Campbell Newman

Economically moronic or grossly ideological? Which description best fits the Cando Newman government's excuse for massive and cruel job losses and public service cuts? Here is an expose of Queensland Treasury's base and baseless rationale for austerity.

Melodramatic economic rhetoric frankly misleading

The Queensland Treasurer, Mark McArdle, appeared on ABC local radio today. He used the opportunity to re-iterate the litany of abysmal financial debt left to ‘Queenslanders’ by the previous Labor (ALP) Govt. and the attendant need for austere severity by the new Government. In describing this dark legacy he included the debt held by Government Owned Corporations (GOC’s).

Shortly afterward a caller to the station correctly identified the Treasurer’s description as incorrect and misleading. GOC’s hold debt within their balance sheets as a normal part of their commercial operations, as do all private corporations. Such debt levels are kept transparently and within thresholds deemed to be commercially sound and viable.

Government corporation debts generate net income for Government

Importantly, the interest on this debt is fully serviced by the commercial operation of the GOC. It does not bear upon the public purse. Moreover, the financial operations of the GOC that pay the interest bill also, in most cases, generate dividends into Consolidated Revenue. So this sector of the supposed 'problem' is in fact a net income to the Govt, and not a liability.

What proportion does GOC debt comprise within the entire black mass of it that the Newman Government is ululating as the harbinger of impending State doom and a just cause for wholesale exorcism of public sector jobs and services?

If the GOC debt is a substantial proportion of the whole, then the Newman Govt is being either economically moronic or grotesquely and deceitfully ideological. However, is it any better for people to lose their jobs and essential services to gross stupidity rather than to socio-economic eugenics?

Can do what, exactly?

Either way the ‘Can-do’ myth would be resolved in the worst possible fashion. Can do massive fuck-ups - you betcha! And this is just the start of it.

Campbell Newman is permitting bauxite mining within the original buffer zone of the wild river reserve John Howard gave taxpayer support to after Steve Irwin's death in 2006. Bauxite mining is especially hazardous to tropical wetlands. Australia's Steve Irwin was loved by the world and arguably the most successful wildlife defender of the late 20th and early 21st century, eras not known for their sympathy with nature or democracy. This seems like an environmental and unpatriotic obscenity.

Concrete connection Campbell

We all know how difficult it is to chisel any protection for nature out of governments, so the Wild Rivers Act 2005 almost certainly underestimated the buffers necessary to protect Australia's wild rivers. Now Queensland's new Premier, Campbell Newman, a man many will already associate with grandiose failed concrete projects that depend on public money and bauxite, is going along with mining's song of how they can open-cut mine pollutant, water and energy intensive projects ever closer to these fragile river systems.

In "Wenlock Wild River declaration to be lifted," Courier Mail (Queensland) 23 April 2012, Brian Williams, writes that Cape Alumina Mining is set to mine bauxite in the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve in Cape York. This rape of the wilderness is now possible due to the new Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, weakening recent conservation laws that protected the reserve under the Wild Rivers Act.

The Wild Rivers Act 2005

The Wild Rivers Act 2005 says, "Mining leases—tenement conditions for granted or renewed leases: Only low-impact exploration activities and specified works, such as roads and pipelines are permitted on the surface of a high preservation area or a special floodplain."..."Prospecting permits—tenement conditions for granted or renewed permits
A permit cannot be granted over land in an HPA, SFMA or a nominated waterway." (Source: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/wr18.pdf Bauxite mining is high impact and particularly problematic for tropical wetlands because it affects hydrology, changes water acidity and soil structure. This damages river health and aquatic creatures and carries through to land-animals and birds. The operation requires substantial clearing for open cut mining and the roads leading in and out of the mining area, as well as infrastructure for accommodation, offices, storage and processing. Fluoride is used in the processing of bauxite to get aluminium. The industry is energy and water intensive.[1]

Newman was formerly Mayor of Brisbane and known for his gung-ho participation in inflicting massive money-losing private-public partnered tunnels on Brisbane despite sustained public protest. Not then a liberal party member, he was imported to lead the Queensland Liberal Party just prior to the recent state elections. This bizarre decision replaced long-term liberal member, Dr John-Paul Langebroek as leader. Dr Langebroek had questioned privatisation and corruption in the former Labor government. Campbell Newman is pro-privatisation.

In a rare environmental gestures, former Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, had allocated public money to help fund the purchase of the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve after Irwin was stung to death by a stingray in 2006. The Wild Rivers legislation was an exceptional creation of a former Labor Government, not known overall for its respect for nature. Bauxite provides feedstock for aluminium production and is used in the cement industry and in the manufacture of building materials and many other mass-produced items, including soda cans, cosmetics, artificial gemstones and aluminium products like saucepans and cars. Expansion of bauxite mining is a symptom of overdevelopment associated with overpopulation and a throw-away commodity based economy that depends on huge energy expenditure and costs us all quality of life and environmental amenity. Currently in Australia these ills are exacerbated by a boom and bust mentality that is encouraging rapid strip-mining of anything that can be dug up and exported. This culture is impoverishing our country.

Democracy treated as just "Politics"

Queensland Natural Resources and Mines Minister Andrew Cripps reportedly said that mining companies would still face strict regulations after Wild Rivers Act was changed, but that "...politics won't be getting in the road." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-24/qld-government-moves-to-review-wild-rivers-laws/3969460

One wonders at the 'politics' that see the reversal of environmental protection in tropical forested North Australia, at the behest of the mining industry and Campbell Newman's election promises.

