Queensland

In response to the Queensland state Government's threat to conduct a "Shock Doctrine" style asset fire sale, James Sinnamon, who stood as an independent anti-privatisation candidate in the recent Queensland state elections wrote the following e-mail to the Murdoch-owned Courier Mail newspaper, which pointed out the Queensland Government had not gained any mandate to sell any publicly owned assets. Copies were sent to every state member of Parliament including Treasurer Andrew Fraser and Premier Anna Bligh.

Dear Editor,

In your editorial "Asset sales welcome but timing poor" (26 May) you wrote, "Predictably, (Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser) made no mention of (their plans to sell off publicly owned assets) during the recent election campaign."

I stood as an independent candidate against my local member and State Treasurer precisely because I believed that the electors of Queensland were entitled to express their opposition to privatisation at the ballot box.

In fact, even before the elections were announced, I sent an e-mail on 17 February to both the Premier and Treasurer asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections. My letter was ignored.

My repeated challenges to Anna Bligh, Andrew Fraser as well as Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to defend privatisation in a public debate during the subsequent campaign were also ignored.

I consider this treatment of myself and the Queensland electorate, whom they know full well to be overwhelmingly opposed to privatisation, unacceptable.

They must either immediately abandon these plans, or else call new elections so that the issue can be properly decided by the Queensland public.

At the very least they must be forced to properly justify the case for asset sales in a comprehensive televised public debate.

James Sinnamon,

Independent pro-democracy candidate
Mount Coot-tha electorate
Queensland State elections, March 2009
candobetter.org/QldElections

Update: (27 May 09) A Courier Mail online poll, published on 27 May had 91% of respondents answer 'No' to the question, "Should the state Government sell public assets to help the Budget?", with only 9% in favour. However, if past experience is anything to go by, the expressed wishes of even its own readership will scarcely cause the Courier Mail editors to bat an eyelid in pushing their pro-privatisation ideological barrow.

#letters" id="letters">Update: (27 May 09) Although the Courier Mail published a number of letters concerning privatisation, all opposed, mine was not included. The letters are:

Air of panic in a cash-strapped state

THE discussion by Treasurer Andrew Fraser and Premier Anna Bligh about the possible sale of public assets illustrated that they are in panic mode about the state's finances.

Off-loading assets, through the short-sighted polices of the Government, would leave a financial hole to trouble future generations of Queenslanders.

My comment: A good letter, but it may be possible to draw the implication from the letter, as it has been published, that the writer would not mind so much if assets when the price is better. This is what Andrew Fraser is claiming that he intends to do.

WHY would anyone think that getting rid of our stockpile of resources in an economic crisis is a good idea?

Did we not learn anything from the privatisation of Telstra? Gee, know, let's sell all of our assets, even though they are profitable and some of the only bargaining power we have left, federally, so we can continue spending money on fruitless pursuits and living in debt. Be realistic. We are not going to have improved health, transport, or education systems because we sell public assets. It's another short-term solution to save face in the public's eye. The Government does not have our interests at heart.

My comment: The Courier Mail and all the Murdoch newsmedia fully supported the Telstra privatisation and virtually every other privatisation. It clearly cares little for the wishes of even its own readership, who overwhelming oppose privatisation. It's online poll, published on 27 May had 91% of respondents answer 'No' to the question "Should the state Government sell public assets to help the Budget?"

NOT long ago the State Government was talking about borrowing massive amounts of money for infrastructure. Now Bligh and Fraser are talking of selling off assets to fund infrastructure. Why the sudden change of strategy?

They both should be honest and tell the public of Queensland the reason is not because it is a better strategy but that they can no longer borrow the money because of the drop in the state's credit rating. This means that they now have to pay an additional 2 per cent interest and even then no-one wants to lend them the cash.

The people of Queensland have a right what is going to appear in the Budget when those running the state are getting so desperate.

My comment: Whilst this writer is clearly opposes privatisation, he/she seems to accept because of the financial crisis, that there is no alternative but to sell. In fact, if corporations invariable borrow to buy publicly owned assets, why should a state government be any less able to borrow in order to prevent the sale of assets? A still better solution would be for the government to create its own bank and use it to lend it the necessary money. This is what the US state of North Dakota does. As a consequence, that state has a budget surplus and an economy that is much healthier than the economies of most other states.

