An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the "war president." Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?

Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either."

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. There's still time to have your voice heard. Call the White House at 202-456-1111 or email the President.

Nothing Changes

Page 5 'The Queenslander' [July 31, 1909]

Is It The Women Who Woo?

Thackeray has declared that a woman, if she be not positively repulsive in appearance, can marry any man she chooses. And every man who has any knowledge of the world and of the sex shows in his heart that this is the grain of truth.

That is, of course, with understanding that she goes about the accomplishment of her design with a little organised intelligence and insight.

Any man whom any woman makes up her mind she will marry, that man she usually can marry, that man she usually does marry. Unless, to be sure, should change her mind and decide, after all, to marry somebody else. The most superficial observation of life and the many seemingly inexplicable things which happen to men and women in their mutual relations ought to make these facts plain to the average person of judgement and good sense.

These facts it would particularly profit every woman to know, and knowing to remember. For the knowledge the [indecipherable] and the resemblance, would give her heart of grace in the face of many a discouraging obstacle to be met with on the straight and narrow path leading to matrimonial engagement.

The general belief is that men marry women that the man woo, [indecipherable] to and lead women to the altar. In outward appearance that is what generally seems to happen whereas the facts in the case are that women usually marry men and that women consciously or unconsciously, with malice aforethought or otherwise, woo men and ordain that they shall be proposed to by them; and then, with all the sweet and gentle effrontery in the world, the walk up to a church aisle in such shrinking, yea almost reluctant manner, as to mislead the most cynical masculine judgement into the honest conviction that they have been the passive objects of some particular man's unconquereable mating instincts.

Men have always known these things subconsciously: that they have always realised, more or less [indecipherable] what helpless factors they are in the current sex-mating scheme of Nature: but the knowledge and the realisation, so long confined to the province of the subconscious have than sex to science now become familiar.

Then, too, men were possibly ashamed of the premonitions for their subconscious selves. Men, that is the men of a generation ago, did not like to acknowledge the thing they felt in their innermost consciousness was true: they did not dare acknowledge even to themselves that in all their much vaunted rights and prerogatives, of sexual [indecipherable] there was after all, much of delusion and hypocrisy.

Nevertheless and notwithstanding man's aversion to swallowing the unpleasant [indecipherable] the facts of biology have proved, and the caustic wit of George Bernard Shaw has amply illuminated the proof that so far from woman being always the helpless object, the will-less victim of man's mating instinct, it is [indecipherable] man who is the object and victim of hers. Man, not woman, is the pursued. Woman, not man, is the pursuer.

And why not? Why not, indeed! Since it is biologically inevitable and sociologically justifiable that that a woman shall marry just as soon as she can. In other words, marriage is a woman's business, it is merely an incident in a man's life.

Laying aside all sentimental consideration we are brought fact to face with the somewhat disconcerting not to say embarrassing. In fact that nature is, after all the great archetypical matchmaker: and, furthermore, that her methods are, as a rule, such as to make those of the traditional mamma or duenna seem modest in comparison. For, if it is true, as Emerson says, that "the ways of Providence are sometimes a little rude," it is not less true to say of nature that her ways with regard to her mating of the sexes are not sometimes but always impolite, scandalously frank.

It would seem that only by frank and impolite methods can nature accomplish her chief design, that men and women shall mate.

To this end, then Nature has decreed that her purposes are best served by implanting the instinct of selection in the female, rather than in the male. Nature, being wise, has put a great premium upon woman's robust common-sense. Nature knows that common-sense is the greatest and most divine of all human attributes, and that it is the special function of woman to exercise commonsense. Nature knows that in all the practical, all the really important business of life and of living woman, of the two sexes, has the better judgment. Nature - wise Nature, knows that a woman is much more to be trusted to select a capable and competent father for her children than any mere man is to be trusted to select a capable and competent mother for him.

Viewed in this light, there is nothing ignoble or undignified about husband hunting, assuming that the hunt be conducted according to the hard and fast rules prescribed for the proven management thereof. In other words, once having selected the man whom she wishes to marry it is nothing but fair and right, to herself as well as to him, that a woman shall woo him in a manner to cause him all the pleasurable sensation possible. And, speaking of selection, the right sort of woman will, and indeed always does, exercise care and discrimination.

There is much to be said about what is due to the man in the way of given zest to the game and making the whole process as pleasurable as possible for him. It is here that some women fail to marry the men they would like to marry. They make the fatal error of allowing a man to be disillusioned by looking behind the scenes. No man likes to feel that a woman is angling for him, and it makes most men furiously mad to discover that they have in the slightest degree been made a [undecipherable] by a woman. In order to finish the game with the grand, triumphant flourish that Nature intended shall always be its denouement the average man must be handled with kid gloves, so to speak.