All in all this is terrible news for biodiversity, nature and democracy in Queensland. It is also incredibly sad in its disrespect for Steve Irwin's memory and contribution to our land.

What is a wild river declaration?

(Source of this information is http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildrivers/declared_areas.html)

A wild river declaration is a statutory document under the Wild Rivers Act, which aims to preserve  a river that has all, or almost all, of its natural values intact. This is done by regulating, through the declaration, certain new development activities that have the potential to impact on the river’s natural values. A declaration sets out:

• the extent of the declared wild river area and its various management areas
• any caps on resources that can be taken in the declared wild river area (e.g. water)
• any rules or limits that must be complied with when undertaking new development activities (such as quarrying, agriculture and mining) in the declared wild river area
• any development assessment codes that must be applied.

A river system is declared a wild river area where it has all, or almost all, of its natural values intact. This means the riverine processes of the river (and other natural values associated with the river such as wildlife corridor function) have not been significantly altered from their natural state. Special features (which are on- or off-stream elements of the river network), may also play a significant role in maintaining the natural values of the river system.

A wild river declaration outlines where new development can occur in the wild rivers area and under what conditions. Wild river requirements do not apply to everyday activities such as feeding stock, refuelling machinery or fishing and camping along the rivers, or to developments existing at the time of declaration.

NOTES

"The production of aluminium takes in three main processes, bauxite mining, refining of bauxite into alumina and finally the electrolytic reduction of alumina into aluminium. Each process has its own set of environmental issues.

Bauxite Mining can have significant particulate/dust emissions due to the extraction process that involves explosives and the transporting of raw materials to the smelter.

Bauxite refining (Bayer Process) requires significant amounts of water and energy to separate the alumina from bauxite. producing gaseous emissions that include particulates, SO2 and NOx.

Aluminium refining (Hall Heroult Process) uses sodium aluminium fluoride(cryolite) and an electric current to electrolyse alumina to aluminium. The process is energy intensive. Emissions include fluorides and particulates. SO2, NOx and CO are also generated by the power stations used to supply the refinery with electricity.

Global warming is of special interest to the aluminium industry as approximately 14 MWhr/tonne is required for the aluminium refining process resulting in associated high levels of CO2 greenhouse emissions." Source: http://www.ecotech.com/applications/aluminium-industry

Why do humans think they own the planet? Are we as a species so ignorant of basic ecology that we would continuously deprive the very creatures who make the forest of anywhere to roost? It is frightening to watch this attitude balloon into what could potentially be not only suicidal but ecocidal.

After Hendra virus was found in a Queensland dog recently, and a total of 14 HeV infected horses died or were put down since June 20 this year, Queensland opposition Liberal National Party (LNP) leader Campbell Newman suggests smoke bombs and choppers to evict urban bat colonies then the roosting trees should be cut down. Failing what he refers to as 'humane relocation of colonies,' he recommends that the bats be 'culled.'

Premier Anna Bligh issued warnings to the media from scientists that moving bat colonies out of populated areas would increase their stress levels and could worsen the spike in Hendra virus cases. She announced that Qld and NSW would increase Hendra virus research funding by $6 million over the next three years.

Charters Towers Mayor Ben Callcott went even further. He is quoted as saying that he backed the use of helicopters but said culling rather than smoke-bombing was the real solution. He said "Bats are the same as dinosaurs, we have got no dinosaurs and we should not have any bats either."

But dogs, cats, rats, mice, brush-tailed possums, bandicoots, hares, carpet pythons and any blood sucking insects such as ticks, mosquitoes and march flies also carry HeV, should we ‘cull’ them all too?

Do Flying Foxes Cause HeV in Horses?

The link between flying foxes and horse hendra is not definitive. AAHL research shows that HeV cannot be transmitted directly to horses from flying foxes (from urine/faeces/saliva). Aust Veterinary Journal Vol 76 No 12, says: “It is possible to transmit HeV from cats to horses. Transmission from Pt. poliocephalus to horses could not be proven and neither could transmission from horses to cats ….. the virus is not highly contagious.”

Not enough is known about how Hendra circulates in the environment. Other possible infection routes need to be investigated e.g. exposure to other species or food contamination from cat/rat/mouse faeces. It's possible that horses and flying foxes could be infected from a third source.

There is no threat to humans as long as bats are not touched. Hendra does not spread easily and is rarely transferred from horses to humans.

Why do we Need Flying Foxes?

Flying foxes are keystone species. Humans could never plant forests as quickly and effectively as bats which disperse up to 60,000 seeds from night-flowering species each per night. Our World Heritage forests, endangered ecological communities, woodlands, forest ecosystems (along with the biodiversity they contain) and fruits like bananas, paw paws, durians, cashews (including hardwoods, banksias, eucalypts and melaleucas) could not survive without flying foxes.

For Mayor Callcott to be inducing public hysteria with his media statements is irresponsible and could endanger flying foxes. Two species are already federally threatened. Their habitat has been seriously eroded by human encroachment and their populations are being hounded from roosting spot to roosting spot. Humans simply must learn to cohabit peacefully and respectfully with these forest makers or we will have no more forests.

