to get punished for mentioning it and every attempt at workable local policy is suffocated from the top. Two Labor candidates - amazingly - said they were in favour of the policy. Note that the responses to the whole questionnaire are available here: http://sos.asn.au/vic/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141117-Planning-Survey-of-Candidates-RO.xlsx UPDATE: As the survey is updated every 48 hours to include candidate responses, It might be best to use these links: Trend results and Individual candidate responses

Here is the question candidates were asked in the SOS poll, to which 35 had responded positively by 21 November 2014:

"While ensuring that human rights are protected, would you support wider public debate on a stable population policy for Victoria in order to address ecological sustainability, as well as infrastructure and employment impacts?"

Candidates who said they were in favour of such a policy were:

Australian Cyclists Party (All regions)
Voice for the West (Altona, Broadmeadows, Essendon, Footscray, Koroit, Melbourne, Melton, Niddrie, St Albans, Sunbury, Sydenham, Tarneeit, Werribee, Williamstown.
John Rinaldi, Independent, for Broadmeadows.
Calre LeServe, Independent for Bass.

Nigel Hicks, Independent for Murray Plains.
Lynette Bell, Rise Up Australia for East Bendigo
Christopher Byrne, Independent for Eltham.

Peter Gardney, Climate Emergency, Gippsland East.
Robert Anderson, Independent for Hastings.
Matt DeLeon, Independent for Melton.
Jordan Crook, Save the Planet Party for Monbulk.
Dr Eleonora Lullone, Animal Justice Party, Prahran.
Alan Menadue, Independent: Anti GST, Anti-Privatisation of Social ... for Prahran.
Tom Keel, Independent for City Living of Richmond.
Michael Challinger, Independent opposing selling off of public assets ... for Ringwood.
Jamie Overend, Animal Justice Party for South Barwon.
Safwat Ali, Independent for Tarneit.
Thomas Di Parma, Independent for reducing congestion, crime... for Thomastown.
Brenton Edgecombe, Animal Justice Party for Eastern Metropolitan.
Voice for the West for Western Metropolitan, Western Victoria, Northern Metropolitan
Maria McLaverty, Animal justice Party for Northern Metropolitcan.
Bruce Poon, Animal Justice Party for Northern Metropolitan.
Andy Meddick, Animal Justice Party for Western Victoria.
James Purcell, Vote 1 Local, for Western Victoria.
Joel Martin, Independent, Return TAFE and uni to the Yarra Valley, for Croydon.

Greens who said, "Yes", (in contradiction to their party policy and record.)

Most people aware of population politics know that the Greens always support the Liberal Party and the Labor Party's big population policies and their policy is mostly a vague one about 'global' population.

Bill Pemberton of the Greens Box Hill, responded with "Yes," and stood out from his fellows by adding the following remark, courageous for a Green:

"Although a Federal issue 2000 people a week coming to live in Melbourne is unsustainable."

Daniel Caffrey of the Greens for Morewell, also responded "Yes."
Bruce Lindsay, Greens, Geelong also responded "Yes."
Rod May, Greens for Ripon, also responded "Yes."
Steven Merriel, Greens for Oakleigh, also responded "Yes."
Danel Caffrey, Greens for Morwell, also responded "Yes."
Paul Kennedy, Greens Ivanhoe, also responded "Yes."
Clem Stanyon, Greens, for Bundoora, also responded "Yes."

Labor Party candidates who said "Yes" in apparent divergence from Party policy.

Steve Hosing, Labor Hastings. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!
Ian Spencer, Australian Labor Party for South East Metropolitan. This is exceptional for a Labor candidate!

Socialist Alliance vehemence against democratic consultation continues

Sean Brocklehurst, Socialist Alliance for Pascoe Vale is typically opposed to a democratic population policy and has written remarks to that effect, also relying on the old racists posing as ecologists argument to discredit the validity of the issue.

Population numbers are now a democratic issue because the two big parties and the Greens are colluding to push extreme population growth. People will vote against population growth if given the opportunity because it is causing a decline in urban lifestyle. Some of the problems it is causing is severe competition for schooling, hospitals, housing and places on public transport. People are upset by the destruction of established built environment to keep pace with this imposed population growth. If we were able to achieve zero population growth over time and reduce our per capita consumption, we would use less coal, possibly even stop needing to use it and we would never need to turn on the desal plant. It's a no-brainer really.

Steven Armstrong is running in Albert Park as an independent. He is, however, supported by Sustainable Population Party, which, because it is federally registered, cannot run a candidate in a state election. Steven was a federal candidate for Sustainable Population Partyc in the last federal elections.

He says that he is running in regard to Sustainable Population Party because it would be a pity to let opportunity go by. He can offer some democratic choice to the people of Albert Park over the population issue. He can exercise the mechanisms of the party to find out what's possible when they concentrate their efforts on one electorate.

Decline in urban lifestyle a symptom of population growth

Steven thinks that people might vote for him due to their awareness of the symptoms of population growth. He gives a few examples:

There is a decline in standard of urban lifestyle:

- You can't get on tram or train in the morning.
- If you want to go from Albert Park to visit someone in Northcote, it takes an hour to get there on a Saturday afternoon. - People can't get their children into school.
- One in three houses needs to be knocked down and replaced by dual occupancy.
- It worries people to see houses knocked down.

Population numbers are a democratic issue

He says that, in Elwood high density happened in 1960s and 70s but that process is starting again and will proceed throughout the electorate. Population growth presents an issue of democracy in that Greens, ALP and Libs are all colluding in pushing extreme population growth. The populace don't have a choice except in electorates where the Sustainable Population Party runs a candidate.

What Steven would like to do if elected or if more like him were elected

He would like to hold the balance of power in a parliament and hold the government to carry out wishes of people with respect to population growth. He could then advocate for zero population growth. If he could achieve that, then any new infrastructure would represent an improvement in our lives rather than a desperate attempt to catch up with growing population. Our quality of life would improve.

He would like the future to be similar to that period in Australian history when successive generations enjoyed a better standard of living than the previous one. He observes that that process has stopped and gone into reverse. He says that we need to get it back to how it used to be. With zero population growth, this would be a place where people enjoyed enough space in the inner city parks, where they could get transport around the city, where the level of health care was not swamped by immigration and where housing was once more affordable.

The [natural] environment on which we all depend; can the decline be halted by stabilising population?

Steven says,

"If population stabilised and per capita use of the environment decreased in energy, space and waste production, then our environment would improve greatly. We would never ever have to turn on the desalination plant. We would not use more coal; we would use less of it. We may even be able to stop using it completely. So the environment would benefit greatly from a stable population."

The Sustainable Population Party invites members and supporters to meet in Hawthorn for an informal meeting to discuss a number of key issues. 12pm for 12:15pm (lunch at 1:30pm); Glenferrie Hotel, 324 Burwood Road, Hawthorn (Glenferrie Room at rear).Please RSVP: CLICK HERE

The issues include:

- Party update from national President

- Distribution of new SPP flyers for letterboxing, etc

- Proposed formation of Victorian committee/branch

When: 12pm for 12:15pm (lunch at 1:30pm)

Where: Glenferrie Hotel, 324 Burwood Road, Hawthorn (Glenferrie Room at rear).

We look forward to seeing you.

Please RSVP: CLICK HERE

A definition of advertising: "The act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising."

By using conventional broadcasting channels to advertise the Vote Compass, the ABC, in turn, provided access to the biased coverage within the Vote Compass: Proof of the ABC’s Vote Compass Bias?

That biased coverage (1) advertised (for example) the name of the Wikileaks Party but concealed the name of the Stable (now Sustainable) Population Party under the description "other"; despite the latter having more candidates and arguably having a broader impact on the 30 election issues. The Election Issues List also (2) advertised 30 election issues but omitted the Population Growth Management election issue; identified as a Top 15 election issue by the Essential Report, 23 July 2013.

Both these acts constituted advertising of one political party, or parties and political issues at the expense of another party and its political issue(s).

Over 1 million Voters who accessed the Vote Compass were subjected to this advertising. This would be between 7% and 10% of the voting public.

Extracts from ABC Editorial Policy Document

Scope:

"The ABC Editorial Policies apply to all content produced, commissioned, acquired or otherwise obtained by the ABC for broadcast or publication by the ABC on platforms and through services operated by the ABC, or by the ABC on platforms and through services operated by third parties. The ABC Editorial Policies do not apply to the activities of ABC Commercial except to the extent that ABC Commercial exercises editorial control over content for broadcast or publication by the ABC which has not been already broadcast or published by the ABC. In all its activities, ABC Commercial must operate in a manner consistent with maintaining the independence and integrity of the ABC."

Section 11.7 of the Editorial Policy states:

"Product placement and other forms of embedded or surreptitious advertising are prohibited."

Will the ABC now be called to account for prohibited political advertising throughout the 2013 Federal Election campaign?

Quite apart from this, complaints were also submitted to the ABC, over years, about the way its broadcasts limited the Carbon Tax debate to discussion of a range of financial schemes to reduce emissions, without also discussing the prime cause of emissions growth (aka population growth). A fact cited in these complaints was that in the 20 years BEFORE introduction of the Carbon Tax both fossil fuel based emissions and population had grown roughly 32%. This rate of growth was far higher than the rate of reduction that any of the proposed emissions reduction schemes could achieve in Australia.

The ABC was made aware of all these facts before the Carbon Tax legislation was passed in 2011, but still it supported misrepresentation of the Carbon Tax facts.

The Carbon Tax aspect of my complaints was analogous to complaining that the ABC had broadcast repeatedly for over 5+ years that the only way to control obesity was by exercise, when the truth is that the amount eaten also influences weight gain.

Imagine the fat people's class action lawsuit. The ABC wouldn't stand a chance.

But when it comes to one of the biggest humanitarian, social, environmental and economic challenges facing Australia today, the ABC can broadcast whatever it pleases and remain unaccountable for any lack of editorial integrity. An obvious example of this is ongoing omission or concealment of the population growth management issue from public policy debate.

Will a public apology be forthcoming that is disseminated as far and wide as the Vote Compass and the biased ABC Carbon Tax Debate were disseminated over the last 5+ years? Or will the ABC continue to get off "Scott-free" (excuse the pun)?

New Year’s Resolve from our political leaders. Are they out of touch with reality?…………See comments in Bold

Australians should enter 2014 full of optimism and willing to have a go to better their country, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says. He says the strength of the country is in its people's willingness to better their lives. 'This is the year I hope more of us than ever will have a go', he says in a new year's message.

No problem there. 1.8% more every year is what Liberal, Labor and Greens are ensuring using a policy "by stealth; without consensus". Does the additional cost of supporting those additional people exceed the ability of economic growth to pay for it? Will we "have an indebted go" while our economy tanks according to Tony Abbott? Where's the due diligence to back up the strategy of extreme population growth?

'We'll start new businesses, we'll build new houses, we'll undertake further study, make investments and plan a future.
'May we all be nearer to our best selves in 2014, government included.'

Using debt, debt, debt and more debt?

In 2014 the country will start commemorating the centenary of Anzac - which falls in 2015 - and begin a conversation about a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the constitution.

Why recognise indigenous people if we don't also recognise, and show respect for, their sustainable population management policy which lasted over 50,000 years before we dispossessed them using extreme population growth? Isn't that dispossession still evolving at maximum speed?

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he and Labor would spend the next year fighting for Australians' jobs and making sure the government sticks to its election promises.

I note from the Vote Compass data that Bill wants population growth to exceed 2012’s 1.8% per annum. Yet the ABS reports that unemployment has been increasing by an average of 2.3% per annum for the last decade. Great idea Bill; but how does this work? To be fair, looking at the changes from one year to the next can be misleading. People reach retirement age, economic activity rises and falls, etc.... So looking at a decade gives a longer term average. In the last decade, two of the largest two-year leaps in unemployment occurred in December 2009 (165,500) and December 2013 (92,100). Over those two year periods migration was about 585,000 and 387,000 respectively. The ratios of leap in unemployment to migrant arrivals were roughly 28% and 24% respectively. They look similar don't they? This is roughly one in four, which is an average family of four with one wage earner becoming unemployed for every family of four arriving. The trend in the total number of unemployed fluctuates, but is always upwards. Stating unemployment as a percentage is political manipulation, because it doesn't quantify the magnitude of the humanitarian problem. Has the government ever evaluated the relationship between migrant arrivals prior to economic slowdowns and the step changes in unemployment that follows? Is this a new Key Performance Indicator relevant to population growth management? Don't ask me; ask Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten !!