Properly led up to the point, stage by stage, the average man is as prone to propose to the average woman as the sparks are to fly upward. And he will and does propose on the day and at the hour that she determines he shall propose. When he does not propose it is because she has played a wrong card, or perhaps spoiled the game by letting him see her hand. This catastrophe is usually the result of a display of too much anxiety for no man of spirit is going to allow himself to be married, willy-nilly, just because some woman has had bad taste to throw herself at his head.

"The Menzies era had ended in 1966, and though McEwen could be relied upon to fly the BHP flag in Cabinet, he too resigned in January 1971. The Prime Minister of the day, John Gorton, brought a new and somewhat unnerving unpredictability to his dealings with the company. Tradition gave way to personal wilfulness and, at times, caprice. When teamed with Lenox Hewitt as his top advisor, Gorton became a knotty problem for McLennan and his team. Hewitt, a mordant character with the habitual expression of an angry parrot, had begun his career working in BHP's commercial department many years previously. The experience, it seems, was not recalled with unalloyed pleasure by either party. …

By then, BHP was having to deal with an entirely new phenomenon at the national level: the Labor Government of Gough Whitlam, which still carried within its ranks hard men wielding the barely concealed baton of nationalisation. Most prominent among them was the long-time member for the Wollongong area, R. F. X. 'Rex' Connor, who not only secured the ministry of minerals and energy but Lenox Hewitt as his department's permanent head.

McLennan was aghast. He had dealt congenially and profitably with state Labor governments over the decades. But Connor quickly became BHP's bete noire. 'He never once achieved ministerial status in the state parliament where he was a member for many years,' McLennan said. In Canberra, however, his formidable bulk, conspiratorial reasoning and uncompromising delivery disarmed Whitlam, who promoted him to high Cabinet office. Indeed, on one occasion when both Whitlam and Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns were out of the country, he briefly became acting prime minister.

'He was, so he said, a great one for Australia developing its own resources,' McLennan said. 'I think the real fact of the matter was he was a great one for socialising resources.'

Happily for BHP, Connors career crashed in flames when, in pursuit of his 'socialising' agenda, he attempted to borrow $400million in petro-dollars using a shady Pakistani go-between, Tirath Khemlani, after Whitlam had revoked his authority to do so. Hewitt's public-service career effectively flamed out at the same time.

Moreover, the changing of the guard in the Labor Party would usher in a somewhat surprising champion of the company's cause in Paul John Keating, who succeeded Connor in opposition as the party's spokesman for minerals and energy. ..."

I noticed your advertisement that ClassA+ recycled water will be coming to Pimpama Coomera on 1 December in a local News Ltd. publication this week.

Would you be able to advise:

1. Where this recycled water comes from, and how much the Gold Coast City Council are paying for it?

2. Do industry use this recycled water?

3. Whether or not the Gold Coast City Council will be using this recycled water for other things including Council pools?

4. Are Gold Coast Water also researching the viability of storm water harvesting and will residents also be encouraged to have rainwater tanks?

Regards,

Who Bears The Cost?

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (10.01 am)-I just want to follow up this matter a little and it will save following it up later in the debate. As the minister would be aware and the Senate would be aware, the Greens sought legal advice from a leading senior counsel and another barrister in Sydney in relation to this matter, because ours is unlike any other scheme anywhere in the world except New Zealand-and we know that the New Zealand scheme is based on the Australian scheme. Elsewhere, they did not create the permits as property rights-here, they are. That is a fundamental difference.

Secondly, in the European scheme and other schemes around the world, there is a get-out-of-jail clause, if you like, which in those schemes says that, if new information comes to the minister relating to certain matters including the science, the minister can change the targets without compensation and so on. So there is a get-out-of-jail clause in there which basically says that the minister can change this. The Australian scheme does not have that provision and the Australian scheme creates property rights. The question we put to the lawyers was: if the targets were increased beyond the five to 25 limits set out in the objects of the act, if that translated to the gateways and if the gateways were more stringent than those set out in the CPRS as it stands, would that mean compensation for people who had made their decisions based on the gateways in the act? The legal advice said, yes, because they will have made their decisions based on that. So, whilst it is true that the government can set a much higher target, it would be expected that other sectors of the economy would be required to meet that target, not the sectors covered by the CPRS, because the legal obligation under the CPRS is to stay within the gateways that have been set in the CPRS. This is the issue here. The minister said earlier stricter targets would not require compensation. That is true to the extent that it would not require compensation if you did not tighten the caps in the scheme and the gateways but actually required other sectors of the economy to meet the higher target.