Threats of Bats to Humans Compared with Threats of Humans to Humans

According to the Bureau of statistics causes of death 2008 updated 31/03/2010, 26 people died falling from ladders, 226 people died in motorcycle accidents, 182 deaths due to obesity, and 1402 total transport accidents and from other sources around 14000 die from smoking related illness, 10000 from alcohol related illnesses. 29000 Australians are know to be HIV positive, do we quarentine these people to protect the spread of infection? Is it our innate features that allow us to accept threats by fellow humans and at the same time rise to eliminate threats from wildlife? Since the early 1970's there have been 26 fatality’s caused by crocodiles. Whenever a crocodile shows it's head near an urban area there is a rise to cull crocodiles. The same reaction is being seen towards flying foxes. Are those in society who cry out to remove potential threats from wildlife to the pinnacle of human evolution, which will ensure no other species will threaten our continued rise?

While research is totally focussed on flying-foxes the real culprit could remain unidentified. We need good investigative science to solve the problem, not hysteric, knee-jerk reactions from bureaucrats like Mayor Callcott.

Lastly, we can live without horses but we cannot live without flying foxes, so let's get our priorities straight.

This year, 2011, is the International Year of the Bat, let's get this one right for a change! www.bats.org.au

*****

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/lnp-wants-to-chase-bats-out-of-urban-areas-with-smokes-bombs-choppers/story-e6freoof-1226102670395

Informed comments found at
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/07/18/3270559.htm

Also, see below: #CounteringSpin">Appendix: Countering Campbell Newman's spin, #WhatYouCanDo">What you can do

A question of balance

A piece of prime, heritage-listed inner city parkland in Brisbane is about to be taken away from the public forever to make room for a giant hotel underneath and beside the Story Bridge.

Is the Bligh government rushing to stop the Lord Mayor's plan? Is the National Trust angry over this assault on Queensland's heritage protection process? Is the RSL up in arms about losing an important link to our wartime history? Are the ten thousand CBD residents fighting to save one of their last, remaining pieces of parkland?

The answer, sadly, in each case is no.

The Howard Smith Wharves, the parkland around them, along with the nearby cliffs and even the iconic views to this area at the city end of the Story Bridge are all heritage listed.

They're a vital link to a time when Brisbane's bustling port was in the city centre, and to a massive 1930's depression-era building project to provide jobs, widen the river, construct a monumental bridge and bring it to life with colourful, busy wharves.

But when the Lord Mayor decided a few years ago that he wanted a hotel on the site, those supposedly protected links to our city's past became dispensable.

The current caretakers of the park - the City Council - and the Labor Government before it, have played the old developer's trick at the Howard Smith Wharves.

They've let them lie derelict for decades and fenced off part of the area for use as an ugly carpark.

Revitalisation is now so desperately needed that the public, or some of them at least, are prepared to overlook just what a disastrous plan the Council has set in train.

Virtually every square metre of the city end of the park will be lost to the giant, 250 to 300 room hotel and it will tower up to 10-metres above and in front of the heritage-protected cliffs.

There'll be a narrow 17-metre wide 'pinch point' left for the thousands of cars, trucks and taxis servicing the hotel to share with pedestrians and cyclists.

In order to save the river views of a nearby apartment block, the hotel envelope has been shifted a few metres and one of the world war two bunkers saved from the bulldozers. But the Council is pressing on with its plan.

Throughout what was laughingly called the public consultation process, the public were never given even a hint of the size and scale of the giant hotel, nor the terrible consequences for heritage, loss of parkland and traffic.

But even kept in the dark as they were, the public involved in that process expressed their strong concerns about any attempt to over-develop the site and threaten its heritage. This was their overriding concern.

In its public utterances the Council stays on message; refusing to refer to the damning results of its own public consultation, refusing to acknowledge that the building envelope rises well above the cliffs, avoiding any reference to the heritage protection of the entire site, and - as for the traffic disaster in the making ... well we all know the city's traffic is stuffed anyway.

Instead there's a disingenuous line about the need for 'passive surveillance' of this area.

This is developer-speak for somehow making a quiet place safer at night by wacking a giant, busy hotel on the site.

Is there empirical evidence that having hundreds of well-lunched hotel guests and tipsy party-boat patrons staggering around the site, jostling for cabs will somehow make it safer for pedestrians passing though? Of course not.

The rhetoric echoing from Town Hall is breathtakingly inconsistent with its stances on other issues.

When the SouthBank Corporation sold off a chunk of parkland for the ABC's new headquarters, the Lord Mayor was rightly incensed at the "loss of parkland", and he punished them by pulling the plug on million of dollars of Council spending in the area. I applaud him for this.

When it became clear our old City Hall was crumbling, over 200-million taxpayers' dollars was no obstacle to the noble cause of saving our city's heritage.

But when it comes to the Howard Smith Wharves, what does parkland and heritage mean?

Well, specifically, it means an opportunity for builders to make money, and then for the Council to make even more money selling a long-term hotel license on this heritage-protected park.

If you ask a dozen Brisbane people how they define progress, you'll probably get a dozen different answers.

But most of us view things a little differently from the big developers who pay millions of dollars in party donations to ensure our politicians understand just how hard they're working for 'progress'.

Most of the people I speak to include in their definition of progress something about the need for balance. Balance between the future and the past. Balance between buildings and open space. Balance between the demands of the big end of town, and the unheard needs of individual families.

For the next month or so, the people of Brisbane have a chance to express their feelings about the Howard Smith Wharves and the parkland around them, and what constitutes a balanced, creative plan for their future.