Australia will be rewarded by its resilience, hard work and the creativity of its people in the new year, opposition leader Bill Shorten says.

Does resilience mean pumping up the economy with rapid population growth so it booms forever and never busts? Is that why we had high interest rates driven by a surge in demand while the rest of the world dropped interest rates during the GFC? Did that contribute to making our dollar high and our manufacturing industry uncompetitive? Great idea Bill; but how does this work?

He says keeping people in work will be among the biggest challenges the country faces in 2014.

OK; got that.

'For all of us, the new year presents a renewed opportunity to focus on the things that really matter - our families, our community and our nation's future,' he said in a statement.

'The kind of job losses that occurred towards the end of 2013 can't be allowed to happen again this year.'

They’ve been happening for a decade, Bill. Isn’t 2.3% the averaged increase in unemployment per annum, compounding from 2003 to 2013, a decade? We have 26% more seasonally adjusted unemployed than a decade ago. The trend is up; and the yearly fluctuations will continue.

To confront these challenges the nation's resolve must be durable and unwavering, he said.

What does that mean? Unwavering denial of the unsustainability of extreme population growth regardless of consequences? A durable, unwavering policy "by stealth; without consensus"?

'We must continue to fight for the fair go and ensure every Australian has the opportunity to reach their full potential - through education, proper health care or a hand when they need it most,' he said.

A fair go for who, exactly? How? By refusing to perform a comparative analysis of the social, environmental, economic and humanitarian consequences (both domestic and international) of a range of Australian long term population growth rates; using zero population growth as the Base Case benchmark?

'No matter what is ahead of us, I know our nation will continue to be rewarded by the resilience, hard work and creativity of its people.

……..and the short term, unsustainable policies of our pro-growth dictatorship in collaboration with the Liberals and the Greens?

Please sign and forward this petition if you think these guys have lost the plot:

http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/australia-requires-a-public-inquiry-to-determine-a-basis-for-the-optimum-rate-of-population-growth-2

If you're in the electorate of Griffith, consider voting for the Sustainable Population Party so they can "have a go" representing over 50% of the population who reckon this issue needs to be addressed.

"..70% of Australians prefer a smaller population. They don't want a 'Big Australia' by 2050, and, none of the major parties are listening. So we're here to give the majority of Australians the choice that they want. [...] We're about the people, the citizens of Australia, who deserve a choice." Timothy Diamond Lawence, Griffith candidate.

Timothy Diamond Lawrence, Sustainable Population Party candidate for Griffith by-election on Saturday 8 February 2014. The seat of Griffith is in Brisbane, Kevin Rudd's old electorate. Now Rudd has resigned, there is a by-election. Brisbane and Queensland are the focus of unsustainable population growth; Education, roads, housing cannot keep up and the beautiful environment is being destroyed. Land and housing prices, energy and vital resources prices are all inflating due to population pressure. Homelessness, debt, despair increasing, along with unemployment. Labor and the LibNationals are equally guilty in this, having actively orchestrated overpopulation to please big business. The Greens won't touch the issue. Only the Sustainable Population Party (previously Stable Population Party) is showing courage to represent peoples' democratic wishes here. For this reason I am publicising Tim Diamond Lawrence.

For a recent earlier article on Mr Lawrence and the Sustainable Population Party, click here.

"Growth isn’t always progress: Our planet is not an inflatable ball & has limited resources. It’s great to watch our children or income grow, but every growth has a limit. Beyond it lie greed, overpopulation, environmental destruction, conflict & misery. Ever-growing population & industries wouldn’t make life better, but surely lead to imminent catastrophe. Unlike many mad/blind economists & politicians, I’ll work for preserving the current population levels & the development of cleaner, sophisticated & sustainable steady state economy."

Inspired by the new on-line voting sites that allow you to practice and research your vote before the big day, I've been looking at what's on offer in my own electorate, which is Dunkley. I will, of course, be voting below the line for the Senate, but I am keen to find some alternative to the usual suspects. In previous years I've not found any joy in the choices, however this year there is an independent running in Dunkley for the House of Representatives who seems interested in kindness to other creatures, conserving natural amenity and in containing growth. For this reason I am publicising his blog, which you can connect to here: https://www.facebook.com/156682354535525/posts/156906901179737 and I have transcribed it below:

Vote for real change - Federal Elections 2013

August 20 at 2:40am ·

Dear voter

Like most of us, I’m appalled by the impotence of the major political parties and their inability to bring anything but more taxes, bureaucracy, spin, back flips, backstabbing & nonsense. I’ve watched this show for decades, but now realize that if we don’t challenge it, it may never change. While I’m seriously interested in social reform, I’m by no means a career politician or lawyer. I’m an engineer. From my purely technical point of view our current political system is no better than a steam engine. It makes lots of noise, fire & smoke but has less than 10% efficiency. It’s outdated!
If elected, I’ll do my best to build a prosperous, progressive & peaceful nation led by caring, modern government.
Below are some of the key issues I strive for:

The republic

I’ll promote a fair referendum & do my best to dump the monarchy as obsolete & useless form of government. We’re one of the very last colonies in the world, but surely mature enough to be an independent nation & govern our lives without the “help” or the exuberant bills of the royals.

Abolition of the states

A tiny nation, the size of big Asian city doesn’t need states, territories & armies of bickering, often useless politicians. Having too many governments doesn’t make our life any better. Exactly the opposite: disorganized, very expensive & often wasteful. One & only federal government having less than half of today’s politicians will be infinitely more expedient, efficient, fair & affordable.

Five years government terms

Big social, environmental & engineering projects take many years to complete. They’re only successful if a team of dedicated people can manage them from start to completion. Our government is in charge of these projects, but has no time to focus. Minister or expert - it takes some time to learn a new job. Then usually comes the next party leadership challenge & the compulsory cabinet reshuffle - back to the beginning, one more time... By the time the ministers know what they’re doing - it’s election time again. Time to forget the big projects & focus on getting votes for another term. No wonder that here it takes half a century to deliver projects that in other countries are accomplished in just a few years. Increasing the terms of government to 5 years will vastly improve the efficiency of our government & bring us in line with the rest of the modern world.

Unicameral parliament

The two-house parliament we have now is modeled on the early Westminster, where lords & aristocrats could overrule the commoners any time they liked. If we’re to really embrace 21-st century’s definition of equality, we have to assume that everyone (member of the public, MP or senator) is equal. Merging the 2 houses of parliament (i.e. abolishing the senate) will make the whole legislative process much quicker, far more efficient, fair & definitely less costly. Parliaments have to make laws, not shows...

Foreign affairs

Many politicians still can’t learn that sending our troops to invade foreign lands doesn’t help democracy but only brings death & misery for all. Alliances, empires, armies, war, aggression & conquest would never set anyone free, nor make this planet a better place. Countless lives & billions of dollars were wasted in the name of British & American imperialism (think of Gallipoli, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...). Enough! Now is time to give peace a chance!
I’ll work for harmony & cooperation, not confrontation or dominance. Our world shall be governed by UN, not superpowers, NATO, Pentagon, Bilderberg, CIA or Wall St.

Healthcare

Everyone who ever needed medical care knows that our healthcare is not yet “world class”. I believe that the following measures will make us healthier & happier nation:
• Provide free dental care covered by Medicare
• Strengthen the Medicare system & stop pushing people into private health insurance
• Provide free ambulance service for everyone in need
• Build new hospitals &/or increase the number of beds in existing ones in areas where they’re needed
• Support better pay & work environment for health professionals – doctors, nurses, etc.
• Encourage organ & blood donation, medical & health literacy, education, research & technology
• Legalize euthanasia (covered by Medicare)
• Introduce affordable capped govt. medical indemnity cover for all health professionals
• Promote Zero drugs tolerance & random drug & alcohol testing in schools, work places, etc.
• Discourage drinking, smoking & obesity by ads, bans, restrictions & higher taxes

Education

We’ll never become a smart & prosperous nation while our schools are hampered by outdated thinking & poor standards. I’ll support the following solutions which will give our children the wisdom to build a brave new world:
• National curriculum & education standards with focus on work, science, humanities & technology, not just sport, entertainment or dogma
• Free university/tertiary education (ATAR-based)
• Equal funds for every student (nation-wide)
• Free text books for primary & secondary students
• Support national tests, school assessments & ratings
• Introduce flexible school terms & holidays
• Canteens offering healthy food at affordable prices
• Promote higher standards & fair pay for teachers
• Improve discipline & eradicate bullying
• Free pre- & after school care (07:00 – 19:00)

Environment

I’ll do my best to protect Mother Nature by:
• Retiring all dirty coal power stations within a decade & build cleaner, economically viable alternatives
• Stop logging in old growth forests
• Ban exploration by hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
• Protect our parks, rivers & seas from disposable glass & plastic packaging by introducing bottle deposits
• Commit to realistic global CO2 reduction targets
• Reduce car registration for small & fuel-efficient cars
• Protect all wildlife & limit animal farming, racing, pet trade, cruelty & slaughter
• Reduce our dependence on animal & forest products
• Expand marine & national parks, remove all entry fees

Defense

Global peace, democracy & prosperity will never be a reality if we continue to arm, train & keep armies, navies & air forces. Burning our hard-earned tax dollars by acquiring new, trillion $$ fighter jets, frigates, submarines & the likes will never make us more secure or “friendly” nation, but shall only bring us a step closer to the end of the human civilization. Instead of digging our graves & lining the pockets of arms producers & dealers, our money can sponsor much more humane initiatives outlined in other paragraphs. As a devoted pacifist I’ll work for:
• Drastically reduce & soon eliminate our exuberant military expenditure
• Quit NATO, ANZUS and similar military alliances
• Close military training institutions & soon (within few years) disband army, air force & navy
• Close espionage & secret security agencies such as ASIO, ASIS, DIGO, DIO, IGIS, ONA, etc.
• Provide ex-defense & intelligence staff with peaceful civilian jobs (e.g. build a capable Federal Emergency Service able to fight natural disasters like bush fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.- home or abroad)

Law & order

Over the last century our society made a tremendous leap from one of the worst places on earth to a developed & civilized nation. Despite this huge achievement there is a lot of work to be done until we uproot the crime culture inherited from the penal colony days. For this to happen we need to close the loopholes in our legal system & change our attitude towards crime. Our laws are still very lenient & convoluted, while jails & courts are outrageously expensive. Instead of fixing these problems our governments & police are much happier to book each of us for driving at 3 km/h over the limit, rather than chasing real criminals. We also have to stop the suffocating violence invading our media, movies & computer games before it’s too late. Lawlessness, bike gangs, hooligans, drug dealers, graffiti & vandalism also pose huge problems which need tough & urgent countermeasures

Taxation

Our tax system is incredibly hungry, complex & ineffective. I’ll encourage a simpler & fairer system that will:
• Promote (by lowering the company tax rate to 25%) socially & environmentally responsible businesses
• Discourage socially corrosive industries such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, tattoos, sex, etc
• Plug loopholes allowing many billionaires to pay less tax than factory workers
• Freeze the overall tax rate & reduce the number of taxes
• Increase the tax-free threshold to $25 000
• Increase the tax rate for incomes > $1M to 90%
• Promote health by abolishing the Medicare levy for people who have a healthy lifestyle (e.g. use no drugs, alcohol, tobacco & aren’t overweight)
• Make ATO exclusive (sole) tax & rates collector

Growth isn’t always progress

Our planet is not an inflatable ball & has limited resources. It’s great to watch our children or income grow, but every growth has a limit. Beyond it lie greed, overpopulation, environmental destruction, conflict & misery. Ever-growing population & industries wouldn’t make life better, but surely lead to imminent catastrophe. Unlike many mad/blind economists & politicians, I’ll work for preserving the current population levels & the development of cleaner, sophisticated & sustainable steady state economy

Welfare

I’ll work for a fair, efficient & helpful system based on:
• Providing real (govt. & private) jobs for everyone who wants to work (think of Roosevelt’s (FDR) New deal)
• Reform Centrelink & hugely reduce staff, queues, size, bureaucracy, time & career-wastage
• Get rid of parasites, useless formalities, job clubs, networks, agencies & “training” institutions
• People who still have no job (despite the above) shall get the dole in their bank accounts without queuing/reporting
• Ensure that dole isn’t used for gambling, alcohol, smokes & similar unwise products or services
• Make welfare benefits independent of marital status – the current system unfairly penalizes families/couples by providing more benefits for singles

Industrial reform

It’s no secret that with just a few exceptions most of our industry is in crisis. In order to get it out of the doldrums, increase productivity & attract more investment we need to consider radical improvements like:
• Introduction of 7 day working week where individuals & businesses can decide if & when they want to close or have their 2 or more weekly days off (incl. flexible holidays letting each of us to celebrate different occasions on different days of the year) These will allow most businesses to operate 365 days/year
• Complete overhaul of the 457 Skilled Working visa often used to undermine established wages & conditions
• Ease the burden of excessive red tape, costs & bureaucracy of compulsory insurance, licensing & OHS

Retirement

Our retirement age is amongst the highest in OECD but many politicians are openly talking of 70 or more.
Would there be any retirement after another decade or two? Can we work until death? I’ll do my best to bring retirement age back to 65, provide equal benefits for all retirees (disregarding of sex & marital status) & let older people enjoy their hard earned retirement.