The question I am asking the minister is: if the government wanted to set targets that were more stringent than allowed for by the gateways as set out in this legislation, can the government rule out that compensation might be necessary, or would be necessary? On this issue of buying back banked permits, this scheme allows for unlimited banking. So upfront, if I were Rio Tinto or somebody else, I could buy a whole lot of cheap permits on the international market if RED goes through-and let us assume that it does. I make a judgment that in 10 years time the carbon price is going to be much higher than it is now. Let us assume that I make that judgement and go out into the international market and buy a whole lot of cheap permits, which I bank, because this scheme allows for unlimited banking. Then the government comes along in the future and says, 'Sorry, we're going to tighten the cap so much that we're going to have to compulsorily acquire some of your banked permits.' Under the Constitution, according to our legal advice, you can only compulsorily acquire property-and, as I said before, this is the only scheme in which these permits are declared property rights-on fair and just terms.

Therefore, our legal advice says that, if the government strengthened the gateways and the caps in the scheme beyond the five to 25 per cent as set down, there would be a strong case for these companies to argue for compensation for the banked permits that were bought back and compensation on the basis that they entered into forward contracts on a whole range of things based on the five to 25 per cent and the gateways that are assumed in that. This is a critical issue for the Greens, and that is why we have argued very strongly when people have said to us, 'Just pass this, start with it and then strengthen it later,' that you will not be able to strengthen the provisions of the CPRS later. You can strengthen the target, but who is going to bear the cost of strengthening that target? It is not going to be the companies covered under the CPRS. The big emitters, the coal fired generators, are mothballed out until 2020 and everybody else will bear the cost of a higher target if a government does decide to go with a higher target.
That is why it will not be changed. The effort required from the big generators, from the coal fired power stations, is virtually locked in and it cannot be changed because no government, neither Liberal nor Labor, is going to incur the multibillion-dollar compensation costs that will be claimed through the courts.

There is no doubt that that will happen, and the lawyers will have been working on this already. That is why they are happy to go with this scheme and its property rights. There has never been any explanation to the parliament as to why these permits are property rights in Australia when they are not anywhere else. It is naive in the extreme to think that you can strengthen those gateways corresponding to a higher target in the future. That is our legal advice. We have made that legal advice available-and I am happy to make it available to the coalition and so on-and the government has not satisfactorily come back and explained.

So, Minister, I am really keen to know: if a higher target were adopted and you strengthened the gateways corresponding to that higher target, are you going to tell the Senate unequivocally that no compensation would be necessary or payable and that there would not be any need to buy back banked permits?

 

"Be who you are and say what you feel , because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind !"
Dr. Seuss

When will this stop,

They want 2 of Their own public holidays, because Christians have Christmas, Easter & good Friday,
They force our children to eat Halal Meat Pies and Sausage Rolls from the school canteens, so the Muslim kids can feel more Aussie, we were not consulted about this change, they went ahead and just did it.

Our foods are slowly all becoming Halal foods, our cheeses, chocolates even good old sanitarium foods
Our Government is ALLOWING this to happen, it has to stop now, while we still have some power to be able to stop it.

Regarding Our National Anthem I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Arabic - enough is enough. No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Czech, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.

I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ---- please pass this along I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE Australia !

PART OF THE PROBLEM. Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!! Will we still be the Country of Choice and still be Australia if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in Australia because it is the Country of Choice?? Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. It is Time for Australia to Speak up.

If you agree -- pass this along; if you don't agree -- delete it!

Brisbane's "Miracle" Christmas Tree Unveiled

Everybody thinks the dollar will fall. Everybody thinks gold will rise. Everybody thinks China is the next major world power. Everybody thinks the markets will climb well into the new year.

Every bank seems to need more money. Both in the US and in Europe, the banking systems need tens of billions of dollars in additional capital. And soon. China is reining in its banks, which will also need to raise billions more after spending 2009 in a wild government ordered lending spree. Japanese banks have lived in the twilight zone longest of all. The IMF estimates there's at least another $1 trillion in losses to be absorbed. Standard and Poor's simply says most large banks are unsafe. Too much risk.

But risk happens to be how everybody's trying to make up for their previously incurred losses. Which made banks and funds invest in the likes of Dubai, now fast turning into a downside risk of $100-150 billion. Credit Suisse estimates a $40 billion Dubai exposure for European banks, but I'm guessing most Dubai bonds may well reside with for instance pension funds. ...

I am writing to invite you to a special upcoming event, a breakfast with Tony Abbott.

It should be a great morning and a rare opportunity to ask your questions of this leading member of the Liberal Party and member of the Shadow Cabinet.

Please find the details of the breakfast and an opportunity to pay online below.

I'm looking forward to seeing you there on Friday morning.

Stuart Robert MP
Federal Member for Fadden

Former Howard Cabinet Minister, Tony Abbott, was elected Member for Warringah at a by-election in March 1994.

Prior to entering Parliament he was Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1993-94. From 1990-93 he was press secretary and political advisor to the Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson.

His previous career was in journalism, where he wrote as a feature writer for The Bulletin and The Australian. Tony was appointed Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector after the federal election in 2007.