With the poll-driven Bligh Government unconvinced there are enough future votes in this issue, and the City Council determined to judge and rubber stamp its own plan, it's now up to the EPA and the Heritage Council to use their teeth, if they can find them. And it's up to us.

It's not just about losing another chunk of city parkland, a piece of heritage. It's about balance.

Ric Jay. www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com

1880: Barker's Quarry provided the stone for much of the colony's
new building. This is Petrie Bight, now under threat.

#CounteringSpin" id="CounteringSpin">Appendix: Countering Campbell Newman's spin

See also: "Spin & Straight" section at www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com.

In trying to arrive at informed judgement on these sorts of issues, a member of the broader public will invariably be assailed by apparent 'facts' which may lead him/her to believe that all the fuss is about nothing or very little. Here are some from Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and responses from Ric Jay.

Reported on Channel 7 News of 14 November 2006 (on www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com and YouTube):

Campbell Newman: "The highest building is the boutique hotell and tha is lower than the lined of the cliffs."

Ric Jay's response: "This is one of several direct misrepresentations from Council. The hotel envelope has a RL of 32-metres, which is up to 10-metres above the cliff line, particularly at its lowest point in front of Medina apartments."

Reported on Channel 10 News of 14 November 2006 (on www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com and YouTube):

Campbell Newman: "80% of the site will be open space".

Ric Jay's response: "Another misrepresentation. About 30% of the site is cliff face which can neither be built on, nor used by the public(except climbers). The middle of the site is too narrow for major construction. There are only two significant, flat spaces ... and the major one - near the city - is to be completely enveloped by the hotel. The only reason the other end of the site isn't to be developed is because it's not practicable. I've also forced the Council's planner to concede that he's added a chunk of parkland above the cliffs (and not in the defined area) as part of the equation used by Council to support its arguments."

(Also, from www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com:) "At the Western end of the park 90-percent of the available land is earmarked for the hotel and convention centre. Pedestrians and cyclists will share a narrow access with taxis and trucks servicing the hotel. It is a planning disaster, extending busy Boundary street into the park and putting pedestrian lives at risk."

Campbell Newman: "The feedback from the community was that a boutique hotel was appropriate."

Campbell Newman (paraphrased by 10 news reporter): "The Lord Mayor says he doesn't know what else he coud have done. The consultation lasted 2 years and involved 600 people."

Ric Jay's response: "Most respondents were against over development, loss of heritage and residential development (including short-term, ie. a hotel) In fact, this -- specifically -- was one of their major concerns."

(Also, from www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com:) "The public was consistently misled about the massive size of the hotel. The Council's own study shows the public are overwhelmingly against large scale commercial development."

Note: It's also important not to be fooled by claims that the original plan has been substantially revised. Revisions to the original plan are minor and don't alter the fact that a priceless asset, now belonging to the people of Brisbane, is to be taken away from them and largely ruined in order to line the pockets of developers.

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

Visit www.saveourcliffs.blogspot.com to inform yourself and unravel Campbell Newman's spin.

E-mail saveourcliffs @ gmail.com to join their mailing list.

E-mail Planning minister Paul Lucas (deputypremier @ ministerial.qld.gov.au, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman (lordmayor @ brisbane.qld.gov.au, Brisbane Central state MP Grace Grace (brisbane.central @ parliament.qld.gov.au).

Send letters to the Courier Mail and demand that this time (unlike with Yungaba) they properly report the issue and hold our political leaders to account.

Send lettersto City News.

Email The Independent : editor @ theindependent.com.au.

Contact Brisbane ABC 612 and ask them to cover the issue. Phone their talkback line 1300 222 612.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ In the latest council plans on a pdf document (619K) downloadable from the BCC web site, some of the western (nearer) end of the hotel has been removed, but its fundamental character remains intact and its size remains vastly larger than what local residents had previously been led to believe it would be.

Almost invariably reporting of Australia's acute housing unaffordability crisis does not inform the public of its causes, nor help it to arrive at a solution. The ABC's report No relief in sight for Brisbane's renters of 20 June 08 is no exception.

See also: Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community of 8 Mar 08

Yet another article, this time on the ABC's online news service, No relief in sight for Brisbane's renters of 20 June 08 provides yet further confirmation that the polices promoting rapid population growth by all levels of government in Brisbane - local, state and federal - are recklessly harmful to many of Brisbane's existing inhabitants.

However, this obvious link is ignored by the article, and, in spite of its promising headline, the article, instead, turns out to be nothing more than another serving of propaganda in the service of the very people who caused the problem in the first place, namely the growth lobby consisting of property developers, land speculators, lenders, construction companies and others who profit from population growth at the expense of the rest of the community.

#SpeculatorsLobby" id="SpeculatorsLobby">Property speculators lobby for higher immigration

Record and escalating property values and the consequent high rents is precisely the intended effect hoped for by the property interests who have been lobbying for population growth behind the backs of the Australian public for decades. Indeed, this hope was openly expressed by an economist working, as I recall for the Real Estate Institute of Australia in 2004 on Radio National's Australia Talks Back program on 19 May 2004 (it is now called just Australia Talks). The topic of the day was the supposed ‘problem’ of a short-lived slump in housing prices, which caused land speculators momentarily not to be able to reap the normally high profits to which they had become accustomed . Several times, the REIQ economist stated that when immigration picks up, the woes of property investors would end.