Last but not least

You may call me radical, heretic, or a dreamer, but I’m certainly not a spin doctor or hypocrite. I use plain English, simple maths & sharp pencil. None of the above solutions is based on running a budget deficit, borrowing money or selling the country to a wealthy neighbor. They can be a reality tomorrow if you have an open mind & can think outside the square. Unlike professional politicians, I have no sponsors pulling the strings behind the scenes. I pay my bills & fight for our ideas. Together we can build a better world and your vote will bring us a step closer!
Thank you

Election day volunteers wanted – please contact me on
Mob 0421 328 629 * [email protected] * 4 Wilson Gv Seaford 3198

Reporting on the Australian elections by the ABC is Orwellian. If it sends chills down your spine then you will understand why candobetter.net is so keen to publicise political alternatives, especially any that promise a civilised halt to the overpopulation juggernaut to which Tony Abbot and Kevin Rudd have hitched their evil stars. This article promotes information about the candidate list for the Stable Population Party. The introduction was written by Sheila Newman, who has also filmed their Victorian candidates.

The Stable Population Party has announced that it has now finalised Senate groups in all states and territories. it has also just approved House of Representatives (local) candidates in the seats of Griffith (challenging Kevin Rudd) and Denison (challenging Andrew Wilkie). It has a final total of 26 candidates in our very first election.

Candidate list: CLICK HERE

The party is looking for polling place volunteers.

If you would like to join a support group for one of our 10 local candidates for other campaign activities, please let us know ASAP and we will put you in touch: CLICK HERE

House of Representatives

Final list of House of Representatives candidates:

NSW

BEROWRA - Deborah Smythe

LINDSAY - Geoff Brown

EDEN-MONARO - Martin Tye

WARRINGAH - Mike Cottee

QLD

BRISBANE - John Roles

GRIFFITH - Jan McNicol

TAS

DENISON - Brandon Hoult

VIC

LALOR - Jonathan Page

MELBOURNE - Michael Bayliss

MELBOURNE PORTS - Steven Armstrong

Senate

The Stable Population Party is running Senate groups in every state and territory, so every Australian voter will be able to vote for a stable population above the line on the Senate (large white) ballot paper.

Fundraising campaign

The Party is getting close to achieving our fundraising goals, to ensure it can pay the $32,000 Senate nomination fees, as well as 10 local candidate nomination fees of $1,000 each.

It is looking for help.

Donations of $20, $100 or more are greatly appreciated. Donations up to $1,500 per annum are tax-deductible.

To donate: CLICK HERE

William Bourke is the President of the Stable Population Party. www.populationparty.org.au

Like them on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/populationparty

Follow them on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/populationparty

The Stable Population Party declares itself to be "Committed a stable, sustainable, open and tolerant Australia."

Saturday 29 June 2013 was the Melbourne launch of the Stable Population Party Australia.
Its leader, William Bourke, gave the following interview.

Since its beginnings in 2010 this party has come a long way in terms of policy and presentation. Their website conveys a clear and positive message. Bourke and the other candidates for the next Federal election carry a business-sized card summarizing six hard to beat policies. The major parties and the Greens have nothing like this clarity.

A better quality of life

SPPA calls for "A better quality of life" and articulates six reasons to vote for a stable population:

to Relieve overstretched infrastructure, incluidng hospitals, schools, roads and public transport;
to Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport;
to Protect our environment, including food, water and energy resources, native bushland and animal habitats;
to Promote education and training to increase job opportunities for all Australians;
to Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl;
to Create a more resilient economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity.

William Bourke speaks truly when he says, "Population is the everything issue." It touches on everything you can think of and more population makes for more impact.

Candidates for election

The Party is running five candidates in Victoria:
Lead Senate Candidate - Clifford Hayes

Senate candidate - Jill Quirk

Lalor candidate - Jonathan Page

Melbourne candidate - Michael Bayliss

Melbourne Ports candidate - Steven Armstrong

Human exceptionalism, self-centred neoliberalism, its rationalist processes and modern-day production, financial and trading systems have ensured that the cruelty we inflict on non-human animals now permeates most aspects of human life in this country and in many western cultures. We see it in what we eat, what we wear, our health, education, housing, sport and entertainment, our attitude to the environment, employment and industry, research, and commercial development. As humans we can do better. Time for the Animal Justice Party!

[Editor's note: This article was published prior to Christmas but was lost and recovered twice. We had site problems due to a very high number of visits. It has taken us until now to get it back up, but please read about the Animal Justice Party.]

Animal Justice Party Annual General Meeting
Redfern, Sydney, Saturday 8 December, 2012
President’s Report
www.animaljusticeparty.org

Human exceptionalism, self-centred neoliberalism, its rationalist processes and modern-day production, financial and trading systems have ensured that the cruelty we inflict on non-human animals now permeates most aspects of human life in this country and in many western cultures. We see it in what we eat, what we wear, our health, education, housing, sport and entertainment, our attitude to the environment, employment and industry, research, and commercial development.

The lives of many humans in this country are supported by the misery we inflict on animals. What kind of unfulfilling and unsustainable human life is this that we would want to brutalise and extinguish the life of another sentient being, just so our comfort in a wealthy country can be accommodated, when there are ethical alternatives? It provides a flimsy and arrogant foundation for building a society on the moral and ethical values essential for a sustainable planet. It is unfair, unjust, short-sighted and inappropriate for an enlightened world. But it need not be like this.

As humans we can do better, and as a society we need to be open to the plurality of all kinds of culture and knowledge and the various worlds from which they come – in particular the many worlds of the nonhuman animal. We need to be inclusive and demonstrate humility, rather than ignorance and arrogance, to all of these worlds.

If we are not prepared to accept that humans can never always be right, and we are not prepared to accept that there is a plurality of knowledge not only from different human world views but from different worlds, we will not have cognitive justice in this country and that is a big loss for all of us. Social, environmental and economic sustainability can only be approached through an inclusive approach to knowledge, not where the rights of some knowledge holders are marginalised, brutalised and suppressed by vested and greedy interests, or through disinterest.

The pervasive and endemic reliance on animal cruelty to achieve human ends is in no small measure due to the actions and inactions of parliaments of all levels throughout the country. These parliaments regard power, money and recognition ahead of concern for the wellbeing and capability of other sentient beings who may not share the same language of communication, or who live in worlds we are not prepared to take an interest in. Faustian and conceited behaviour among politicians replaces and subverts ethical, moral and passionate leadership in concern for the lives of animals. This needs to change.

The extreme and confronting graphic images and the widespread evidence of animal abuse we have witnessed during this year are just a miniscule example, a small window, of what is going on regularly in our towns, suburbs, institutions, farms, sporting and entertainment events, and across the whole of the Australian landscape. Despite the very worthwhile efforts of various animal welfare supporters in exposing extreme animal brutality we find the major political parties, locked-in to neoliberal practice and policy, remain predominantly unmoved and unconcerned. They adopt the view that a strong society is somehow determined by the numbers that appear in a set of economic accounts and by narrow disengaged ‘science’. Values of compassion and kindness, and the knowledge to be gained from non-human worlds are not regarded as relevant in the world of rationalist economics. Ignoring these other worlds of knowledge is selling our future as a just society a long way short.

If spending some quiet time in the presence of an animal does not enliven your heart against animal cruelty then, as a politician, you have no moral right to represent the interests of a just society in our parliaments. For too long, non-human animals have been without a voice in the parliaments of this country, despite the fact that nearly every issue that comes before these parliaments in some way impacts on their lives. It is easy to be discounted in these places if you have no voice and no power.

This is why there is a need for a political party that can represent animal interests in these decision-making arenas. There is a need to confront and challenge political decisions on animal cruelty, using the same strategy of vote taking that these political parties themselves pursue.

This will be the role of this political party. It will not duplicate the efforts of animal lobby groups. It will not represent the interests of the right, the centre or the left. Rather, it will represent the interests of marginalised and downtrodden non-human animals who have been given no representation at the table of the decision-making processes that influence their wellbeing and very existence. No other political party, including the Greens, has the moral standing to represent the animals of this country.

Let us be clear, the AJP will not be a single-issue party because the cruelty issues impacting on animals in this country are multifarious. The AJP will, however, certainly be a single-purpose party because its focus is squarely on animal wellbeing and capability. That the current government of this nation has abrogated its moral and ethical responsibility for the wellbeing and capability of all non-human animal species, the voiceless, is evidenced by the pathetic level of funding provided by it for animal welfare – an amount so small it does not reach seven figures.

Further evidence of the Government’s disinterest in the lives of animals is demonstrated by its handing responsibility for animal welfare to the minister for agricultural production; in its plans to hand much environmental protection decision making to state governments at the behest of big business; in its failure to consider the impact on animals in any of its decision making; in its failure to adequately respond to the graphic images of brutality to animals that have been brought to light; and in its direct support of, and indeed direct on-the-ground involvement in fostering, the largest land-based slaughter of a native animal on the planet. This native animal is the iconic kangaroo that sits in the national coat of arms above the entry to Australia’s Parliament House. Every day politicians, in typical conceit, pass beneath this coat of arms yet not one from any political party, Greens included, has had the courage to speak out against the horrific slaughter against this gentle and fragile creature.

The rationalist economics agenda that the parliaments around this country have allowed themselves to be seduced by brings to light two serious concerns as it relates to the cruelty they enable onto animals. It denies all animals their right to realise their own basic capabilities as fellow sentient beings – the right to interact with their own world, to nurture their young, to play, to make their homes, and to grow old respectfully. Importantly, beyond this self-interest animals possess agency and so by denying our connectedness to animals we humans are consequently denied the contribution of animals to our companionship, to our wonderment and joy, to our health, to our knowledge of other beings and their worlds, and to enhancing the sustainability of the landscape and seascape for all of us. We are morally and emotionally poorer for these denials and this should be of concern for all fair-minded Australians.

Next year there will be a federal election and the AJP will be there to take votes away from those parties and individuals that have no respect for animals in their policies and behaviour. Let us be under no illusion; the road before us will be made very difficult by the selfish, the greedy and the unethical that currently underpins neoliberal politics. There will be powerful and monied interests that will do their best to upset what we stand for. But we need to make a start along this road if we are to make a positive difference in the way this country views and treats all its animals – not only for the benefit of the animals but for humans and the planet as well.