HOW dare Bligh and Fraser even talk of selling state assets without asking the people of Queensland.

They are merely the temporary custodians of assets which we, a taxpayers, have spent years paying for. If they want to leave the future of our essential services to the whim of some corporate profiteer, they should ask the people, the real owners of the assets if they agree to the sale. Let's have a referendum.

My comment: My letter called for new elections, but a referendum would not be a bad idea.

IF the State Budget deficit id funded by the sale of public assets such as power stations, highways, water supplies and ports, how does the Government propose to fund future budget deficits once these public assets are gone?

Surely the time has arrived for a bit of belt-tightening instead.

My comment: Belt-tightening is always preferable to selling off them farm, but let's make those profiteers who got us into this mess tighten their belts the hardest.

THAT Premier Anna Bligh would consider a sales of some of Queensland's assets shows that not only has she run out of money, but also ideas. The only certain outcome is that the cost of income will increase significantly.

See also: "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beattie and Bligh are either stupid or something worse.

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

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

I will be standing as an Independent pro-democracy candidate in the state electorate of Mount Coot-tha in the forthcoming state elections.

In part, my purpose in standing is to raise critical policy issues, which I believe will otherwise not be drawn to the attention of the Queensland public.

One issue is privatisation.

The evidence clearly shows that privatisation has gravely harmed the public interest and as a consequence, has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public, including the Queensland public, for years.

Yet, most Australian governments, including your own, have persisted in imposing privatisation without any popular support and without any electoral mandate.

The list of privatisations, which comes to my mind, includes Energex, Ergon, the Golden Casket, the Mackay and Cairns airports, the Dalrymple Bay Coal loader and numerous tracts of valuable publicly owned land.

Indeed, the only privatisation that was raised in an election campaign of which I am aware, is that of the then named State Government Insurance Office (SGIO), now named Suncorp. Former Premier Peter Beattie promised during the 1998 election campaign not to fully privatise the half privatised SGIO, but, upon winning office, promptly broke that promise.

Last year we witnessed, in neighbouring NSW the appalling spectacle of the NSW corporate sector including Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper, clamouring for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, even though that policy was never put to the NSW public in the previous state elections of 2007, had been explicitly rejected in the 1999 elections and was opposed by at least 79% of the NSW public.

In spite of the widespread public opposition, and in defiance of a vote 702 to 107 against privatisation at the NSW state Labor Party conference of May 2008, Morris Iemma's Government proceeded to ram through the privatisation legislation anyway. Thankfully for the people of NSW, the legislation was blocked with the votes of the Liberal/National Party Opposition, Greens and Independents.

Premier Anna Bligh, I was disturbed to read that your Government also gave its support for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, in spite of your own reported personal stance against the privatisation of Queensland's electricity generators in 2006.

Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell of yet more of their assets, including Queensland Railways, electricity generators, more airports, the water grid, public buildings, public land, etc.

The reason I write this letter is to seek your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Cooth-tha

Overloading Australia (Envirobook) 2008, by Mark O'Connor and William Lines states, "We Australians are currently unable to sustain our present population without doing deplorable environmental damage" (p95).

Further evidence of unacceptable environmental damage caused by our population numbers and their ever more intensive activitiesis, lies in the devastating floods in North Queenslandat the moment.

According to hands-on conservation biologist, Hugh Spencer, resident of far north Queensland, the scale and speed of the floods is the result of past clearing of land for grazing and cropping. In the past, much richer, denser levels of vegetation prevented much of the downpour striking the ground directly, retained far more water and greatly diminished run-of, by mechanisms which included transpiration.

Not only do such floods destroy homes, roads, and other infrastructure, they also provoke a constant bleeding-away of rich soil, both inland and onto the Great Barrier Reef. On top of coping with large volumes of silt, the Great Barrier reef has also to cope with chemical fertilisers and herbicides and poisons used in the growing of sugar cane. In the longer term soil loss from the Atherton Tablelands cannot be sustained.