At the time, I strongly doubted claims that high immigration was, in any way, in the interests of the current residents of this country. In the past I had naïvely accepted the view that the immigration program was undertaken for altruistic reasons, even if I believed them to misguided. Whilst I was becoming more skeptical about this over time, the open acknowledgement of sectional self-interest behind our immigration program was still a surprise to me. I did phone in and speak on Australia Talks Back to make the point that housing prices, even at the supposedly depressed levels, were still impossibly high on a remotely normal income, but I had not sorted out my thoughts on that other question sufficiently as to be able to speak to it coherently. Two days letter at mid-day on Friday 21 May, I sent a letter, in the hope that it would be read out during Friday's "Week In review" program. However that was a week in which an "Australia Talks Books" was scheduled on Friday instead, so it was not read out. The letter was:

Dear Sandy McCutcheon et al,

Firstly thank you for giving me a say on your show on Wednesday.

However, I forgot to comment on what one of your invited guests said, which I thought to be extraordinary and revealing.

He expressed his hope that further immigration will help the property market to 'recover', that is, presumably, that the crowding of further new arrivals into Sydney and Melbourne, will drive the already hyper-inflated housing prices even higher.

This confirmed my suspicion that the motivations of many advocates of immigration were not as altruistic as they had once led me to believe.

Those on the lower rungs of our society were not informed or consulted about the consequences of such an increase in our population, and so now they can no longer afford what was affordable to them a generation ago.

As a matter of urgency, the process of decentralising our economy needs to be commenced, so that everyone can once again find somewhere affordable to live and to work, and before we increase our population levels even further, there needs to be a full and open discussion.

Yours Sincerely

,

James Sinnamon

Housing hyper-inflation the direct consequence of the property lobby's successful lobbying efforts

Subsequently, land speculators and property developers got their wish. John Howard, the man who told the Australian public during the Tampa crisis of 2001, "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come," secretly ramped up Australia's immigration ever higher and, as a consequence, Australia has some of the least affordable housing in the world. Many, who could previously have hoped to take out a mortgage for a house if they made sacrifices, have been completely priced out of the market as a result, and have no choice but to rent.

Renters at the mercy of ruthless landlords and real estate agents

As the numbers of those seeking rental accommodation have greatly exceeded available rental stock, many tenants are now at the mercy of unconscionable landlords and real estate agents. In 2006, I witnessed the life of a neighbour destroyed during a six month period, as real estate agents and prospective buyers marched into her rented half-house almost at will. On one occasion, whilst the tenant was out, damp washing left hanging, which was considered an obstruction, was dumped on the ground. Eventually the house was sold and the new owners raised the rent beyond what the existing tenant could afford, so she had to move out.

More recently, another rental house occupied by a friend was put on the market. When my friend insisted upon being given adequate written notice by the estate agent before his floor of a two story house was inspected, the estate agent attempted to bully him over the phone. He, nevertheless, stood up to him, asserting his legal rights as a tenant. Fortunately, the landlord was more ethical than most and apologised profusely when he heard of this. The house was eventually taken off the market, and he was allowed to stay. Most tenants, of course, are not so lucky. The Courier Mail newspaper reported (will endeavour to obtain reference) in about two months ago that some Brisbane landlords are evicting their tenants without cause in order to replace them with other tenants able to pay higher rents.

Many who no longer can afford their own unit, let alone a free-standing home, now have no alternative but to share a roof with often incompatible strangers. Those who can't even afford that are resorting to living in cars or in tents in open spaces around the city. One prominent collection of tent dwellings is now to be found beneath the Story Bridge.

Small businesses are also paying the price. As reported in the story Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community of 8 Mar 08 sudden exorbitant rent increases imposed by landlords, with the active encouragement of a local real estate agent, destroyed the economic viability of a number business in a formerly cohesive retail community the inner-city suburb of Paddington.

How housing unaffordability scandal is spun to suit the purposes of land speculators

Now, almost invariably, whenever housing unaffordability is raised in the printed media, radio and television, the ‘experts’ whose views are sought are invariably the exact same people who brought about this this human tragedy in the first place. They now would have the public believe that they are all working with single-minded determination to bring housing affordability back to the Australian masses once again. This line is accepted unquestioningly be almost all the newsmedia and the supposedly independent ABC is no exception.

In this story, the ‘experts’ consulted included:

• an unnamed spokesperson from economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel,
• Steve Greenwood, executive director of the Property Council of Australia,
• Dan Molloy, the managing director of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland,
• the pro-developer pro-population-growth Lord Mayor of Brisbane Campbell Newman,

In spite of the fact that the ‘solution’ proffered by these people is hotly controversial in South East Queensland, including on the Sunshine Coast and in Redland City, where anti-development councils have been elected, no critical views were reported in the article. The closest thing to a critical view was from Councillor David Hinchliffe, who, as former Labor majority leader on the Brisbane City Council, notoriously surrendered to Campbell Newman on nearly every key policy question, with disastrous results for Labor, during the March 2008 Brisbane City Council elections.

Economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel tipped that house prices in south-east Queensland were likely to rise by 22 per cent over the next three years. The obvious fact that this was almost certainly the result of the Federal Immigration minister Chris Evans having announced that the annual immigration intake was to be increased to 300,000 on 14 May was, of course, not mentioned.

Another contributing factor was Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's sudden hike in council rates directly counter to a clear commitment he made prior to the election of 15 March.

Naturally the whole discussion was couched in terms of what or would not entice investors to invest in rental property.