We have come some distance from an intentional quiet beginning in a very short time. At the many events at which we have been represented throughout the year there has been considerable enthusiasm for what we are trying to do and our membership continues to grow. We aim to be around for a long time.

In February/ March next year we will have our official launch, at which time we will formally announce our candidates for the Federal election to be held later in the year. We are in the midst of candidate selection right now. We are on our way, so watch this space. Ladies and gentleman, later next year many voters in this country will have the opportunity to make a statement in support of a more compassionate, ethical, just and caring nation as it relates to all species of non-human animals. These values of fairness are important for all Australians. Recent history demonstrates that received rationalist economics takes us further from a just society and more toward the iniquity of global production, trading and financial systems that are way out of the reach of the ordinary citizen.

Australian voters will have a stark choice. To continue to support political parties that either directly foster or are selectively disinterested in cruelty to animals; or choose a party that seeks a moral and ethical alternative to cruelty; that seeks more planetary sustainability predicated on knowledge from and understanding of other worlds beyond that provided via human exceptionalism; and one that understands that animals have the capability of agency that directly benefits humans. In 2013, Australian voters will have that choice in four jurisdictions, and in later years this choice will be expanded.

Finally, I would like to thank the AJP Committee of Management, past and present, for their efforts in progressing our cause. They have all taken part in ensuring our active involvement in many functions and campaigns in support of animal wellbeing throughout the year. I acknowledge in particular the work of the Party Secretary, which Kerry Hewson has admirably undertaken.

Professor Steve Garlick
President

http://www.animaljusticeparty.org

ABOUT PROFESSOR STEVE GARLICK

Professor Steve Garlick is the Founding President of The Animal Justice Party in Australia. Steve has professorial positions at two Australian universities and is an international expert in spatial economics and university/community engagement. He is an economist and applied ethicist, specialising in wildlife welfare and sits on a number of international and national boards. He also has an extensive publication record. In 2009, with wife Rosemary, Steve was internationally recognised with the World Shining Compassion Award for the work he does rehabilitating severely injured wildlife. With Rosemary, Steve runs a wildlife recovery and research centre for macropods and wombats.

Sandra Kanck gives her account of what preceded her 'expulsion' from the Australian Democrats over the matter of population policy. Sandra was an Australian Democrats member of the South Australian Legislative Council from 1993-2009 and the last Democrat member in elected government. When she retired she became the president of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) and still is. The conflict in the Australian Democrats is a reflection of the greater conflict in Australia between the growth lobby and democratic representation and environmental democracy. As such it is important to people far beyond the Democrats themselves. (Article written by Sandra Kanck).

The observations already made on “Can Do Better” about what has happened in relation to the internal machinations of the Democrats and my sacking from the party are extremely perceptive. That’s probably because those of us who have fought for population abatement have seen these things acted out before, sometimes on bigger stages and not necessarily in political parties.

Thirty-three years ago, in formulating the Democrats’s no.2 objective “To accept the challenges of the predicament of humanity on the planet with its exponentially increasing population, disappearing finite resources and accelerating deterioration of the environment”, the founding mothers and fathers of the party were profoundly aware of the future.

The treatment meted out to me began, I suspect, a year ago when a strongly-worded new draft population policy was circulated – and I was a member of that policy working group. The pressure mounted when it went out to ballot in May, and further increased when the ballot was supported by 80% of those members voting. As voting is voluntary, it was a clear victory because those who strongly opposed it would have ensured they cast their votes.

But around the time of the circulation of the draft policy, I was approached by South Australian-based political party, Stop Population Growth Now (SPGN), and asked if I would find out if a letter from them might be published in the Democrats’ National Journal – that letter suggested the amalgamation of SPGN with the Democrats to strengthen our common base and form a new political party. I took this to the party’s National Executive and it was voted down. But, combined with the policy ballot, it seems it was the beginning of the end for me.

I was obviously never privy to the background plotting that led to a vote by the party’s National Executive just five weeks ago to declare Sustainable Population Australia Inc., of which I am National President, to be a political party - and it came as a complete surprise to me. The losers in the policy ballot had set things up for a swift counter-offensive. Payback was in order for the strong policy ballot result it seems – and big time!

The spokesperson who advised the media on Tuesday that I had been expelled, John Davey, is also the factional leader and puppet-master of the group which has taken this action. The conflict of interest between his means of earning an income, that of a migration agent, and working to take me down because of my determination to give primacy to the environment ahead of economic self-interest, seems not to have been recognised by his supporters and never acknowledged by him.

As a Democrat member said to me “this debacle has revealed itself for what it is - a fight between the growth-at-any-cost group and those who care about the future of our country and the world”. It’s a fight that is writ large elsewhere, a fight that will ultimately be lost by the growthists when the planet itself hits back. As the saying goes “Nature bats last”.

Limiting baby bonus payments to each woman’s first two children would mean that the majority of people with two or fewer children would not be subsidising those who choose to have larger families. It would also conservatively save over $2 billion in direct costs to taxpayers every year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure for each new person. William Bourke speaks up about the changes to the Australian baby bonus. The Stable Population Party has been formally registered with the Australian Electoral Commission since 2010 and its website is www.populationparty.org.au

Way back in the Howard Government dark ages, Treasurer Peter Costello got all the population figures wrong, famously claiming that immigration was the only thing keeping Australia's population growing, although at the time it was growing all by itself, as it continues to do. Only Mr Bracks, the then premier of Victoria, got it even more wrong, claiming that deaths outnumbered births in Victoria. (The opposite was true.) Then Kevin Rudd scared us all with his 'vision' of a much bigger Australia. Julia Gillard was elected in part by votes reflecting approval of her indicating that she did not think that a big Australia was such a great thing. In his ignorance, Peter Costello introduced the "Baby Bonus" an anachronistic device more usually associated with Hitler, Petain and CeauCescu. Since then we have continued to see higher and higher immigration and the continuance of the baby bonus. Now there are signs that Federal Labor may be taking its foot off the population growth accelerator.

SPP welcomes Labor's baby bonus reductions

The federally registered Stable Population Party (SPP)welcomes Labor’s reductions in the baby bonus from $5,000 to $3,000 for second and subsequent children, saving the nation $500 million per year, but believes the government should go further.

The community party is campaigning to stabilise Australia's population as soon as practicably possible, aiming for a population of around 23-26 million through to 2050, as well as providing leadership and support to other nations to help stabilise global population via a ‘domino effect’.

Continuous growth not a happy option

William Bourke, Founder and President of SPP explains:

“We live in a finite world and can’t grow forever. The sooner we adjust to a stable population, the easier it will be to manage growing scarcity of finite, non-renewable resources. Quality of life and intergenerational equity through the sustainable use of energy, food and water resources is our priority.”

The Stable Population Party agrees with a reduction in baby bonus payments, but proposes that governments should take this budget and finite resource-saving measure further. They advocate a broader strategy to encourage ‘replacement-size’ families. They urge government to limit both the baby bonus and paid parental leave to each woman's first two children. In addition, this law would apply only to births occurring more than nine months after it was passed.

“This policy would send out a much needed message that ‘replacement-size’ families are in the best interests of society as a whole in Australia, where continuing population growth is contributing to increasing housing shortages and planning pressures, traffic and transport congestion, energy and water security issues and unwanted carbon emissions. "

SPP say it is important that people understand that they, as a community party, do support families and freedom of choice on family size. They do not support, however, governments providing financial incentives to have large families.

They remind us that a stable population will ease cost of living pressures on families, including housing, water prices, energy prices and road tolls that are all driven up by population growth.

Save 2 billion a year and tons of infrastructure

“Limiting these payments to each woman’s first two children would also mean that the majority of people with two or fewer children would not be subsidising those who choose to have larger families. Finally, it would conservatively save over $2 billion in direct costs to taxpayers every year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure for each new person."

“If we’re serious about sustainable living and fiscal responsibility, a sustainable Australia starts with a stable population,” said Mr. Bourke.

ENDS
Contact: William Bourke, President | E: [email protected] | P: 02 9906 6720 / 0448 620 525
Stable Population Party policies represent our core values in action, being: Sustainable Living, Egalitarian Democracy, Fiscal Responsibility, Global Citizenship and Productive Innovation.

"This is the statement that will be posted to over 100,000 electors by the Victorian Electoral Commission during the Melbourne City Council Election. It encapsulates our political program for the City of Melbourne. Use it as a template for your political struggles, pass it on to all and sundry. Alternatives exist, we need to express them." Dr. Joseph Toscano and Dr. Jean Ely launch a campaign about running the city of Melbourne as a community, instead of as a money making 'business' opportunity for those who take and do not give.Campaign launch midday Wednesday 3rd October, cnr Collins & Swanston St, Melbourne."Let’s not forget that of the 100,000 people on the electoral roll, the majority live in Docklands, Parkville, Flemington, North Melbourne, West Melbourne, South Melbourne, Southbank, Kensington, part of South Yarra, East Melbourne, Carlton and North Melbourne, not the CBD."

Action Box Put Public First

We are standing to promote, protect and extend public housing and public schools in the City of Melbourne.

We want 10% of the City’s revenue to be set aside to provide seeding funding to establish an alternative economic system based on co-operatives and collectives that provides local residents with secure sustainable employment that provides sustainable goods and services to the community.

We will fight to double Council Rates on properties worth more than ten million dollars to provide services for the homeless and residents of Melbourne who rely on social security benefits to survive. We want a significant monument erected at the corner of Franklin and Bowen St to honour the indigenous freedom fighters Tunnerminnerwait and Maulboyheenner who were executed on the 20th January 1842 for daring to resist white colonisation.

We will rename City Square Human Rights Square to commemorate the forceful removal of peaceful Occupy Melbourne protesters from City Square in 2012.

Radical changes need to be made to ensure as a city and a community we are in the best position to deal with the four horsemen of an impending 21st century apocalypse: Increasing population growth; increasing greenhouse emissions due to human activity; rapidly diminishing finite resources, and the domination of the world economy by an economic system based on the creation of ever increasing profits irrespective of the human social and environmental costs have created conditions requiring radical change.

Dr. Joseph Toscano – Dr. Jean Ely.
Web Anarchist Media
Email [email protected]
Mobile 0439 395 489

The above is is the statement that will be posted to over 100,000 electors by the Victorian Electoral Commission during the Melbourne City Council Election. It encapsulates our political program for the City of Melbourne. Use it as a template for your political struggles, pass it on to all and sundry. Alternatives exist, we need to express them.

Join us Midday Wednesday 34d October for the launch of the Put Public First Melbourne City Council Mayoral Election Campang outside Melbourne Town Hall, Corner of Collins & Swanston St, Melbourne.

Dr. Joseph Toscano and Dr. Jean Ely,[1] sickened by the possibility the Melbourne City Council elections were going to be a conservative fifty shades of blue affair, have thrown their hat into the rink to raise a few radical ideas during the Melbourne Mayoral and Council election campaign. While everybody else talks about running the city as a business, we talk about running the city as a community. Let’s not forget that of the 100,000 people on the electoral roll, the majority live in Docklands, Parkville, Flemington, North Melbourne, West Melbourne, South Melbourne, Southbank, Kensington, part of South Yarra, East Melbourne, Carlton and North Melbourne, not the CBD.

While everybody else talks about cutting rates, we talk about doubling rates for properties over ten million dollars and using the money raised to tackle homelessness and poverty in the City of Melbourne.

While everybody else ignores public housing and public schools, we put public first pledging to make the public not the private sphere our number one priority. While everybody else is trying to ignore the way Occupy Melbourne was violently evicted by the Victoria Police after being given the nod by the Lord Mayor, we want to rename City Square Human Rights Square and use City Square as a focus for political and social activity, not commercial activities. While everyone else ignores the original inhabitants, we want to see a major monument erected to Tunnerminnerwait and Maulboyheenner, two indigenous freedom fighters who were executed at the corner of Bowen and Franklin St on the 20th January 1842 for resisting white colonisation. We want the area where the monument is erected to act as a focal point to help address the unfinished business that still exists between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians 224 years after colonisation began.