The only way we can hope to prevent further and increasingly severe damage by flooding is to re-afforest the many previously denuded parts of Queensland. This is what Hugh Spencer believes that a good deal of the Federal Government's $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan should be put towards.

Of course, a price to be paid is that not as much land will be available for current grazing and monoculture-agriculture and our ability to either feed ourselves or to earn export dollars will be reduced, but that will occur, anyway in the longer term, if our land is not protected.

Rather than seek to further increase our population as the Federal Government, business leaders and the media are still recklessly endeavouring to do, this country desperately needs to stabilise and, if possible, reduce its population. This must happen at least until such time as we learn how to provide for the needs of the current population without inflicting further harm on this continent.

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

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

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

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

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

As the editorial points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editorial continues:

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

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

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

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

See also: "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 24 Jan 09, "Courier Mail manipulates reporting of water recycling to demand early election" of 5 Jan 09, "Andrew Bolt: Why add 1.5 million when Victorian infrastructure can't cope with current population?" of 31 Jan 09.

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following article has been adapted from an article which was published in Gympie Life on 30 Sep 08.

Secret State Land Deal

The Queensland State Govt. is preparing to gift $100 million worth of public beach land to private developer.

Is the public purse now underwriting land developer risk in Queensland?

Recently released Freedom of Information (FOI) files reveal that senior State Government Departments are working behind the scenes to give hundreds of hectares of prime ocean-front public lands to a Rainbow Beach developer.

Additionally, the FOI documents — copies of internal State Government reports — indicate that some Departments support transferring the land 'pre-approved' for development. This means the local Council and local community would not only miss out on the value of the land, they would also have no say in what is developed on it.

Public land north of Rainbow Beach along Inskip Peninsula has very high recreational and economic value. The deal underway would give large areas of this precious public asset to Rainbow Shores Pty Ltd in return for the private corporation's leasehold interest in the low-lying, 200 hectare Rainbow Shores Stage 2 development lease.

The lessee has an active Development Application (DA) seeking approval for a 6,500 population suburban subdivision upon this lease. This DA appears highly unlikely to be approved due to rapidly changing social and environmental factors, including climate change and rapidly accelerating beach erosion.

Informed Rainbow Beach residents say this lack of eligibility for development makes the Stage 2 lease commercially worthless.

However, FOI documents clearly show Government agencies have managed to calculate Stage 2 land value at $100m. They have assumed the lessee's DA is already approved (which it isn't and most likely won't be); they have then totalled the net retail value of the thousands of urban allotments proposed in the DA, which do not exist and aren't approved.

This flawed calculation means the Government is now inclined to give away one hundred million dollars' worth of developable public land in exchange for land that cannot be developed.

The FOI papers call this transfer a 'like for like' exchange. Very clearly it isn't.

The error stems directly from Departmental assumptions about the Stage 2 lease entitlements that are either grossly mistaken or collusive with the developer. The lease clearly places the onus on the lessee to acquire all necessary approvals and permits. These are not acquirable under current policy and knowledge. This is the developer's problem, not the State's.

However State Agency involved in the deal are dumbly parroting the lessee's claims the lease was originally granted in recompense for surrender of mineral sand leases, and thus entails an obligation from the State. This is historical nonsense. The mineral leases were rendered unprofitable by the Fraser Government's cancellation of mineral sand export licenses. The Bjelke Petersen regime consequently granted Development Leases to the affected mining companies. This was more a corrupt act of favouritism to party supporters than it was compensation for anything of real value.

This aberration of fact and logic is only able to continue due to the covert and absolutely unaccountable nature of the process now underway. If it results in a land transfer of the type and scale indicated in the FOI documents it will be a terrible loss.

The list of areas drafted for possible 'swap' is extensive and includes allotments which residents say are vitally important to the balanced development of the seaside town into the future. This surrender would deliver nearly all future Rainbow Beach development potential to one private interest. This would lead to development forms that destroy the last seaside village remaining in SE Queensland, removing a unique social and environmental recreation option from all SE Queensland. residents.

Local residents ask: Why does the Government process exclude the concerns and knowledge of the local Rainbow Beach community? Why are the poor calculations being kept from public scrutiny?