He is currently the Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Date: Wednesday 2nd December, 2009

Time: 6.45am for 7:00am - 8:30am

Venue: Function Centre, Southport Sharks
Cnr Musgrave & Olsen Avenue
Southport

Cost: $50.00 per person

RSVP: 4:00pm Friday 27 November, 2009

Click here to RSVP and pay online by creditcard or Paypal.

Fuck Off Anna!

There is a reason why there are national parks.

Talisman Sabre 2009

On 6th July 2009, 18,000 US and 6,000 Australian troops began military exercises largely centered round Shoalwater Bay, 700 kms north of Brisbane. Part of this included live bombing from ships and land artillery. The main purpose of the exercises was to refine the war fighting in present and future US imperial wars. The war "games" featured scenarios form the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with an "Urban Warfare Center" built from shipping containers. It included a dome shaped building resembling a mosque.

This was the third time for these two yearly exercises, and the third time activists had gathered to resist them. On the 5th July I travelled there in our vegie van with five others. We joined others at Martin Luther King House, a temporary residence for the event. Not far away another house was rented by a group of Christians for a similar purpose. Over the next few weeks we acted together.

A larger Peace Convergence group gathered in the city of Rockhampton for a shorter period.

This article will largely deal with the two significant events of the time for me.

The Blockade :

The Shoalwater Bay Military base covers thousands of hectares with a number of entrances. In what turned out to be a quite futile attempt to prevent resisters entering the base, Police had formed roadblocks along the roads leading to the main entrances.

On Thursday 9th of July about 8 of us headed to the so called "green gate", used by much of the military traffic. We stopped at the intersection of the Pacific Highway, and set up our own road sign. It directed people to: "Operation Talisman Saber - The Road to Perdition". We then moved a little down the road and blocked it with our nine meter banner reading, "In the name of God - Stop the Wars". The banner was inspired by the famous radio address by Salvadorian Bishop Oscar Romero where he demanded of the military, "In the name of God stop the oppression!"

In a few minutes a semitrailer carrying US army jeeps arrived, soon followed by another ...and another ...and another. Soon there were five large trucks lined up all loaded with US military equipment. Not a bad catch for an early morning fishing expedition!

Soon a few officers in smaller military vehicles stopped as well. One officer approached us and requested us to allow his 4WD through as he was the "Ranger Safety Officer" .

Safety was what we were on about, of course, so we happily let him through.

Strangely, although police had their own roadblock only five minutes down the same road, it was an hour and a half before they arrived to speak to us. When they asked us to leave the road, Ciaron O'Reilly and I refused to do so, stating our intention to continue our nonviolent resistance by blocking this military convoy. We were soon arrested and taken to the Rockhampton watchouse. In court we announced we would not sign bail while the court protected war making.

The next four days were a good time of reflection and prayer. As watchouses go Rocky is not bad. Police were friendly. Fellow crims were friendly. Food was good.

Meanwhile the "Bonheoffer Four" had entered the Shoalwater base and announced their intention to reach the "live fire" area and disrupt the exercises. (Details of their action can be read elsewhere).

At the same time another group was making preparations to do like wise. Bryan Law came to visit us at the watchouse and asked us to take bail as they were having difficulties getting enough people to do the action. After a weekend of deliberation we took bail on Monday morning and joined those in 'minimum security" preparing the next action.

Two days later, the Bonheoffer Four were discovered on a road inside the base. Within another two days two more groups had formed to continue the exercise of stopping live firing. A group of four called themselves the "Grana 4" after a young girl whose whole family was killed by a US bomb. Bryan Law, Culley Palmer and I formed the "Jaggerstatter 3". Ciaron joined Margaret at MLK house to support the two groups.

What follows is my account of the nine days I spent inside the Shoalwater Bay base.

Thursday 16/7/09

While police had road blocks on all the main roads into the base, we simply took a side track and walked for a few hours until we got to the boundary. It was clearly marked by a sign saying, Do Not Enter. Military Area." We walked past the sign and camped for the night.

Friday 17/7/09

We walked about 5kms and camped. A cold night!

Saturday 18/7/09

We walked about 6kms and crossed the major interior road. We camped by a pool of dirty water. While Bryan boiled some and put in purification tablets, Culley and I searched for cleaner water.

We soon found some, filled all our bottles, and this time just added tablets.

We then turned on our mobile phone and received a text message to say the military had issued a press release. They claimed they had stopped live firing the previous morning, implying this was their intention all along. Bryan was certain this was a lie, coming less than a day after our press release announcing our entry on to the base. Bryan was convinced our presence had stopped the live firing. Culley and I were less sure. Of course, telling the truth is an irrelevant concept to the military, so we will never know for sure. (Later, Bryan did talk to locals who agreed with his analysis, as they claimed the live firing part of the exercises usually lasted much longer.)