Join us, help us launch a Melbourne City Council Mayoral and Council election campaign that will put the cat among the conservative pigeons that stand against everything we stand for.

Joseph Toscano/ Libertarian Workers For A Self-Managed Society.

NOTES

[1] Dr. Jean Ely is a founding member of the Defence of Government Schools movement (DoGS) and is a regular presenter on 3CR's Public Education program. She is the author of Reality and Rhetoric: An Alternative History of Australian Education. She delivered the Lionel Murphy Lecture on October 26th 2000 at the Nindi Dana Quaranook centre in Morwell.

STABLE POPULATION PARTY PUBLIC MEETING
MELBOURNE -

Monday 18 July @ 7-9pm
Venue - Buzzard Lecture Theatre, Evan Burge Building at Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Parkville:
http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/about/campus--culture/virtual-tours.html
(Click and scroll down to bottom map. We suggest you enter Trinity College through Gate B on Royal Parade).

Guest speaker - Clifford Hayes, current Councillor and 2009/10 Mayor of Bayside City Council: 'Population growth and planning problems'.

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/councillors_northern_ward_councillor_2.htm

http://www.populationparty.com/newsletter/newsletter_display.php?secID=108&id=209

William Bourke is the National Convenor of the
Stable Population Party
02 9331 8080
www.populationparty.com

This article was adapted from a radio program I hosted on 3RPP with Jenny Warfe as my guest, called "Women in Politics, Why don't more participate?" The program found that participation rates depend on definition. Indeed, we found that women dominate politics in Victoria, Australia - they just don't draw salaries. Inside we look at three classical theories for why women participate less in politics than men; argue that the Real Politics are outside Parliament, (Indian theory); give examples of Victorian women in politics outside Melbourne's parliament; analyse these women's political roles as more reactive and militant than planned-for and careerist. We also note that women led the French Revolution and we ask, "Are Female environmental activists in Victoria leading a new political movement?"

Illustration: "Boadicea Haranguing the Britons,"
by H.C. Selous (c. 1840) (her ill-fated daughters at her feet)

Women in politics in Australia and Melbourne

I was recently criticised (by new male management) for talking about the environment and interviewing female environmentalists on the Feminist radio show, Freewaves, 3RPP.

My defense is that the environment is the main game in politics and activism down here on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, in the rest of Australia, and everywhere, actually. The other side calls it “Planning,” but it involves the same living envelope that surrounds all our senses and keeps us alive, well and happy.

Corporate Commerce vs Democracy

It boils down to corporate commerce versus democracy. Symptomatically in Australia, corporate commerce increasingly mislabels 'democracy' as 'populism.'

An example of this tendency is to be found in The Australian Industry group's "wish-list" to "Reject populism and overhaul the public sector."[1]

Official political voices in parliament mostly represent corporate lobby groups which make money out of doing stuff to our environment, which many of us do not want, but for which we pay in impacts, charges, tolls and taxes. In fact women, who own much less property and financial wealth than men are far more immediately dependent on the ‘common wealth’ of public amenity, natural environment and public services. For this reason, women are naturally on the front-line in suffering the effects of privatisation, annexation of parkland, commercialization of public swimming pools, destruction of forests and wild green spaces, loss of backyards, cruelty and destruction of wildlife at the suburban interface,[2] and the commercial co-option of natural and vital resources, like water and food.

Although there are a few more women at the official "top" (i.e. in parliament - see the graph[3]) going by the mainstream media, male parliamentarians still hog the limelight with aggressive activities in infrastructure and land-use planning, using a moot justification of a need to accommodate population growth in order to ram through massive infrastructure projects. Women who get the limelight in official politics mostly engage in similar professional lobbying behaviour for such interests, like Anna Bligh and Christine Keneally.

Perhaps a lot of women don't join in official politics because they are taught to have childlike faith in a fatherly authority and simply assume that the 'government' is doing its job. On the other hand, most women's political activities are under-reported or not reported at all in the mainstream media, which markets an official view of reality which hardly reflects women's existence beyond their function as consumers, producers of children, and wage-hands. It is therefore perhaps not so surprising that it takes some women a long time to realise that most of what they worry about is actually political. Some women become involved in politics, especially later in life, when they realise that, after all, important things are not being taken care of by the people who are being paid by taxes to look after everyone.

Before we cite some interesting examples and look at where they may be taking us, let us look at some useful theory on the matter of female participation in politics.

Three classical theories for why women participate less in politics than men

Theory 1: The political socialization process discourages women from playing an active political role (Socialisation) (mooted above);

Theory 2: Family responsibilities keep some women at home and out of the work force (Situational);

Theory 3: Women are overrepresented in demographic groups that have low participation levels (structural). For instance, more women have less wealth and less education.

In Susan Welch’s “Women as political animals? A test of some Explanations for Male-female political participation differences,” American journal of political science,[4] the researcher found that, once situational and structural variables were controlled there were no systematic differences in levels of male-female participation. In light of these findings, she questioned the validity of the political socialization explanation.

The Real Politics are outside Parliament, (Indian theory)

Ashok Kumar, “Political Participation of Women,” [5] suggests that we do need to broaden our definition of the political process in order to better detect women's participation:

“The concept of political participation of women is broader than the one covering women’s participation only in the electoral and administration processes. It includes the gamut of voluntary activities with a bearing on the political processes, including voting, support of political groups, communication with legislator, dissemination of political views and opinions among the electorate, and other related activites. However, political participation can be considered to include an involvement in any from of organized activity that effects, or seeks to effect, these power relationships. It refers broadly also to ‘activities by those not formally empowered to make decisions, these activities being mainly intended to influence the attitudes and behaviour of those who have powers for decision-making.’

New perspectives on old processes may highlight latent political conflict.

“Minimally, a political perspective requires that some activity called ‘politics’ be differentiated from other activities, relationships, and patterns of action. If all conceptual boundaries are blurred and all distinction between public and private are eliminated, no politics can exist by definition. The relatively open-textured quality of politics means that innovative and revolutionary thinkers are those who declare politics to exist where politics was not thought to exist before, should their reclassifications stick over time and meaning of politics – indeed of human life itself may be transformed. Altered social conditions may also provoke a reassessment of old, and recognition of new, ‘political’ realities. However, the theme of political participation of women has raised a major dilemma. On the one hand, it is the fundamental right of every citizen to contribute to the decision-making process. It is, in fact, the citizen’s duty as well as in based on the presumption that each member has adequate means and conditions to achieve a full realization of his personality as an entity in society. On the other hand, from a feminist perspective, an analysis of women’s participation in political process has questioned the narrow definition of political participation as accepted by mainstream of political scientists and policy-makers.

Politics involves power relationships and reactions to these:

“Political participation can be considered to include an involvement in any form of organized activity that affects, or seeks to affect, these power relationships. It refers broadly also to ‘activities by those not formally empowered to make decisions, these activities being mainly intended to influence the attitudes and behaviour of those who have powers for decision-making.’ In fact, protests and demonstrations against those in power also form part of political participation. Women’s participation has covered a range of activities including movements, protest and support meetings on all issues connected with labour, dowry, rape, domestic violence, pressurize, food adulteration and deforestation, as also movements for the promotion of peace.

Some examples of women in politics outside parliament

Here is a list of women who are strongly engaged in politics in Victoria, Australia. It is not exhaustive and is simply what I came up with in a couple of minutes from memory. (I would welcome similar lists of politically engaged women in other states and countries.)

Mary Drost, Planning Backlash
Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands
Jenny Warfe of Blue Wedges, who ran as a Radical Independent in 2010 Federal elections.
Jill Quirk - a connection in many groups and leader of Sustainable Population Victoria
Sheila Newman (myself) through her writing on population, land-use planning and democracy, at candobetter.net
Jan Beer, Plug the Pipe - a farmer who ran against Brumby’s North South Pipeline
Jill Redwood - Long-running leader of Environment East Gippsland, recently led the first prosecution of VicForests and the Victorian government in the Brown Mountain case.
Janice Rossiter Militated against the sale of Footscray pool and other undemocratic and unwise privatisations (Became a councilor)
Gloria O'Connor - swimming pools and rate payers in Packenham
Maryland Wilson - President of The Australian Wildlife Protection Council
#10; <a href=" http:="">Vivienne Ortega - leads (through her writing on candobetter.net) on wildlife and wilderness activism in Christianity
Elida Radig who started the Rye women's group over 30 years ago. It is the oldest and almost the only surviving independent women’s group and safety house in Victoria.
Catherine Manning – Hastings infrastructure project activist and child pornography activist (joined the Greens).
Gillian Collins – The Pines Protectors (joined the Greens)
Christine Pruneau, planning activist for Massedon Ranges Residents Association
Marilyn Canet, activist extraordinaire who exposed corruption in Brimbank Council

The women on the list started up lobby groups or emerged as leaders in spontaneous processes to change laws or behaviour or protests by community groups seeking recognition of natural or legal rights.

Few or none are predominantly known for their activity in official political parties, only through their alternative creations and activities.[6]

What's happened in Victoria is that these women have come together because their concerns converged due to the fact that they were all about the treatment of public land, and its non-commercial occupants, such as flora, fauna, women and children. The mainstream parties, however, were about exploiting these or were not helping to stop this exploitation, or only dealing with peripheral issues.

For this reason these women emerged as significant leaders in spontaneous new groups.

Men can be concerned about these things but they are more likely to become professionalised in politics, like Charles Berger of the ACF, or Serge Thomann, who headed a council activist group then became a councillor in St Kilda. Men often become involved in politics because it enhances their professional opportunity or because they are defending or seizing mainstream political opportunity and activity in such groups can boost their profile. You get quite a few planning, construction and conveyancing professionals as dilettants in local activist groups.

Are Women in Victorian politics reactive rather than careerists?

Not reactionary, but REACTIVE to injustices and dangers rather than choosing establishment politics as a career. That is, they don't plan to have political careers; they become politicised, radicalised in response to injustice and bullying. Most are natural leaders rather than followers. This is a reflection of their need to foray into uncharted waters as outsiders in conflict with the official system. Thus they take on the political responsibility of being a leader. They step into vacuums created by our commercially dominated society. Very few men will spend most waking moments defending something they don't hope ultimately to get paid for. [7] Also, these women tend not to be employed in the area in which they are activists, or they are retired, or 'home-makers' so they can speak out without much fear of being sacked for going against in house policies. It seems that men are less inclined to be politically active outside their professional areas of expertise. Why is this?

Men perhaps would tend to join political parties because they have more chance of getting somewhere in them. Retired men are often active in groups, but rarely lead them, perhaps because so very much unpaid work is required to make a group function. A woman might form a group where none existed before and in which there was no chance of making money; a man is less likely to. Or men might belong to traditional alternative political groups, such as the Marxist ones, which are strong on rhetoric and short on practical representation. One man who stands out as an exception is Joe Toscano, a geriatrician who has been a strong and committed activist in the anarchist movement for many years in Victoria and who is particularly concerned with the abrogration of public space by private enterprise and the community's loss of political assembly rights in these places.

Women don't own major mainstream media

Women don't own mainstream newspapers or television channels or radio stations, so how could they influence public perception in a powerful way? They don't own nearly as much property as men, therefore value public land more and are less likely to profit from things like urban densification and privatisation of public lands and other assets. They tend to benefit from laws for public protection, public access and basic standards. Perhaps, just as men are less likely to take good care of their health than women, they are less likely to take care of their civil rights.

Women led the French Revolution

5 October 1789: The Women’s march on the Palace of Versailles
Armed with stakes, sticks and forks, something like 7000 women from Paris – where people were starving – walked from Paris to the palace at Versailles – a distance of 16km as the crow flies or around 20km by road today. They were reacting in part to news that, during a banquet in honour of the Flemish Regiment, members of the king’s personal guard had trampled the tricolour rosette, which was the symbol of the revolution and the bill of rights. But they were also marching on the palace to demand food, since they and their families were starving.