Why does the Government pander to the lessee's claims but ignore the public interest?

Anna's plan to fill the dam - foolhardy

With SE Qld combined dams capacity over 40% and heavy rains predicted soon and in the next few months, there has been growing speculation as to whether recycled water, sourced from sewerage treatment plants will still be added to Wivenhoe Dam for domestic use.

To squash this speculation, Anna Bligh announced last week that unless Wivenhoe Dam was 100% full and it was physically impossible to add another drop, recycled water would still be pumped into the dam.

Anna Bligh is old enough to remember the devastation the 1974 flood wreaked on Brisbane and she should remember that Wivenhoe was built both for water storage and for flood mitigation purposes.

The SEQ Water website states:

"During a flood situation, the dam is designed to hold back a further 1.45 million megalitres , as well as its normal storage of capacity of 1.16 million megalitres.

"It is anticipated that, during a large flood similar in magnitude to that experienced in 1974, by using mitigation facility with the Wivenhoe Dam flood levels will be reduced downstream by an estimated 2 metres".

Filling Wivenhoe Dam as Anna Bligh wants to do with recycled water will put Brisbane and Ipswich at risk of severe flooding.

As with forced Fluoridation, Recycled Sewage Drinking water was also Anna Bligh’s idea. A Ministerial Statement put out by Premier Beattie 28 Jan 2007, cancelling the promised Referendum was that the " Deputy Premier " convinced him that recycled water was necessary.

"The data the Deputy Premier has presented to me upon my return indicates that it appears inevitable that we will have to rely on purified recycled water – it is no longer an option, we have no choice."

Common sense is called for, it is obvious that to be effective flood mitigation, Wivenhoe Dam should never be full, it is not meant to be full unless there is a flood. Using recycled sewage water for domestic use is unproven , it has huge potential for risk and t has never been done before, no-one on earth deliberately sources sewage water for a significant portion of their domestic supply.

Message authorised by Merilyn Haines
spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water (www.qawf.org)
contact Mob 0418 777 112

Merilyn Haines will be standing as an independent candidate against Anna Bligh in her seat of South Brisbane at the next state elections.

Nov 11th, 2008, Armistice Day, 90 years on and our rights are in jeopardy.

Queenslanders Against Water Fluoridation media release, 11 Nov 2008

It is now 90 years since Armistice Day, the day set aside to remember World War 1, the War to end all Wars.

Over 330,000 Australians enlisted in World War 1 and 61,000 died, a further 150,000 were injured.

In World War 2, there were another 39, 000 deaths and 39, 000 were also injured.

Australian men and women in other wars also laid down their lives to protect our country, our freedom and our way of life.

However, it now seems that these sacrifices were made in vain, because in Queensland with the present government we live in a dictatorship, where one person Anna Bligh, believes she can dictate to us that we shall be medicated through our water supply with fluoride chemicals and we shall have water that has been sourced from sewerage whether we like it or not.

Like fluoride, we have been fed millions of dollars of radio and Television advertising propaganda, with yet another propaganda campaign starting tonight.

We have been told that fluoride, a chemical waste product of Belgium and Japanese fertilizer industries is "natural" and that Queenslanders have the worse teeth in Australia, which is also untrue. Premier Bligh knows this, but still makes false claims.

We were also told that no Hospital or Industrial waste goes into sewerage, the future source of our water, yet now the government has been forced to admit that 12% of sewerage that will be sourced for human consumption is comprised of industrial waste.

The Health Department has been caught out changing tooth decay statistics, Premier Bligh has been made aware of this but apparently doesn't care.

However, as Premier Bligh was told by an angry gentleman at the Logan Q2 Forum in Oct, politicians who lie, get found out, then they get thrown out.

There is only so much arrogance the public will put up with. Roll on the State election!

Merilyn Haines - on behalf of all Queenslanders who want safe water.
Mob 0418 777 112
See also www.qawf.org.