Sunday 19th/7/09

Bryan decided it was time for him to head back to the outside world where he had access to more medication (Bryan is diabetic, had had a heart bypass operation less than 9months before, and has a few other health issues as well). Culley walked back to main internal road with Bryan and left him there to await traffic. It wasn't long before a number of (mostly US) vehicles passed. Bryan held up a banner that we had attached to the fence of Pine Gap spy base in 2005. ( It had only recently been returned by federal police) - "What Have You Done- Your Brother's Blood Cries out to me form the Earth : Gen. 4". Bryan was able to witness to hundreds of military before he was arrested.

Meanwhile, Culley and I did a tough walk up a mountainous area to a spot close to the live fire area. I learnt a very important lesson at this point- when walking up hills/mountains, distances on a map are much farther than you think! Our plan was to get to a place on the map called the "Repeater Station". We have no idea what a repeater station is, but out intention was to photograph it and send it by phone as proof of our presence the live fire area.

At this point things went a little awry! When we got very close it was getting late and I was exhausted (Culley on the other hand looked like he had just had a pleasant stroll). We decided \to leave our packs for the last part, get a photo or two and come back. Big lesson number two! Never leave your pack!

Quite close to our destination we spotted two marines. One appeared to have rifle. The other one seemed to spot us and both soon looked in our direction. As we made a dignified and hasty retreat, Culley spotted another marine 50 meters away! In retrospect we do not know if they saw us or not. But they seemed to make no attempt to follow. (Later Bryan told us that one of the Marines he had met on the road had said, "I wouldn't go into that bush if you paid me!")

By now it was getting dark and we were very tired (at least I was), and a little nervous and .... where the hell did we leave those packs????.

When Culley suggested we could continue the search using the dim light of his mobile phone, I was not hysterical, so I only laughed a little. I suggested it was time to find a flat spot to lie down this tired body and try to cover ourselves with lots of dead grass for our "sleeping bags". This we did. It was cold, but luckily not as cold as other nights had been. Soon after lying down I woke to find Culley putting lots more grass over me. (We discussed this later. Earlier I had said, "I don't think we will die of exposure". Culley thought I said "I hope we don't die of exposure", and was very worried for this poor old man!). When I awoke again later in the night I looked across and saw Culley in his torn shirt with virtually no grass on himself at all!

Monday 20/7/09

Next morning we awoke at first light and found our packs in half an hour or so. I was still feeling exhausted and Culley looked fresh as a daisy. We traveled 2k away from the area and had a 'rest day' by a small body of water in which I had a lovely bath.

Tuesday 21/7/09

Feeling much better we walked 4kms and set up camp just inside the live fire area. Lots of water there - but I was a bit worried about contamination from live firing upstream.

Wednesday 22/7/09

We decided to stay another day. We walked around a little. There was no sign of live firing. We expected this as we were not far into the perimeter of the area. I re-read "Solitary Witness", the inspiring story of Franz Jagerstatter. In the afternoon we made a plan to head east first thing in the morning, but on hearing blank gunfire close in the east, we decided we would go south, but......

Thursday 23/7/09

Next morning we heard dogs barking in the south. Still, we chose dogs over guns and headed south. After deliberating for the last two days we made up our minds to leave on Friday morning. We were pretty happy with what we had achieved. We will have spent about 9 days in the area, including two in the live fire area. We possibly stopped live fire. We proved how easy it was to stay in the area undetected.

So that night we camped only a couple of kms form the outside boundary, and near the main road we intended to cross at first light. However....

Soon after we lay down to sleep, we could hear small arms fire coming form the direction of the road quite near. Then we saw a very bright light close to us. We thought they might be looking for us and decided to stay still and take our chances. Then the light disappeared. More small arms fire. Then the light flared again. It was only 100 meters away. We decided to leave. As we packed we realised the light was a campfire which would flare up when the soldiers put more wood on it.

We headed through thick bush on a very dark night, guided by the Southern Cross. With a few scratches and a little stress we made it out of the base and slept in peace.

After getting back to Martin Luther King house we were told that police liaison were looking for us with the intention of charging us. Well we never went looking for them! Perhaps they thought better of it in the end because no charges were laid.

Meanwhile Emily and Yolangi were still in the base and ended up staying an impressive 11 days, handing themselves in on the following Sunday. Mark and Jacob from their group had also been arrested after allowing themselves to be detected previously.

Court

Most folks who were charged pleaded guilty in order to avoid a second trip to Rocky. They received fines ranging form $150 to $1200 - mostly depending on which magistrate they drew in the lottery called 'justice".

However, Ciaron and I declined to plead guilty and will face a trial in Rockhampton on December 23rd - two days before Christmas.

Meanwhile the Afpak and Iraq wars rage on with an escalation in troops in the former. At the same time the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave their award to the Commander in Chief of the invading and occupying forces in both wars.

It's a strange world, where you must keep saying, war is NOT peace, and wonder if anyone is listening at all. Certainly not the Nobel Peace prize committee! But they have once again shown that ultimately it is only ordinary people like you and I who are going to change things for the better, not the powerful leader and not powerful international committees.