The women were joined later at the rear by men and the National Guard. At the palace, the women demanded to see the Queen, a woman loathed as a foreigner who influenced the king against listening to his people. During the night palace guards were killed. Eventually the people returned to Paris with the king and his family, preceded by a cart full of flour and followed by cartloads of grain. The royal family was then put under house arrest in the Tuilleries, a large palace which had been built in the 16th century. They remained under arrest until they were executed some time later. Shortly after this mass uprising, the king signed the 4th of August abolition of feudal privileges.

Are Female environmental activists in Victoria leading a new political movement?

Insofar as no-one else is defending the rights of citizens to retain the quality of their built and natural environment, groups of women in Victoria seem to be leading the only effective action against a growth lobby which seems to have taken over government and to have emptied much of our normal political processes of effectiveness, in the service of a commercial agenda which demands the overturn of democracy.

Candobetter.net would like to hear from any similar activists and groups in other states.

NOTES

[2] Increasingly in Australia, commerce mislabels 'democracy' as 'populism', as in The Australian Industry group's "wish-list" to "Reject populism and overhaul the public sector." See, "O'Farrell will have his hands full," Australian Financial Review, 10 March 2011, p.5. (Note that small business tends to be in favour of democracy and to complain of being unrepresented.)

[3] "Composition of Australian parliaments by Party and Gender as at 5 January 2011", Politics and Public Administration group, Parliamentary Library, www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/currentwomen.pdf.

[3]As the traditional custodians of home and gardens, women are more likely than men to notice when the magpies stop singing and the wattlebirds stop doing their displays, and the possums no longer come out with the moon and the wallabies and kangaroos simply disappear. Often they take care of wounded wildlife and grieve intensely, as do their children. Men, the traditional cooptees to the salaried workforce in the industrial system often have less time at home, although this is also changing for the worse as our system demands increasing hours of toil away from our homes and real lives, in the service of the appetite of commerce.

[4] American journal of political science

[5 Ashok Kumar, “Political Participation of Women,” in Sunit Gupta, Mukta Gupta (Eds.), Role of women in the twenty-first century, Anmol Publications, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 1996.

[6] Someone reminded me of Victoria’s first woman Premier’s origins in parents' groups at schools: Joan Kirner became the first woman Premier of Victoria -1988 to 1990. After leaving paid politics she helped with the LandCare movement then focused on the creation of Emily’s List Australia, based on a U.S. originating list which aims to fund pro-choice women in politics all over the world. Disappointingly for Victoria's independent candidates, the Australian list only seems to fund Labor candidates.

[7] This reluctance of men to work for nothing is in part due to their greater traditional responsibility as breadwinners and the regimented nature of their salaried lives.

After a lacklustre campaign where we were forced to watch two flies crawl up a wall (one with red hair and one in Speedos) ... the electorate has signalled that it is sick of the two major parties and the stale offerings they pedal. The newly elected Independents Mr. Andrew Wilkie and Greens MP Adam Bandt ... have been handed a mandate for change, which goes far beyond merely delivering stable government. Indeed, it is "stable" government and its business as usual approach over many years which has entrenched many of the problems we now face as a nation. The independent presence can serve as the stimulant which keeps parliament from slipping again into the stifling dominant paradigm.

Jenny Warfe, a member of the Radical Independents writes:

Thanks to all who voted for me and our Independent radical group on Election Day, and a big thank you to those of you who helped with letter-boxing, banners on fences and handing out how-to-vote cards on the day.

According to the AEC Virtual tally room, so far we appear to have around 2700 votes, although the below the line votes are yet to be added. For all the results to date check the Virtual tally room at:

After a lack-lustre campaign where we were forced to watch two flies crawl up a wall (one with red hair and one in Speedos) what a surprise and welcome outcome. The electorate has spoken, loudly signalling that we are sick of the two major parties and the stale offerings they were pedalling.

In this vein, yesterday I wrote to the three re-elected Independents, the newly elected Independent Mr. Andrew Wilkie and Greens MP Adam Bandt to congratulate them on their comments that third parties and communities should have more direct access to the decision making process. As I outlined to you in my first newsletter, I also made suggestions to them about how community consultation could be improved by the introduction of legislation requiring MPs to consult their constituents before they vote on any substantial or contentious issues before them.

Today I also wrote to Mr. Bandt and his party leader Senator Bob Brown along the following lines:

Letter to Mr Bandt and Senator Bob Brown

Dear Mr. Bandt,

Congratulations on your election and the sentiments you expressed in your first address to the National Press Club on Wednesday 25th August. However I would like to raise a number of issues with you.

At least in the media, it is being portrayed that in order to deliver “stable government” you will provide a blank cheque to a Labor government based on your pre-election statement that if you found yourself in the position you are now in you would support Labor.

However, rather than merely deliver us another flawed but “stable” Labor government, you are now in a position to achieve straight away many of the policies that you and the Greens offered at the election, and which are NOT Labor policy. I urge you to focus on what you can achieve for your constituents, not what you can achieve for the Labor Party. From my perspective just some of the issues in which you could demand and achieve real and immediate change include:

· Immediate . This of course is not ALP policy and is another sad legacy of the Howard era perpetrated by Labor.

· Start work immediately on restructuring the economy around renewable energy and the taxing of polluters out of existence. Again, current ALP policy is unacceptable as it translates into paying polluters to keep polluting.

· Abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In contrast to Greens policy on this issue, Ms. Gillard’s policy to - in her words - “keep a tough cop on the beat” imposes an unjust policy exclusively on building workers and with no justification. Labor’s policy is not in accordance with Greens policy and surely not in line with how a democratic country which claims to believe in freedom should treat its workers. It would be a travesty if your actions to support a Labor government would in any way contribute to the continuation of this inequitable and draconian Labor policy.

As well as the above issues I trust you will uphold all YOUR policies, including those relating to same sex marriage, voluntary euthanasia and asylum seekers – and not those of the ALP – whose policies and 16 of their parliamentary seats were roundly rejected by voters on 21st August.

You have been handed a mandate for change, which goes far beyond merely delivering stable government. Indeed, it is "stable" government and its business as usual approach over many years which has entrenched many of the problems we now face as a nation. Instead your presence can serve as the stimulant which keeps parliament from slipping again into the stifling dominant paradigm we have tolerated for far too long.

Please don’t miss this once in seventy year opportunity for change.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Warfe

Ed. This article was retitled on 20 Aug 2010 at 21:58hrs
Download how to vote card here

When Julia Gillard hurtled towards the Governor General on July 17, she knew an early election would keep the Stable Population Party of Australia name off the Senate ballot paper. But it did not stop all of our party candidates from standing.

SPPA - Commit to a stable, sustainable, open and tolerant Australia

With members across Australia - from recent migrants to WW2 Diggers - the Stable Population Party was due to be formally registered by the Australian Electoral Commission on July 24.

Although we fell short of federal registration by just a week, at least our party candidates will be on the Senate ballot paper in NSW. Thanks to the 50 members and supporters who signed our nomination form at short notice, we have successfully formed our group of 'independent' Senate candidates and been allocated column T on the NSW Senate ballot paper.

Our candidates are:

1. William Bourke - Businessman and Stable Population Party convenor
2. Mark O'Connor - Writer and Co-author of Overloading Australia

The party's key objective is a stable population of around 23-26 million through to 2050.

For full details on our objectives, policies and news updates, see our website at www.populationparty.com

How can you help?

We only have the resources to stand candidates in NSW, however we ask all of our members and supporters nation-wide to help.

We have the huge job of linking this Bourke / O'Connor Senate group in ballot paper column T with the Stable Population Party. To help spread the word across Australia, please:

1. Forward this newsletter email to every contact you have - across Australia.

2. Do a local letterbox drop in NSW (and reply or email us to tell us where you live). Click here for our how-to-vote flyer. Please download, print and deliver locally ASAP.

3. Volunteer to hand out how-to-vote cards at a local polling place in NSW on August 21. Please reply or email us if you can volunteer, with your preferred polling place if known.

4. Join our Stable Population Party facebook page started by Victorian member Vlad. Please join and invite all facebook friends.

5. Become a party 'cyber trooper' and respond to population articles, blogs and forums with comments promoting our party and NSW Senate candidates. E.g. "Vote for a stable population. Stable Population Party's independent Senate Group T: Bourke / O'Connor in NSW".

6. Ring NSW talkback radio and promote us.

7. Keep a collection of how-to-vote flyers with you and give them to friends and work colleagues.

For our members and polling place volunteers, we have also booked a function room for election night from 7pm in central Sydney. Win, lose or draw, we will celebrate the achievements of the stable population movement. Details TBA.

For a stable Australia: Vote 1 for Senate Group T: Bourke / O'Connor (above the line, in NSW).

Finally, if you would like to hear Mark O'Connor, he will be speaking at 'Politics in the Pub' at the Gaelic Club in Sydney this Friday, August 6. We are not organising this event, but it is a donation entry event with seating for up to 300. Please see: http://www.politicsinthepub.org.au/.

Source:
William Bourke
Convenor
Stable Population Party of Australia
the (only) sustainable choice
Stable Population Party of Australia, Newsletter, 02 Aug 2010

On Monday 17 May I interviewed William Bourke about himself and his party and his views on the politics of the current population debate. He described concerns about the impact of population numbers since the 1990s, but said that reading the book, Overloading Australia, had really galvanised him to do something about this.

William comes across as soft-spoken, pleasant and focused, with a careful and businesslike approach to the task in hand of building and running a political party, to help deal with a grave national problem which has been kept off the democratic agenda for too long. I came away from the interview with confidence in his ability to represent Australians and head a party.

SHEILA NEWMAN: How are the membership numbers going for Stable Population Party Australia?

WILLIAM BOURKE: We are on the cusp of achieving 500 members. We are hoping to lodge a formal application to register Stable Population Party of Australia in June.

SHEILA NEWMAN: How do you feel that your party’s readiness and ability compares with other parties also looking at population numbers?

WILLIAM BOURKE: We are ticking the boxes and we are well prepared.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Will you be fielding candidates in every state?

WILLIAM BOURKE: We hope to. We will be focusing on that issue after we lodge our registration. We have, of course, been approached by a number of people seeking candidature.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Which state is most strongly represented in your membership or seems to feel most strongly about stabilizing population?

WILLIAM BOURKE: We have a good spread around the country.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Have you found any likely candidates in Victoria?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I must emphasise that we haven’t fully reviewed every possible candidate. We have had contact from possible candidates in Vic – and elsewhere – including some with political backgrounds. In June we will follow up on this part of the process.

SHEILA NEWMAN: You’re not in a hurry?

WILLIAM BOURKE: We have to manage the candidate process properly, like everything else. The good thing is that we know who is genuine and who isn't. We have a good process for selection.

SHEILA NEWMAN: When did you first become aware that Australia's population numbers were getting too big?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I have newspaper clippings from the mid-nineties, when it really started to become a major issue. Those newspaper clippings outline the same problems that we are discussing today but they are now much worse.

SHEILA NEWMAN: How old are you?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I am 39.

SHEILA NEWMAN: What population impacts bother you the most?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I have a business background and the thing that initially struck me is that population growth is an economic disaster. The trade deficits, skyrocketing foreign debt, overloaded infrastructure, and impoverished government budgets – population growth is a false economy. Through my small business, I am in a position to experience the importance of how $12.9b per year is lost in economic activity due to infrastructure overload like congested traffic.

I also have a passion for the environment, especially our native wildlife. One of my favorite activities is bushwalking in Ku-Rin-Gai National Park. I like to think I have a strong environmental conscience, going back to the days where I used to drive my parents mad policing the kitchen recycling program.

SHEILA NEWMAN: What line of business are you in?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I have been in accounting and finance and currently run a small business in marketing and communications. Rising energy costs, water costs, rent costs, car-running costs, negatively impact on my business and these growing expenses are clearly related to population increase.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Where do you think the government is going with its policy on population at the moment?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I think they are trying to neutralise the issue, but we offer a real alternative without band-aids which will contrast well with the government’s patched-up alternatives.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Where do you think the opposition is going with the population issue?