What you can do: attend public meeting
Date: Saturday, 15th Nov, 2pm–5pm,at Ahimsa House, 26 Horan St, West End, Brisbane

You are invited to attend the
Public meeting at West End, Brisbane on Nov 15th

The Dark Side of Water Treatments by Queensland Government

Date:  Saturday, 15th November, 2008

Time:  2pm–5pm

Venue: Ahimsa house 26 HoranStreet, West End, Brisbane

Entry: Gold coin donation appreciated

Tea Included: Approx 3.30pm

The Issues: Recycled Water, Fluoridated Water

The Speakers:

1. Mr Snow Manners B.Econ., API (Toowoomba) (speaking at approx 2.15pm)

Snow is an economist and property valuer. He researched the issue of recycled water when it was proposed as a solution for Toowoomba. Snow coordinated the various opposition groups in Toowoomba which forced a poll and defeated the proposal. Two months after the poll he was elected to the Toowoomba City Council in a by-election and served the balance of the Council term as Chair of Strategy and Governance.

2. Dr. Andrew Harms, BDS ( speaking at approx 2.45pm )

Andrew is a dentist and Past President, Australian Dental Association, South Australia Branch. During a period of illness some years ago he changed his views drastically and is now an authority on fluoride toxicity.

3. Dr John Ryan (MB. BS. Qld)

John is a doctor, a Fellow and Former National Examiner of both Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. He has post graduate qualifications in Nutrition (M. Sc. Distinction, London), and Children’s Diseases (DCH Ireland). He was for five years a member of the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee on Complementary Medicines in Australia. He is a founding member of Professionals Against Water Fluoridation with 1800 professional members worldwide.

4. Mrs Merilyn Haines (B.App.Sc Med Lab Tech)

Merilyn is a medical scientist who has worked in most areas of pathology. She has a keen interest in social justice and applies these values to a heavy commitment in community and environmental projects. Merilyn is Chair and Founder of Queenslanders for Safe Water, Food and Air Inc and is a strong voice for those people who feel they have been harmed and neglected in the process of water fluoridation in Queensland. Merilyn had a family member harmed by Townsville’s fluoridated water, which sparked her interest and concern at the practice.

For further information, phone: Angus: 07 3254 4596 or Jeanie 0408 006 544

Web Site: www.qawf.org E-mail info[AT]qawf.org

Water fluoridation and the use of recycled sewage effluent are two of the most important health issues ever to face the people of Queensland. Hear from Professionals who have studied these issues over many years.

Recycled water - experts arguing over safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.qawf.org

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

What you can do: attend Virtual Inaugural meeting of Immigrants' Memorial Association to be held 19 Oct 08.
What has been done: Protest at Community Cabinet at 12:45PM on Sunday 14 Sep at Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale to protest Minister Paul Lucas's decision to disallow the appeal.

Yungaba Action Group Inc Media Release 10 September 2008

Originally published 2008-09-12 13:25:54 +1000

The recent action by Paul Lucas, Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, in "calling in" the approval process for the redevelopment of the heritage listed "Yungaba" site stands in stark contrast to the action taken by the Government against the owners of "Keating House" another heritage listed building located at Indooroopilly.

While Mr Lucas has effectively removed the proper planning process from the State owned "Yungaba" by the "calling in" of the development application, thus facilitating the redevelopment of the site, the owners of "Keating House" stand to be penalised to the extent of $75,000 for allowing the building to fall into disrepair.

Ms Delene Cuddihy, convenor of the Yungaba Action Group (www.yungaba.org.au) said that Mr. Lucas, by using his "call in" powers and thwarting the normal appeal process, had demonstrated for all to see just how inconsistent and arrogant the Bligh Government had become.

She said "The actions of Mr. Lucas amounted to nothing short of profound hypocrisy and inconsistency and he should reverse his "call in" action if for no other reason than to show that the legal process was not subject to political tampering other than in the most extreme situations e.g. affecting the security of the State.".

Ms Cuddihy said that Yungaba was a State (taxpayer) owned and heritage listed property with a long and rich history of Queensland's past immigration, directly touching many Queensland families. Unfortunately, as the site is located in a well-known prime real estate precinct, it also has enormous speculative potential.

She said that the privately owned "Keating House", came to the attention of Queenslanders only recently, owing to its alleged state of disrepair. Yet, this type of neglect has been allowed to creep in at Yungaba since the sale of the property started looking as a safe bet for Government.