Shark Nets Kill A Rare And Gentle Visitor:

Greens Media Release [25/11/09]

A dugong was found dead having drowned in the shark nets at Coogee beach today, another casualty of the Government's beach meshing scheme. Dugongs are on the NSW Department of Environment's endangered list. The Threatened Species Conservation Act defines 'endangered' as "likely to become extinct or in immediate danger of extinction".

The Department lists shark nets as a Key Threatening Process to the survival of dugongs.

"The announcement of a rare visit by a dugong to Sydney's waters should be a happy occasion," says Ian Cohen, Greens MLC.

"Dugongs were once thought by sailors to be mermaids. These gentle herbivorous giants are on the brink of extinction and it is heartbreaking to think that they ventured too close to foolish human activity and died.

"Why are we persisting in netting our beaches when the nets are doing more harm than good and failing to provide adequate protection swimmers. There were two - (non-fatal) -shark attacks on NSW beaches last year, both on meshed beaches - hardly a good advertisement fortheir usefulness.

"The Department of Primary Industry's report into the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program released earlier this year confirmed the inefficacy of the nets.The report stated that in the period 1974 - 2009 there were 12 attacks across 51 meshed beaches and 45 attacks on the 650 non-meshed beaches.

"Shark nets killed 1,485 marine animals between 1995 and 2004.According to the Government's own Scientific Committee Report in 2003 at least six categories of vulnerable marine species were being caught in the shark nets each year.

"The NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee, in recommending that the NSW Shark Meshing Program be listed as a Key Threatening Process, notes that 40% of shark entanglement occurring on the beach side of the nets because sharks are able to swim over and around the nets."

"The shark meshing program is about creating a perception of public safety. You only have to look at the pictures and the real figures to see that it's unscientific, a waste of money and is killing endangered animals. "

Creative Spirit Remembered

Brisbane Artists Ann and Michael Chadwick have created a tribute to the West End artist, drawing inspiration from her designs, which will sit beneath an old fig tree in Highgate Hill Park overlooking the City.

Sarah's mother Jan says:

"When she was alive, Sarah inspired people with her infectious passion for art of all kinds. She loved art and loved to encourage everyone to find and express their own artistic nature. This seat stunningly continues that inspiration and provides a marvellous addition to the park for the community to enjoy for many years to come."

Sarah's dragonfly seat will be unveiled at 2pm next Monday [30/11/09].

Thanks to the West End Community Association for bringing this to our attention.

... On the grass
In the fields
In the flowers
In the forest

On the fence
In the canopy
A singer in the chorus

On the wing
Swift on the breeze
When all the seeds are falling ...

'Dragonfly', stringmansassy [2004]

In response to your email ……

We do not currently use any recycled water in any of the beverages we produce at our Yatala site. We do however use recycled water from our water recovery centre for virtually every other process.

Foster's Yatala operation is one of the world's most water efficient brewery, utilising just 2.2 litres of water per litre of beer brewed (best practice is generally regarded as around 4 litres).

On our journey of improvement we have worked closely over many years with our provider, Gold Coast Water and more recently with the Queensland Water Commission. We are confident they will do the right thing for south-east Queensland.

At this point in time we have no plans to make any changes to our sourcing arrangements.

Kind Regards

Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich--ALP) (Minister for Transport): ... On Monday, 14 December the first train will run on a brand-new rail line from a brand-new station at Varsity Lakes. The completion of the $324 million Robina-Varsity Lakes rail extension is a great example of the Bligh government’s commitment to modernising transport infrastructure in the region. The new Varsity Lakes station sets the benchmark for station design and features 300 commuter car-parking spaces, 50 bicycle lockers, a bus interchange, a taxi rank and a kiss-and-ride or passenger drop-off facility.

Train travel is a green and sustainable mode of transport in its own right, but the growing numbers of passengers on the Gold Coast will be further pleased to know that the station’s green credentials go even further. Rainwater is collected from the roof and stored in tanks to water gardens and for use in the bathrooms. The extensive use of glass creates natural lighting, and the station is partially powered by solar energy. However, there is more good news for Gold Coast commuters this Christmas. From 14 December there will be an extra morning service and an extra afternoon peak-hour service each weekday. This will deliver an extra 868 passenger seats every weekday. This is the seventh new service we have added to the Gold Coast line in the past two years.

The Bligh government is currently introducing an average of one new train a month to the QR passenger fleet, with 33 new three-car trains already delivered. We have made a massive investment of $911 million to build 64 new three-carriage trains, which is the largest expansion to the fleet since electrification. The Bligh government is continuing its commitment to expanding and improving the rail network and keeping pace with a growing and expanding population in South-East Queensland.