Campbell Newman and Steve Greenwood differed over the effect that his rate increases would have, with Newman absurdly insisting that his rate increases would have no significant impact upon rents.

Steve Greenwood naturally supported the federal rent-assistance scheme which does nothing but fuel housing inflation at the expense of taxpayers.

Greenwood claimed, as the Property Council invariably states in these sorts of stories, that the solution to housing affordability lies with the release of more land for housing development. In his words:

"But we need other things done, and those other things are increasing land supply.

"At the moment we have a regional plan that is being reviewed."

Mr Greenwood says land will need to be unlocked across the south-east to boost supply sufficiently and take pressure off the housing market.

In one sense Steve Greenwood could be right, to a point.

It is hard to imagine how the supply of more land would not make it cheaper, even if we take into account the extravagant developer's margins and the way that developers, themselves, notoriously withhold the release to homebuyers of land sold wholesale to them by governments in order to maximise their own profits.

If all other things remained equal, we could still expect the affordability of housing to marginally improve. Of course, this ignores the fact that the housing on offer is likely to be distantly removed from any worthwhile amenities, public transport or employment opportunities.

But, of course, all things are not going to remain the same as the greater demand caused by increasing immigration will almost certainly more than wipe out any marginal improvements.

Furthermore, most existing residents strongly object to the loss of open spaces, bushland and agricultural land that will be entailed in the release of new land for housing. As well as degrading the quality of life for existing residents the fragile ecology of the region could be destroyed and, with that any prospect of local food self-sufficiency, vitally necessary when the effects of ever higher fuel costs are inevitably to be felt.

It is for such reasons that the Redland City Council and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council are opposing the Queensland Government's release of more land. In response, Steve Greenwood complained:

"Just outside of Brisbane we've got a number of claims coming from some of the local government areas that actually want to cap their population growth.

"That is very alarming, because basically what they're saying is they're going to … attempt to further limit supply, and for most of us who have even a basic understanding of economics, you limit supply and your costs go up.

Of course, the abovementioned efforts made by the Federal and State governments on behalf of the Property Council of Australia and the REIQ to increase demand are not to be even considered.

Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper recently posed the question "Have these been the most boring elections?". This triggered an exchange of e-mails which began when Independent Mayoral candidate James Sinnamon wrote an open letter to the Courier Mail's City Hall reporter. See further below for Emma Chalmers' #reply1">reply and James Sinnamon's further #reply2">response.

Dear Emma Chalmers,

On page 11 of the Courier Mail of election day Saturday 15 March, you asked:

"Have these been the most boring Council elections?"

Given that your newspaper has systematically excluded any views which clash too markedly with the orthodoxy of the Courier Mail's editorial writers, is it any wonder?

And given the striking similarities between the policies of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, I would have thought that the Courier Mail, if it had wanted to inject any excitement into the campaign, let alone be objective and balanced, would have given more coverage to alternative views about how our city should progress.

As far as I can tell, all that Brisbane residents were able to learn from the pages of Courier Mail newspaper of my policies was contained within one sentence at the end of your article "Newman wary on rates as Rowell dithers on costings" of Friday 14 March_#main-fn1">1 :

"... Mr Sinnamon ... wants a population cap."

Have I missed something?

It's not as if I had not provided you with material about me and it is not as if I didn't have something to say that was not relevant to the campaign or that was not different to what had been said by others. I sent you two media releases including links back to my web site (candobetter.wikispaces.com, candobetter.net _#main-fn2">2). You interviewed me at City Hall on Thursday 14 March and you would have heard my contribution to the debate amongst the candidates.

Why was it not possible for your articles not to have fleshed out my views a little more? As examples:

• Why couldn't you have reported my point, backed up by the views of the Local Government Association, that it would have been impossible for Greg Rowell to keep his promise to keep rates at less than the rate of inflation without sacrificing current service levels service if population growth continues_#main-fn1">3?
• Why couldn't the point I made during the debate on Friday, linking of Brisbane's current crisis of extreme housing unaffordability to Queensland's population growth, recklessly encouraged by Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, the BCC Labor Councillors, the Queensland State Government and, I would add, the Courier Mail, itself, have been reported in Saturday's Courier Mail_#main-fn4">4?
• Why couldn't the point raised by members of the audience, and taken up by me, about Campbell Newman's failure to honour his 2004 election promise to Cannon Hill residents to save Minnippi Parklands, have been reported?

I will concede that I have been far less prolific than I wanted to be, due to time constraints, but I still believe that what I did provide you with certainly warranted considerably more than less than half of one sentence of coverage.

I believe that Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's unprecedented personal triumph of yesterday owes much to the Courier Mail's unbalanced reporting of the campaign and its unbalanced reporting, in past years, of issues at stake in Saturday's election - the North South Bypass Tunnel, the Hale Street Bridge, population growth, clearing of bushland, the water crisis, housing unaffordability, the second airport runway, the proposal for a new passenger ship terminal to cater for luxury passenger cruise ships, the bizarre proposal to entomb one third of the Brisbane River adjacent to the North Bank under concrete, etc.

As a result, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman intends to take this result as a mandate to continue with his extravagant plans to construct an alternative transport network underground and many other plans which, if not stopped, will destroy what remaining quality of life Brisbane has left to offer and its long term sustainability. Mr Newman's road infrastructure plans, given their ever-escalating costs and the ongoing depletion of the world's stocks of petroleum, make as much sense as the construction of pyramids by the Mayan rulers in the midst of the growing ecological crisis which was to ultimately destroy their civilisation.