Ms Cuddihy said that large parts of Yungaba have been condemned as unsafe. She asks "How could they let this happen to one of the ten most significant buildings in Queensland history? This is an indictment on their ability to manage Queensland's heritage. I'm sure they won't fine themselves for allowing the building to fall into disrepair."

Ms Cuddihy said the Yungaba Action Group would continue to make representations to the Minister in an effort to save "Yungaba", but suggested the Minister was now expediting the matter, without public consultation, to ensure it was finalised well before the State election.

For further information on the peaceful Public Rally at the Community Cabinet Consultation Meeting on Sunday 14th September, commencing 1.00pm at the Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale

Media contact: Ms Delene Cuddihy on 0402 597 259

#protest" id="protest">Urgent: please attend protest Sunday 14 September

We are inviting you to our protest at the Community Cabinet. The theme of the protest is "Save Yungaba - excise it from the current development application and save it for future generations of Queenslanders".

The protest is about the failure of the State Government to consult with the community on the sale of Yungaba. It has used it's "call in" powers to shut down the YAG appeal to the development.

Here are the details:

Assemble: 12.45pm for a 1.00pm start.

Date: Sunday 14 September, 2008

Venue: outside Community Cabinet at Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale (on your right after Carindale Shopping Centre if you are coming from the city)

Community Cabinet: We will be able to enter the Community Cabinet if we leave any placards outside. Questions will be taken from the floor at the Forum by the Premier. Get your Yungaba questions ready! Following the one hour Forum, there will be informal deputations to ministers for one hour (2.30 - 3.30pm) and this will be followed by formal deputations to ministers. YAG asked to see Minister Lucas, instead we have been given an appointment with his Parliamentary Secretary at 3.30pm.

I do hope you are able to come out and stand up for Yungaba with us.

If you are intending to come, could you give me an indication?

Delene Cuddihy
Yungaba Action Group
Ph 040 259 250 
dc [AT] yungaba org au

12 September 2008

Waratah Coals proposal for a massive mine, railway and Shoalwater Bay Coal port could be given the red light if Environment Minister Peter Garrett uses his existing powers and declares it clearly unacceptable under the provisions of the EPBC act (Section 74 B)

Outraged environmental groups, regional residents and the Australian Greens have all called on the minister to act to protect Queensland's beautiful Shoalwater Bay from the environmentally damaging project to avoid a long and expensive EIS process.

Shoalwater Protection Society spokesman Steve Bishopric said, "There is massive condemnation throughout Australia and locally to this ludicrous proposal. It is unprecedented that one project can trigger 6 out of 7 assessment criteria under the act (only lacking the nuclear component) and it is clearly unacceptable. People need to act immediately as time is almost out for this stage of proceedings. It is critical that those concerned contact the minister to voice their requests for him to declare the proposal unacceptable."

The 1994 Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Shoalwater Bay stated the values of this area and risks posed by enviromentally damaging developments in this pristine wilderness.

Specifically it stated:

The area's terrestrial and marine environments represent large and relatively undisturbed habitat areas for significant floral and faunal assemblages, including populations of rare and threatened species. The estuarine and marine sections of the Area contribute to important regional commercial fisheries. The area has a high level of Biodiversity and contains the catchment of the fresh water supply of the Capricorn Coast.

The geomorphological attributes of the eastern dunefields of the Area and the Clinton Lowland contribute significantly to the values of the area and to the Area's National Estate values.

The Area is the largest coastal area with high wilderness values on the East Coast of Australia south of Cooktown and, as such, is regionally and nationally very significant.

The whole of the Area's marine environment is included on the World Heritage list and on the Register of the National Estate; and the majority of it is included in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

People do have the right indeed an obligation to advise the minister of what they want for Australia. They should use his contact form on line at www.petergarrett.com.au/8.aspx
Or phone him on 02 62777640 or Fax 02 62736101.