The cost of public transport is set to rise in the New Year, an early Christmas present given to consumers. On January 4, 2010, GO Card Fares will rise about 20%, while paper tickets will rise by up to 40%

Anger continues to grow amongst the community who use public transport over the State Government changes to public transport fees and the abolition of paper tickets.

"The 20-40% increase in public transport costs will be a disincentive for people to use public transport" says Fiona Simpson MP, Shadow Minister for Main Roads and Transport and we tend to agree. Public Transport is already a luxury item for pensioners without a car to get out and about, visit friends, to volunteer or to visit their local doctor, specialists, bank or local shops. By increasing the cost of public transport, the Government is reducing the accessibility of pensioners to engage with the wider community. This will mean further isolation for many of our older members and those that are disadvantaged.

Paper tickets have been an easy option for older Queenslanders who are not able to access online their account, who are hesitant to trust new technology and online or phone top-up payments and not to mention the lack of outlets selling the cards.

It is appalling that consumers preferring to buy a one-off paper ticket will be charged a lot more.

"Labor didn't tell commuters at the election about these massive hikes and even during Budget a couple of months ago, not a word was said" says Simpson.

"Anna Bligh and Treasurer Fraser told Queenslanders their election promises were fully costed ... nowhere during the election or during the Budget did they tell the people about their plan to massively increase commuter fares way above the CPI."

...

We are at a point in Queensland and specifically in the South East corner where there is heavy congestion on the roads due to the increasing population, we should be encouraging greater use of public transport to get vehicles off the road, how is this possible if fares are continually on the rise?

... The closures from 1 November 1960 included the first suburban or passenger line, Lota to Cleveland, along with the Mount Perry branch beyond Tirroan and Innes to Morganville. The Mount Edwards and Maryvale branches closed ending all hope of the Via Recta. The Cleveland closure was short sighted and the line was rebuilt in the the eighties to modern standards.

This policy was repeated on 1 July 1961 when Nerang to Tweed Heads closed, along with the Crow's Nest, Windera and Tarong branches and the Goomburra branch beyond Allora, and in mining areas, the Mount Garnet branch and Malbon to Selwyn.

...

Closure to Tweed Heads netted a once-only profit from the sale of real estate, but it took a short sighted view of developments on the Gold Coast which was even then becoming a major population centre near Brisbane.

However, there was opposition to many closures. Because of their common carrier obligations, railways carried certain goods at uneconomic rates. As lines closed, sugar mills eagerly bought the surplus rail to expand and relay their two foot gauge tramways. Most rail was lifted soon after closure, ending any possibility of a reopening if new traffic developed.

The Nerang, Killarney, Haden and Rumula branches closed from 1 May 1964 as did the Cooyar branch beyond Acland, and Wallaville to Innes. Goondoon to Wallaville was closed from the following 15 June and sold to Gin Gin Central Mill which converted most of the the branch to two feet gauge sugar cane tramway. The Kilcoy, Millaa Millaa and Fassifern branches closed on 1 July, along with Beenleigh to Southport, Kingaroy to Nanango and Nankin to Emu Park. Short spurs from Ipswich to Churchill, Caboolture to Wamuran and Tolga to Kairi remained open for traffic for wagon load livestock, pineapple and grain traffic.

No closure was opposed as vehemently, or was as short sighted, as the closure to Southport, ending all rail communication with the Gold Coast. Postwar plans to upgrade the line for modern engines and rolling stock were never completed as other rail projects offered better returns. Veteran PB15s and lightweight carriages were used to the end, no locomotive newer than a Walschaert's PB15 built in 1926. A daily commuter railcar operated by 2000 class units was introduced only months before the closure. Road taxes were lifted, buses ran a far more frequent but only slightly faster service, and money was poured into a four-lane highway. An economic study after closure showed that placing one light diesel electric locomotive on the track would have been a sound investment. Even more short-sighted than the closure was the sale of urban railway land making rebuilding a railway to the heart of the Gold Coast prohibitively expensive. ...

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (3.27pm)-

I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to a transportable dialysis machine in Alice Springs, Northern Territory. It is quite clear that the government has failed to grasp the opportunity of pursuing funding and support for interstate patients needing dialysis in Alice Springs. As the minister articulated, the Commonwealth on 6 November said that they would be providing a transportable dialysis facility, to be placed in Alice Springs on a temporary basis until the new unit is in place in April-although it looks like that will not be available until June. That facility, apparently, is not going to accept new interstate patients.