The Brisbane residents will learn, to their cost, of the mistake they made on Saturday, and, when they do, I think many will reflect upon what factors influenced them to vote the way they did on Saturday.

As one intending to stand for office in 2012, I will have a lot to say about this in coming years. Will the Courier Mail be prepared, from now on, to report more objectively on these issues than it has in the past?

Finally, I have posted this to my web site. If you don't believe I have been fair to you in this letter, you are welcome to state why. I will post any response from you immediately below this letter, if you wish me to. Also, please feel welcome to phone me about this.

yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. See "Newman wary on rates as Rowell dithers on costings", Courier Mail, 14 March 2008. I would also like to point out that I don't think the photo of me does me justice. I did cooperate with the cameraman by looking down at him at an odd angle. I would have with appreciated either being advised to pose differently or having a better photo of me selected.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. The domain names begining with 'candobetter' predated any thoughts of my challenging 'Can Do' Campbell for election as Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I would have chosen 'wecandobetter.net', but that was taken. Nevertheless, I believe that Brisbane residents would have found the domain name to have been true of myself had I been elected.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. For further information, see, also, my response to the questionnaire from the Property Council of Australia.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn1">4. See "Newman's Liberals close on Brisbane majority", Courier Mail (online) of Friday 14 February. This story was at the URL www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23376890-952,00.html, but is seems that the story at that location has been over-hastily removed and replaced with the story Landslide means Campbell Newman must deliver promises of Saturday 16 March.

#reply1">

Emma Chalmers response of Monday 17 March

Dear James,

Thank you for taking the time to put together a comprehensive email.

From what you have written it appears that you have already made up your mind about the reasons you feel that you didn't get adequate coverage during the election, so I don't feel that there is much I can say that will change your view.

As you would appreciate, we have many demands on space in our paper and, while a number of mayoral aspirants around Queensland would have liked greater coverage, we have an obligation to adequately scrutinise the promises being made by the major parties and major contenders. I note you secured 700 votes on Saturday.

As you would also appreciate, even if you were to be elected Lord Mayor, the agenda of one of the major parties would end up prevailing because you would not have the numbers on the council floor to push through your policies.

I will point out that you did manage to get your photo prominently in the paper on Thursday, a feat not managed by the bulk of the mayoral aspirants in Queensland, let alone in Brisbane.

Kind regards,

Emma Chalmers, City Hall Reporter

#reply2">

James Sinnamon's further response of 20 March to Emma Chalmers

Dear Emma Chalmers,

Firstly, thank you for having taken the time to read my e-mail and respond to it. I have posted it to my website, immediately below my original letter. Please let me know if that is not OK. You are, of course, welcome to respond further, as is anyone else who wishes to either defend or criticise the Courier Mail's recent coverage of the Brisbane City Council's elections.

You wrote: From what you have written it appears that you have already made up your mind about the reasons you feel that you didn't get adequate coverage during the election, so I don't feel that there is much I can say that will change your view.

I believe that, to the contrary, I can fairly state that I am always open to persuasion by the evidence. I try to live by Keynes' dictum:

"When the facts change, I change my mind."_{#reply-fn1">1}

At the moment, the overwhelming evidence is that, for the past four years at least, the Courier Mail has not provided balanced coverage of the issues at stake in last Saturday's elections. These include, as referred to in my earlier e-mail, the North South Bypass Tunnel and the Hale Street Bridge, in favour of which the Courier Mail has repeatedly published editorials, ignoring mountains of contrary evidence provided by experts, concerned citizens, and affected residents. I will pursue this further below.

You wrote: As you would appreciate, we have many demands on space in our paper and,while a number of mayoral aspirants around Queensland would have liked greater coverage ...

If you had only slightly reduced your newspaper's lavish, uncritical and fawning coverage of almost every word coming from Campbell Newman's campaign machine, I believe that you could easily have found the the space to give the independents more reasonable coverage.

Whilst I appreciate the Courier Mail's efforts to cover all of the local Government elections in Queensland, the Courier Mail is principally a Brisbane newspaper. So I would have thought it should have been able to manage, at one point over the past four weeks, to print a modest profile of each of the Mayoral candidates. If the local newspapers, B magazine, Qnews, with much more limited space, could have managed to do this then why not the Courier Mail? Certainly this could have been done with utmost ease on-line.

You wrote: ... we have an obligation to adequately scrutinise the promises being made by the major parties and major contenders. ...

But the fact is you did not. A case in point is the story of Thursday 13 March "It's plane to see, this Mayoral race has gone green" with a photo depicting Lord Mayor Campbell Newman accompanied by Virgin Blue flight attendants in front of a aeroplane pushing trolleys with seedlings . That planting a few trees around Brisbane can in any way offset the destruction of vegetation caused by land-clearing and infilling residential developments in the suburbs of Brisbane, let alone Mr Newman's efforts to make Brisbane more car-dependent than ever before, is hotly disputed by many. This is classic greenwashing. In case you wish to better understand how corporations and governments employ greenwashing in order to cover up their environmentally harmful activities, can I suggest you read the transcript_{#reply-fn2">2} of Radio National's Background Briefing documentary "Greenwashing" of 10 February 2008. The point made by Cannon Hill residents and myself during Friday's debate about Campbell Newman's failure to honour his 2004 election promise to protect the Minnippi Parklands was certainly relevant and, I believe should have been reported on those grounds alone.