WILLIAM BOURKE: It seems to me that they are trying to mimic the John Howard tactic of muscling up against refugees and hoping that will give the impression that they can manage population growth and immigration. In reality we know that John Howard was the leader of the party which actually opened the floodgates and that Tony Abbott would maintain this.

SHEILA NEWMAN: What do you think of Labor MP Kelvin Thomson's views and his role?

WILLIAM BOURKE: I think he is a true leader and that in time he will be appropriately judged.

SHEILA NEWMAN: What did you think of the Population Reform Forums run on the 7th of May in every state by Kelvin Thomson, Dick Smith and SPA?

WILLIAM BOURKE: Dick Smith was, of course, fantastic to listen to. I also thought that Rob Oakeshott, the Independent for Lyne, spoke very well and is the sort of person we need in Federal parliament.I think the media coverage of the actual event was a little disappointing, especially considering the great speakers – at least those I heard at the forum I attended in Sydney.

SHEILA NEWMAN: Could you name a book or a film or a public figure that has inspired you?

WILLIAM BOURKE: Overloading Australia by Mark O’Connor and Bill Lines made a big impression on me. Reading it was really the straw that broke the camel's back and led me to do something about the problem of Australia’s unsustainable population growth.

We've been publicising political alternatives in Australia, notably parties which promise to fight population growth, because we don't believe that the mainstream political parties are taking the adverse impacts of population growth seriously. Another party that wants a sustainable population is The Australia First Party (not to be confused with the New Australia Party). It also wants to abolish multiculturalism. Australia First cops a lot of flack, but it also attracts the people in our society who carry the biggest loads and cop the worst treatment. Here is an article about fronting up to the dole office. Anyone who has had to do this in the past few years will understand the sentiments.

Aussie Senior Citizens

Aussie Senior Citizens are now experiencing the effects of the collapsing Globalist economic system, which has been imposed upon Australians over recent decades by Liberal and Labor politicians dutifully implementing the Big Business agenda.

Seniors who have worked productively over a life time, have contributed to society with family and community activity, put some money aside, have paid taxation of 1/3 plus of income, and were duped into superannuation schemes, are now seeing their savings evaporate as this Globalist ideology crashes.

The wholesale sell out of our Australian manufacturing and productive capacity to foreign interests, and the deregulation of our financial sector, to create a subservient cog in the Global economic order as a “trinket” type raw materials supplier, and an immigrant dumping ground - is the root cause of the crisis likely to now descend upon Australians. [Members of the 3000 Club excepted].

Compulsory superannuation monies, instead of being allocated for Australian owned productive development, have been used to stoke the Stock Exchanges, and for other usage in speculative exploitation. It was all inherently prone to collapse as per the contradictions of capitalism.

A rude awakening is now descending on increasing numbers of Seniors as they are forced to undertake the “Centrelink Run” - coming to grips with a pension system programmed to comply with the IMF/ Internationalist/ Globalist agenda to minimise Social Security payments.

The Centrelink Run

Step I: You front to the local office, and can experience first hand the Liberal/Labor/Green politicians’
immigration/ guest workers/ refugee rackets, but you fall into the queue for you still believe you count for something as a productive citizen, and your years of paying taxation had a purpose. You have your turn for the bureaucrat - and the near 100 question application form to see if the paltry $230 a week is to come your way. A number is allotted to you for the “system”. [No Members of the 3000 Club sighted].

Step 2: You bare your soul in the multitude of questions - any thought of the Aussie tradition that your
affairs are your business soon dissipates. Who are you? Prove it! How much cash have you under the bed? Have you been overseas and how much money did you take? Did you give any money away? What are your bank accounts? Any rooms rented out? Who has your super fund and how much is it? Prove it! What property do you own/got a beach shack/what’s it worth? How much for your house contents? What jewellery have you got? Can you cash in any life assurance?

It starts to dawn on you that this might all be about ensuring you get as little pension entitlement as possible.

But you are enticed by the idea that you might qualify for a health card for medical benefits, and reduced rates and government charges. How good is that!

When finished, you look at your arm to see if by chance a tattoo of the allotted system number has appeared, as you are starting to think that as an Aussie you no longer rate for much.

Step 3: You front before the bureaucrat, forms [and cap] in hand to be scrutinised. You are reminded
again about the Pension Bonus of $30k, available to you if you will slave on in full time work for another five years. [3000 Club Members get that in 10 weeks].

Your getting a bit edgy, aware that all your personal information is now going onto Big Brother’s database and available virtually to any Government department, and who knows who else.

You are informed that on your details, that after 45 years of work and paying taxes, your in for a part pension - $85 a week, as is your spouse - yes, a pension of $170 a week between you for the good life. And, you must also report in each month on any extra income you may generate so your pension would be reduced. [Still no 3000 Club Members sighted].

The penny finally drops that in the Australia of today Aussie seniors count for nothing!

What can be done.

As a group of citizens, the reality is that Seniors are past “use by date” to the Liberal/Labor politicians who have inflicted the Globalist agenda upon Australia.

Protesting Pensioners can “bare their bras” for the systems’ media, or petition these same politicians, but it is pointless. Genuine Seniors may find this difficult to accept, but it is this very same political ilk down the decades who have restricted, and devalued pension entitlements to the current poverty line level, and who continue to parrot that a liveable pension cannot be afforded. [But not for 3000 Club Members].

Petitioning Globalist politicians that have overseen our productive enterprises and natural wealth taken by foreigners, connived for near zero tax for multinational corporations, and other schemes of tax avoidance, squandered untold $billions on alien immigration and anti Australian multiculturalism, AND, stealing the 7% taxation surcharge [passed by referendum in 1947] to fund all Aussies a pension, is a total waste of Seniors time.

The facts are that “Regime Change” - a change of attitude, psychology, economic and cultural direction through the complete and utter rejection of the present traitor political caste and their Big Business masters, is essential to now attain social justice for Aussie Seniors.

The Australia First Core Policy of Citizens Initiated Referenda [CIR] and Parliamentary Recall can ensure this change - CIR remakes the political landscape - no ifs - no buts, for the citizen is again in charge of our society and values, not vested interest politicians.

The Australia First Party program is for all Aussie seniors at retirement age to have a liveable pension, related to the average wage, and secured on supply of appropriate identity to the relevant government administration. Nothing else is needed!

Australia First will take back our productive and natural wealth; we want Aussie control, direction, and ownership of our Australian economy, free of all Globalist dictates, and with equitable payment of taxation to provide pension funding. And, no Globalist political parrots like the 3000 Club Members.

If you don't fight, you lose. Join the Australia First Party for the change for a livable pension.

The 3000 Club

Members on this easy street ride include Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Meg Lees, Jeff Kennett, John Howard, Gareth Evans, Tim Fisher, Joan Kirner, John Cain, Alexander Downer, Steve Bracks, Paul Keating, Nick Greiner, etc, etc, all feeding off the taxpayer with their $3000 a week pensions. You won’t see this lot on the Centrelink run!

Australia First Policy Page
Australia First has some good policies for those who wish to stop population growth and globalisation. It was founded by West Australian, Graeme Campbell, years ago, after he was drummed out of the ALP for speaking out against high immigration (at a time when immigration was perhaps less than one quarter of what it is now).

Membership Application for Australia First

I wish to become a member of the Australia First Party and the Australia First Party [NSW] Incorporated, and agree to abide by the Constitution and Rules. Seniors Membership $10. Donations gratefully accepted.

Name: Phone:
Address: DOB:
Signed Date Email
Reply post to Australia First Party P O Box 223 Croydon 3136. Telephone: 0408 554542

Voting for other than Australia First is now largely just a waste of time

In spite of the fact that 79% of the Queensland public oppose privatisation, 66% would support industrial action to stop the Bligh Government's $15 billion fire sale and many union members have expressed a willingness to strike, the Queensland unions have failed to take the only action that could possibly cause the Queensland Government to change its mind.

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

The following is taken from a PDF leaflet (69KB) I intended to distribute on Labor Day. Unfortunately, a friend's photocopier, which I had been relying upon to duplicate these broke down, so they were not distributed. Some of the material is borrowed from my article ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10. - JS

In disregard of the wishes of 79% of the Queensland public, the Bligh government is pushing ahead with plans to sell off $15 billion of our assets.

Example of billboard featuring angry union members. Were
these ever intended by our union officials to be more than
empty bombast?

When the fire sale was first announced, in May 2009, 2 months after the elections, the outcry from the Queensland public was unprecedented. In the following months talk-back shows, newspaper letter columns and online forums were overwhelmed with opposition to the sale. Many people previously unsympathetic to trade unionism actually pledged their support for any industrial action against the sale.

That industrial action would have enjoyed public support was confirmed in December when a Courier-Mail online poll indicated 66% public support for the Redbank railway workers who struck upon learning their workshops were to be included in Fraser's privatisation plans.

The following motion was carried unanimously by a mass meeting of AMWU members at the Redbank workshops in June 2009:

Yet the unions failed to act.

Instead, they decided to undertake a long drawn-out campaign with redundant priorities, notably to 'convince' a public already solidly on-side. They also warned the Bligh Government of terrible retribution at the ballot box in 2012.

They seemed not to realise that the delay involved in an unnecessary attempt to convince the minority 16% of the Queensland public to oppose the sell-off would assist the further legislative and financial entrenchment of the sales (for example the $200 million paid to the commercial banks to oversee privatisation).

At a privatisation forum on 10 April, Queensland ETU Branch Secretary, Peter Simpson gave his view that the fight against privatisation was already lost, as I recollect, for the reasons decribed above. In view of Simpson's gloomy prognosis, perhaps union members and the broader public that had looked to unions such as the ETU to show leadership are entitled to know:

1. 1.The reasons the unions had for relying on their campaign thus far to convince Bligh and Fraser to change their minds;
2. If the unions truly imagined that their feeble campaign would succeed, at what point did it finally dawn on them that it would not; and
3. Why, at that point, did the unions not give their members the choice of taking the stronger action that would have been necessary for success?

In fact, although the fight has been made needlessly more difficult, the fight to stop privatisation is far from over.

Any union, which stands up to the Bligh Government, is almost certainly assured of overwhelming support from the Queensland public, disgusted by this Government's dictatorial arrogance and wanton deception in the 2009 elections.

An excuse sometimes offered to not take industrial action is the fear that the unionists may face punitive fines under anti-union laws inherited from the Howard Government. However, when railway workers struck against privatisation last December, the Bligh Government dared not invoke these laws against them and there is no reason to assume that they would dare do so now against workers striking against policies opposed by more than 79% of the Queensland public.

What you can do: Demand that your unions call meetings to give you the choice of whether or not to oppose privatisation with industrial action. Support other unions which take industrial action. Send me a copy of any motions carried, so that I can make these known to others on http://candobetter.net.

James Sinnamon, Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy, the Environment and Economic Justice, Australian Federal elections, 2010.

james[AT]candobetter.net, 0412 319669, PO Box 86, Red Hill Qld 4059
See also: http://candobetter.net/StopQueenslandFireSale http://candobetter.net/QldElections

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

Updates, 2 May 10: Branch secretary claims ETU misrepresented by article and my #appendix2">response and a further response by Tony Reeves; #appendix4">Motion carried unanimously by meeting of AMWU members in Redbank Railway workshops in June 2009 calling for industrial action to defeat privatisation.

On Saturday 10 April, I attended a talk hosted by the Search Foundation about privatisation and, in particular the Bligh Government's $15 billion fire sale of assets. The speakers included Professor John Quiggin who owns the forum discussion site johnqiggin.com, Mark Bahnisch, who owns the forum discussion site, larvatusprodeo.net and Peter Simpson, Queensland Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), which was an avowedly hard-line anti-privatisation union.

ETU State Branch secretary gives disappointing prognosis, but discussion inadequate

During his talk, to my dismay, Peter Simpson revealed that the Electrical Trades Union now considered the prospects of defeating the Bligh Government's privatisation program to be very remote. In this he confirmed my worst expectations that the union movement's opposition to privatisation was not strongly held.

I hotly disputed Peter Simpson's assertion that the fight had been lost, several times, from the floor.