Further information
Steve Bishopric
Spokesman, Shoalwater Protection Society
E-Mail info [AT] shoalwaterbay org
www.shoalwaterbay.org

The following articles #YourHome">Your home... secure haven or up for grabs? and #GreaterGood">The Greater Good - whose? both by Greg Wood appeared in the Gympie Times of 18 July 2008. The letter from a Brisbane resident included as an #appendix" id="appendix">appendix is an illustration of how the resumption of land for inappropriate projects is by no means confined to the Gympie region,

#YourHome" id="YourHome">Your home... secure haven or up for grabs?

Australians take home ownership very seriously. We get upset when title and use of our houses and businesses are put in doubt.

Native Title triggered widespread concern about loss of freehold rights. Less widely, but even more ferociously, so did regulations regarding vegetation clearing and forestry management.

Why then does silence reign as hundreds of people, in various locations around Queensland, are being forced from their homes to make way for a range of projects of ‘significance’.

Over four hundred Mary Valley households have already been displaced by the grossly flawed Traveston Dam project. Many of these people are neither happy nor comfortable with the result. More than a hundred households remain staunchly resistant but are deeply disturbed by the immediate stress and and anxious about an uncertain future.

The Gympie bypass threatens up to two hundred homes, leaving occupants as uncertain and confused about their future as Valley residents are.

A new coal conveyor to Tarong Power station is displacing about fifty families.

Hundreds of properties have been resumed to make way for Brisbane’s new north-south tunnel and air- port link.

Add in the Sunshine Coast Powerlink project, rail corridor, water pipelines etc. etc, and you have a fraction of a growing list that threatens to sweep ordinary people aside like a tsunami.

It is not just fair to ask to ask some searching questions. It is imperative.

#question1" id="question1">Question 1: Does the project provide real value? Is it worth the agony?

Obviously this varies, but some are clear stinkers, not least our infamous dam.

The real problem is the complete lack of genuine consultation being taken ahead of hatching and adopting mega-project plans. This lack also applies to the broader planning policies that generate need, or the excuse, for specific projects.

Public comment, if allowed, always occurs too late to change anything of substance. How can plans and projects hope to deliver maximum public value when the public are never asked what they value most?

Plans should be subject to fair, competent and transparent cost-benefit analysis. We accept less at our peril.

#question2" id="question2">Question 2: Is land resumption a fair and humane process?

Sadly, never.

Whilst processes are each different, they all work to isolate households within extended, high pressure negotiation where the agency holds all of the cards.

Well coordinated, experienced teams confront individuals with offers and claims that they do not have the skill, support or resources to verify. People are played off against their own doubts and fears.

Market value is touted as a standard for payment, but this is open to wild interpretation.

Much fairer, more humane land purchase processes are desperately needed... assuming of course that projects are genuinely worthy to begin with.

#question3" id="question3">Question 3: If a project is poor at its stated purpose, what is the real purpose?

If questions 1 and 2 were properly dealt with as a matter of course, we’d not have to ask this question. But they aren’t and we do.

No project better illustrates the matter than the Traveston Crossing Dam.

It’s not really a reliable water supply, so what is it?

A political stunt?

A cooling pond for a nuclear reactor?

A property development scam?

Part of a breathtakingly cynical plan to develop a water grid asset for sale to a private corporation?

Informed, rational review favours the last one. How good can the exiled, traumatised families feel about that?

#GreaterGood" id="GreaterGood">The Greater Good - whose?

The incidence of social dispossesion due to unsound planning and development is not an isolated, occasional circumstance, says Melbourne based sociologist and land-use planner, Sheila Newman. She says the condition is systematic and escalating.

Ms Newman says, “Melbourne and Sydney have both reached the stage where local residents, and local authorities, are being completely written out of having any say over the deluge of planning applications that seek to radically change their life and investment in the place they live... homes and values that might be generations old.”

“Pressure to keep up with the demands unleashed by unmanaged growth is creating a permanent state of emergency”, say Ms Newman.

“This crisis mentality is used to justify extreme options, including dispossession with zero consultation and settlement transactions that are more mafia than management”.

Ms Newman says local people need to demand that local interests are not ignored within any grand plans for the greater good.

“‘The Greater Good’ has a lot to answer for over history”, says Ms Newman. “Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and all their ilk have invoked its power. If the greater good does not care about you or the things you love, then it is probably a fraud”.