In regard to the Hale Street toll bridge, far from scrutinising the case for the Hale Street Bridge, the Courier Mail has enthusiastically clamoured for the bridge to be built and has systematically censored from its pages nearly all views critical of the bridge.

The Courier Mail did not publish the media release_{#reply-fn3">3} of 24 February from the "Stop The Hale Street Bridge" group nor did it publish the informative and well-written feature article "What price for City Hall accountability?"_{#reply-fn4">4} submitted by Darren Godwell, President, West End Community Association on 5 March. Moreover, David Bratchford of the "Stop The Hale Street Group" tells me his letters are not published, including one in response to an editorial in favour of the Bridge.

Whilst the Courier Mail does, on occasions, carry stories about some of the more overt adverse consequences, including the traffic chaos anticipated in the Hale Street Bridge's construction and cost-blowouts, they seem to be quickly forgotten by your editorial writers or when pro-bridge propaganda from Mr Newman is reported.

The case for these extravagant white elephants in the face of looming world-wide depletion of petroleum supplies simply does not exist. I believe that if the Courier Mail had scrutinised Campbell Newman's case for these projects and his overall record, as you claim to have done, he could not have won last Saturday's election and those who had unambiguously stood against these polices would have received a much higher vote.

These examples are only the very tip of the iceberg of the Courier Mail's unbalanced reporting in favour of Campbell Newman.

You wrote: ... I note you secured 700 votes on Saturday.

As of now, it has reached exactly 800 votes_{#reply-fn5">5}. Still, at only 1.5 per thousand formal votes cast, I won't attempt to claim that that was a resounding vote for me. However ...

My point of contention still stands. I had views which differed substantially from those of the major candidates and I believe that the Courier Mail should have reported those views, especially as you, yourself, had correctly observed how boring your unbalanced focus upon the major candidates, with little tangible policy differences, had made your coverage of the campaign. Had this happened, I believe my vote would have easily been much higher.

You wrote: As you would also appreciate, even if you were to be elected Lord Mayor, the agenda of one of the major parties would end up prevailing because you would not have the numbers on the council floor to push through your policies.

Thanks. I greatly appreciate that you have taken the trouble to speculate on an outcome that may not have been likely last Saturday. Had I had been elected, I think it would have also been likely that City Council would have consisted of many councillors other than those from the major parties. If, to the country, the council were to have been dominated by the major parties, I would, nevertheless, have continued to argue within the council and publicly for policies I believe to be in the best interests of the people of Brisbane. In such an unlikely scenario, I would hope that my views would be reported by the Courier Mail. As I believe my reasons to be sound, I see no reason why I would not have gained broad public support, in which case there would be no reason to assume that the Councillors could not be convinced to support my policies.

In contrast, I believe that if Campbell Newman's polices of the past four years had been truly in the interests of the people of Brisbane, then he would have had little difficulty in overcoming what he has labelled as 'obstruction' on the part of Labor majority leader David Hinchliffe. In most cases the reasons for Hinchliffe's 'obstruction' was well-founded community opposition to his white elephant projects, which, as I repeat, was not fairly reported in your newspaper. I believe that Lord Mayor Campbell Newman can count himself lucky that, instead of standing up for the affected communities, Hinchliffe gave in to him. I don't believe Campbell Newman would be Lord Mayor today, had David Hinchliffe stood his ground.

You wrote: I will point out that you did manage to get your photo prominently in the paper on Thursday, a feat not managed by the bulk of the mayoral aspirants in Queensland, let alone in Brisbane.

Of course I am grateful, but I had expected some publicity in return for my effort to be at the City Hall for that event. However, I was, frankly, aghast when I saw how that photo_{#reply-fn6">6} turned out. I did not recognise myself until after I had read my name under the caption under the newspaper. Others, who knew me, tell me that they were barely able to recognise me either. Perhaps, I have to get used to the fact that my thinning hair doesn't always lend itself to the photographic portraiture I would wish for, However, the Quest Newspaper photographer took some effort to make sure the photo he took turned out well. If your photographer had let me know how looking down at such an odd angle but not at the camera in the way I did had affected my appearance, I would certainly have posed differently.

I also believe that words describing what I stood for would have been more helpful to me than even a photo which had turned out well.

Finally, I realise that you may not necessarily be personally responsible for all of the matters of which I complain. Nevertheless, I have to deal with these issues at face value.

I still greatly appreciate the time and effort you have taken and your courtesy.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Footnotes

#reply-fn1" id="reply-fn1">1. See en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

#reply-fn2" id="reply-fn2">2. See transcript of Radio National's Background Briefing documentary "Greenwashing" of 10 February 2008 at www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2155943.htm.

#reply-fn3" id="reply-fn3">3. See "Hale Street record set straight in runup to Gabba ward election" of 24 Feb 08 at www.stopthehalestreetbridge.com/downloads/media releases/HSL_media_release_240208.pd, candobetter.net/node/336.

#reply-fn4" id="reply-fn4">4. See "What price for City Hall accountability?" of 5 Feb 08 at www.stopthehalestreetbridge.com/downloads/media releases/OpEdPieceFeb2008.pdf, candobetter.net/node/337

#reply-fn5" id="reply-fn5">5. See www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/local/lg2008/BrisbaneCity/results/Mayoral/summary.html

#reply-fn6" id="reply-fn6">6. See www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23369923-3102,00.html