I conveyed my opinion that the overwhelming public opposition to the fire sale, the expressed willingness of many rank and file unionists in the affected industries to fight the fire sale with industrial action and the expressed willingness of the public to support such industrial action, gave every reason to hope that even if the ETU and the other purportedly anti-privatisation unions were to call membership meetings to launch industrial action against privatisation, such a campaign could succeed with relative ease, even at this late stage.

Example of billboard featuring angry union members. Were
these ever intended by our union officials to be more than
empty bombast?

The familiar justification for the unions' refusal to take industrial action was put by the ETU State Secretary as well as others in agreement with him at that forum. That justification was that industrial action was likely to be in contravention of laws and would result in union leaders and members incurring fines in the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Peter Simpson also claimed that, whilst some pockets of the ETU membership wanted to take industrial action against privatisation, most did not.

To the latter point I tried to ask if the ETU had ever called meetings of its membership so that the privatisation matter could be discussed and decided upon democratically, but the afternoon tea break intervened. By the time the discussion resumed, Peter Simpson had left.

In explaining his rationale for pronouncing defeat, Simpson raised the question of the Beattie Government's privatisation of Energex and Ergon in 2006. These were the retail arms of Queensland's publicly-owned electricity utilities. Simpson said that something should have been done back then, but it was too late now.

It is my own recollection of the time that no Queensland trade union, including the ETU, uttered a word in protest. Nor did they lift a finger to prevent any of the other Beattie Government privatisations: The SGIO (1998), TAB (1999), the Dalrymple Bay coal loader (2001), The Golden Casket lottery agency (2007), Mackay and Cairns and Brisbane airports (2008-2009) (See #appendix1">Appendix 1).

For a brief few months after Fraser and Bligh announced the $15 billion fire sale in May 2009, it seemed that some union leaders had finally seen the light and were seriously resolved to defeat privatisation, but Peter Simpson's words at that forum made that hope seem misplaced.

A perspective which needs wider dissemination

The next week I attempted to make this post to two political forums: John Quiggin's site and Mark Bahnisch's, where each had written an article about the Privatisation talk hosted by the Search Foundation, described above. It was published on John Quiggin's site but not on Mark Bahnisch's. Although Mark Bahnisch personally assured me when I approached him at the forum on 10 April that he had no objections to me contributing my comments to Larvatus Prodeo and although, in addition, I have since received an encouraging e-mail from Mark Bahnisch, my post has still not appeared on his site.

The reason I am publishing my comment here also is that I believe that the perspective it reveals should be widely disseminated. Here is what I #comment-259830">posted to johnquiggin.com:

What you can do: If you are a member of a union affected by privatisation, particularly a member of the ETU, contact your union and demand that meetings be called so that this question be decided democratically by the membership.

See also: "If the unions get off their knees, privatisation can be stopped!" of 4 May 10, Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, #comment-259830">"Time for the B team" of 11 Apr 10 on johnquiggin.com and "Explaining Bligh’s privatisation push: Search Foundation forum" also of 11 Apr 10 on larvatusprodeo.net

.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix: Published Letter of 25 April 2006 opposed to Beattie Government's planned sale of Ergon and Energex

My comment: None of the Trade Union Movement including the avowedly hard-line anti-privatisation Electrical Trades Union raised their voices in opposition to the sale.

The predictable outcome, completely contrary to Premier Peter Beattie's assurances was massive hikes in electricity charges, partly to pay for price gouging by private corporations and partly to pay for the duplication entailed in setting up the supposedly competitive framework.

In spite of this disastrous outcome, the entire Queensland Trade Union movement looked the other way as Beattie and his successor Anna Bligh, proceeded, in subsequent years, to sell off the Golden Casket lottery agency and Mackay, Cairns and Brisbane airports and to make obvious preparations to sell off Queensland Rail even prior to the 2009 elections.

#appendix2" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: ETU Branch Secretary Peter Simpson's response and my further response

Re: Your feedback sought on my blog article concerning union movement's
apparent surrender over privatisation
 Date: Friday 04:12:46 pm
 From: Peter Simpson
 To: James Sinnamon

As usual james you have misrepresented our position.  I sometimes wonder
whose side you are on

Cheers

Peter

Re: Your feedback sought on my blog article concerning union movement's
apparent surrender over privatisation
 Date: 1 May 2008 02:55:36 am
 From: James Sinnamon
 To: Peter Simpson
 
Dear Peter Simpson,

Firstly, thanks for your response.

Even though it is very brief I would still like to append it to my article 
with your permission.

I would also be happen to append to my article any more detailed comments you 
would care to make in response to my article.  And I would also be happy to 
provide links to any ETU material which could demonstrate where my assessment 
is wrong.

Please see below for my responses:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Peter Simpson wrote:
> Re: Your feedback sought on my blog article concerning union movement's
> apparent surrender over privatisation Date: Yesterday 04:12:46 pm
>  From: Peter Simpson
>  To: James Sinnamon
>
> As usual james you have misrepresented our position. ...

Could I ask: what do you mean, "as usual"?

I don't recall where you have even once before, acknowledged or responded to 
my views on the campaign's tactics, (that is other than when you expressed 
your disagreement with my online petition calling for new state elections in 
which I made no direct reference to the ETU).

If I had been misrepresenting the position of the ETU for the last 10 months I 
would have appreciated being told before now that I had.

> ...  I sometimes wonder whose side you are on.

I can assure you, that from the bottom of my heart I am disgusted with the 
thieves and their glove puppets in State Parliament, who are preparing to 
plunder the assets that rightly belong to to the people of Queensland against 
their explicitly stated opposition and would do anything I could to stop 
them.

I can also assure you that when and if the ETU and the other avowedly 
hard-line anti-privatisation unions ever stand up to this Quisling state 
Government to prevent privatisation, then I will be right behind you as will 
the overwhelming majority of the Queensland public.

> Cheers
>
> Peter

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Re: Your feedback sought on my blog article concerning union movement's
apparent surrender over privatisation
 Date: Today 04:30:35 pm
 From: Tony Reeves
 To: Peter Simpson 
 CC: James Sinnamon, ...


Comrades,

In all the many years I have been proud to call myself a socialist, I
have been dismayed so many times that some people who claim they are
on the Left find it easier (more fun?) to attack comrades of the Left 

I don't know where James got the material for his blog (as Peter
said, maybe we are in a parallel universe to him) but despite the
inaccuracy of his allegations, why does he attack one of the few
people in the ALP and union movement who has done more than any
others to fight against the privatisation.

Is it the old story, that people masquerade on the Left merely to try
to cause damage to the effective campaigners?

Shame, James S. What have YOU done to stop the asset sales, other
than wrongly criticise a person who has worked (and continues to do
so) against this anti-ALP program?

I continue to support Simmo as I believe he is one of the most
effective voices in this campaign. We have no guarantee of victory,
and seriously, if the ETU stopped all its members from working (for
how long, James?) it would not make a whit of difference to the
arrogant drivers of this shameful policy.

I am happy to share with anyone reports on some of my own activities
in the campaign. All my efforts have been targeted against the
perpetrators of the privatisation, none against those who are
fighting against it.

Best regards
Tony Reeves

#appendix3" id="appendix3">Appendix 3: Leaflet handed out on at Labor Party State conference on 14 June 2009

Don't get angry, get even:
How privatisation can be stopped

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

Since Labor won office the following assets have been sold:

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

Except where Peter Beattie broke his election promise to retain half ownership of the the SGIO (State Government Insurance Office, now known as SunCorp) the public were never consulted. In the 2009 state elections, Queenslanders were once again denied their democratic right to decide the issue of privatisation by Anna Bligh's silence.

Public outcry against privatisation ignored

In recent weeks, the Queensland public has resoundingly rejected privatisation in letters to the editor, on talkback radio and online forums. 91% of respondents to a poll run by the Courier Mail answered 'no' the question "Should public assets be sold to balance the budget?'. Workers, threatened by privatisation, have protested, some even going on strike. Anna Bligh has disregarded this outcry and, instead, obstinately pushed ahead, stating her intention to ignore the State Labor Party Conference should the vote go against privatisation.

Why privatisation can be stopped

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

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

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

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

"I'm not a union man, but if they are seriously planning to stop privatisation, they
have my support."

A prolonged campaign ...

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

This is insane!

If the union movement cannot win public support now, then when can we ever hope to win? If decisive action is not taken early and, instead, the industrial campaign is drawn out, this will surely only make our fight harder.

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

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

... or decisive action now?

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

The Queensland Union movement could deliver to the Government a simple ultimatum:

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

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

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

What you can do

• Protest at the opening of Parliament on 16 June;
• Contact every member of state Parliament, Labor, LNP or independent and ask him/her to vote on the floor of Parliament for a bill requiring that the privatisation be put to a referendum;
• If you are a member of the Labor Party, demand the disendorsement of each and every MP who votes against the Labor Party's anti-privatisation policy;
• At election time vote for candidates opposed to privatisation;
• Attend union meetings and support any industrial action against privatisation;
• Write letters to the newspapers, phone talkback radio and state your support for this campaign on online forums;
• Stay in touch with others opposed to privatisation, including the author of this leaflet.

About James Sinnamon, the author of this leaflet

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

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

I administer web sites and write articles for those web sites about my concerns. These include http://candobetter.org and http://citizensagainstsellingtelstra.net (currently off-line). I encourage others, who share my concerns, to also contribute to those web sites.

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

#appendix4" id="appendix3">Appendix 4: Motions including motion calling for industrial action carried by meeting of AMWU members at Redbank railway workshops

These motions would have been carried some time in June 2009. In an e-mail I received from a member of the AMWU on 20 Aug 09, I was told that these motions were carried over two months ago. The first calling for industrial action was carried unanimously after vigorous debate, whilst the second, calling for the AMWU to dis-affiliate from the Labor Party was narrowly defeated.

"1. This meeting of AMWU members condemns the asset sales devised by the ALP state labor government. We recognise that without a sustained campaign of industrial action, nothing will stop the sales from proceeding. Anna Bligh herself has said that she won't negotiate on the sell-off. We need to force her hand and the only way we can do that is industrially. We need an ongoing campaign of industrial action through rolling strikes in conjunction with community protests. We demand that our state secretary approves of any industrial action worked out collectively by the membership and seeks the support of the other railway unions." (carried unanimously)

"2. This 2nd motion concerns our affiliation to the ALP. The objectives of the AMWU are clearly stated in its constitution. The AMWU's primary objective is 'the control of industry in the interests of the community'. The affiliation of our union to the ALP hinders that objective. The ALP is thoroughly commited to defending the interests of capital at the expense of working people whom it treats with contempt. 91% of respondents in a pole conducted by the Courier Mail opposed the privatisations, yet the ALP shows no sign of backing down. It's actions in government reflect its pro-capitalist character. It is not a workers party. Disaffiliation is a necessary step in curbing its corruptive influence on the workers movement.

"This meeting demands that the state council of the AMWU respect the wishes of the membership and dis-affiliate the Qld branch of the AMWU from the ALP." (narrowly defeated)

In the e-mail containing those motions, I was also advised:

Andew Dettmer, Qld
branch Secretary of
the AMWU and Qld
branch ALP President

"However the AMWU convener of the site who wasn't present at the mass mtg due to personal circumstances put forward a similar motion at a delegates mtg, which not only called for dis-affiliation from the ALP, but also called on Andrew Dettmar to resign from the position of ALP state President. It stated that holding such a position was counter to the needs of the union and hindered the effectiveness of any campaign against the privatisation. The motion was endorsed unanimously without anyone speaking against."

Andrew Dettmer, the Secratary of the Queensland branch of the AMWU was the principle mover of the resolution carried by the State Labor Party conference held on the Queen's Birthday which allowed the State Government to proceed with the fire sale. Although nominally opposed to privatisation, delegates from the AMWU and other 'left' unions were encouraged at the conference to be absent when the vote was put.

In spite of his pivotal role in giving the Bligh Government the green light to proceed with privatisation, he was still allowed to address the anti-privatisation rallies held since then.