#appendix" id="appendix">Appendix: Letter from elderly Brisbane resident facing home resumption

Cars eating our homes

This letter appeared in Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper of 29 July 08. The Courier Mail newspaper is a strident promoter of both population growth and the large number of road and other infrastructure projects that population growth necessitates. As a consequence, hundreds of homes around Brisbane, including that of Eileen Urquhart, are being resumed.

HOW ironic and tragic that a home in which you have lived for 86 years; a home that your father created from a huge hole in the ground and took years to prepare for a building, can be resumed by the powers that be.

My uncle fought the enemy in France and my brother was a Rat of Tobruk in the last war to defend us.

Where can an old lady of 87 years and her handicapped daughter live? We have been used to half an acre of land with lovely gardens, created by my dad, and having every facility we require at Toowong Village, only a short bus ride away.

Whatever happened to good public transport?

Quite possibly it could take some of the private cars and trucks off the road, instead of losing our homes to them.

Eileen Urquhart, Toowong

In 2007 the Queensland Government forcibly acquired the water assets of South East Queensland local governments. Because local governments are not recognised under Australia's constitution they are totally subject to the whim of their respective state governments. That is why the Queensland government was also able to forcibly amalgamate many local governments in 2007 against their objections and the objections of their the constituents_#main-fn1">1. Having lost control of their water assets, the residents in these areas have now found that they now face hikes in their water bills.

As Redland City Mayor Melva Hobbs explained in a media release of 14 May_#main-fn2">2 Redland Shire will now have to buy bulk water from the Queensland Government at prices significantly higher than what it now costs council to produce it. Redland Council plans to meet with the state Government in order to have the bulk water pricing regime reviewed. Bob Abbot the Mayor of the Sunshine Coast, another affected council has noted that his constituents will be effectively paying more rates so that water can be taken out of their regions to meet the water needs of other regions, principally Brisbane, which do not have enough water to cater for their own needs_#main-fn3">3.

The principle reason for the price rises is the cost of construction of a water grid to cater for the increased population largely caused by the Queensland Government. Today's newspapers are full of stories about further blowouts_#main-fn4">4 of the grid. These blowouts are due to factors, such as rising costs of petroleum and other materials, the economic crisis and the higher cost of credit, all of which should have been anticipated. It would seem that Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's past self-congratulation at the Queensland government's claimed progress in the construction of its water grid was premature_#main-fn5">5.

Whilst the Queensland state government and the Federal Government continue to recklessly encourage the population growth that is driving up water costs, Redland City, for its part is prudently attempting to slow it down.

The new Redland City Council was elected on 15 March on a platform of opposition to the breakneck pace of development of the previous Seccombe administration. It has moved quickly to reverse those pro-developer pro-growth policies. The Bayside Bulletin of 28 April 2008 reports_#main-fn6">6 that the new Mayor Melva Hobson plans to withdraw the council's draft planning strategy agreed to by the Seccombe administration which was to cater for an additional 55,000 new residents over the next 20 years, with a population of 188,000 in 2026.

Neverthless, as positive a development as this is, a few local Councils, on their own cannot hope to indefinitely stem the tide of population growth. If this is to happen, the Australian community will have to force the Federal Labor Government to re-think it's plans to increase our anual immigration intake to 300,000

See also: Water prices to surge of 19 June 08 in the Bayside Bulletin, The Australian's April fool's joke of 20 May, More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland of 13 May 08, The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections of 29 Mar 08, Water prices to soar of 15 May 2008

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ See also No Forced Amalgamations

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ See media release of 14 May downloadable as pdf file linked to from the Media Room of May 2008

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ See also More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland of 13 May 08

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ See Water projects' $2.4b blowout in the Courier Mail, Water bills on the rise to pay for Queensland's $9bn grid in The Australian,

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ I can't cite the sources, but I have somewhere newspaper clippings of Anna Bligh congratulating herself and her Government on the progress of the construction of water grids in recent months. She anticipated being able to sell the Queensland Government's expertise in this field to other governments, presumably governments who had also created problems of overpopulation in the first place to be ‘solved’ with water grids.

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ State steps back on figures in the Bayside Bulletin of 28 Apr 08