As I articulated in this place last week, there are a number of patients located in Kiwirrkurra, for example, in the APY Lands, who are being refused access to Alice Springs. As the minister said, they are being told to go to their own states. Mr Tjungurrayi from Kiwirrkurra lives over 2,400 kilometres from Perth. He lives around 550 kilometres from Alice Springs and to get to Perth he has to fly via Alice Springs. So the Commonwealth government appears to accept that it is okay for patients not to have access to Alice Springs dialysis equipment and to be sent to Perth, where they do not speak the language, they have no family members and they feel totally isolated. As someone said to me, they see it as a one-way trip because you cannot go home for dialysis holidays from Perth like you can from Alice Springs. Patrick, living in Kiwirrkurra, can go back to his home and go to Kintore if the NT government is willing to enter into a shared facility arrangement. He could have his first dialysis, have his medical condition stabilised, have a fistula implanted and then go home to Kiwirrkurra. He would then have to travel only 140 kilometres to Kintore. Patrick says he does not want to go to Perth and that he will stay in community, because he sees going to Perth, as I said, as a one-way trip.

There are a number of patients in Central Australia who are choosing not to have dialysis because they do not want to leave country. In other words, these people, without this treatment, will pass away. The Commonwealth have missed a golden opportunity to use their funding leverage. Last week they were arguing that dialysis is not provided by the Commonwealth. We have cleared that up; it clearly is. For a start, the Commonwealth have provided over $5.3 million for dialysis equipment, service and support. On top of that, they have provided a transportable dialysis service. Clearly, they are funding dialysis services and support in the Northern Territory. Why aren't they making the provision of those services dependent on the Northern Territory treating patients who come from across the border-in other words, from Central Australia? The Commonwealth have also funded facilities to go into remote communities, so quite clearly they also understand the importance of providing dialysis equipment and support in community. Yet again their response is: 'People can go off community to Adelaide, Kalgoorlie or Perth-oh, except that Kalgoorlie is full. Sorry, you'll have to go to Perth.' The amazing thing is that if Mr Tjungurrayi were to go to Kalgoorlie he would have to fly from Kiwirrkurra to Alice Springs, from Alice Springs to Perth and from Perth to Kalgoorlie. Tell me how that is rational! Alice Springs is the regional centre for people living in Central Australia. It is ridiculous for the Commonwealth to pretend it is acceptable for people to pass away rather than use its funding as a lever to require the Northern Territory to provide support for those people in Alice Springs. It would be the most sensible thing to do. The Commonwealth knows that.

The Commonwealth should be putting pressure, unashamedly, on the Northern Territory, WA and South Australia to come up with an answer. It is unacceptable to leave these Aboriginal Australians to be pawns in a state-territory-federal game, which is essentially what the government is doing. I do not know how it can say it is closing the gap when it is prepared to let these people pass away or to let this have a negative impact on their health. It is laughable to claim that we are closing the gap in Australia if that is what the Commonwealth is prepared to say. These people cannot wait till the new facility is in place in April or, as we have heard, probably not until June. They need urgent treatment now.

Question agreed to.

Queensland's Losers Breath Sigh Of Relief With Introduction Of TaserCam

A group of prominent Australian academic and business economists has issued a statement describing the case presented by the Queensland government in support of its proposed asset sales as ‘economically unsound’ and ‘based on spurious claims’

The statement concludes that ‘The people of Queensland deserve a robust and well-informed public debate over the costs and benefits of privatisation. So far they have not received it.’

The group encompasses a broad range of views on the merits of privatisation —some might favour it in particular cases whilst others would be less likely to. However, all are agreed that such important decisions should be made on the basis of well-informed discussion. Important issues include whether the private or public sector would be the most efficient managers, which would be the best bearers of the business risk and the best ways for the enterprise to meet social as well as financial objectives.

The group includes twelve professors of economics from four leading Queensland universities and nationally prominent academic and business economists including current and former members of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Statement by academic and business economists on the Queensland government’s case for asset sales

Decisions on the sale or retention of public assets have important implications for competition and public policy, as well as for the fiscal position of governments. These decisions cannot be resolved on the basis of general ideological arguments for or against public ownership, and require informed public debate in each case. The normal lines of economic debate include whether a given business is more efficiently operated in the private or public sector, the appropriate allocation of risk and the extent to which the enterprise is required to pursue social as well as financial objectives.

The signatories of this statement have a range of views on the appropriate balance between the public and private sectors and on the merits of privatisation in particular cases. However, we share the view that these questions should be resolved on the basis of well-informed discussion of the economic and social costs and benefits of privatisation, and not on the basis of spurious claims that asset sales represent a costless source of income to governments.

The arguments put forward by the Queensland government in its booklet ‘Facts and Myths on Asset Sales’ do nothing to promote a well-informed debate. Two central claims are particularly, and sadly, noteworthy. In relation to five public assets proposed for sale, the ”Facts and Myths” booklet states Keeping these businesses would cost the Government $12 billion over the next five years. That’s $12 billion spent on new coal trains and new wharves that can’t be spent on roads, schools or hospitals.

This claim is economically unsound. Forgoing income generating investments, and borrowing an equal amount to fund investments that return no additional revenue, leaves the government with no flow of income to service the associated debt. The necessary income must be raised by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure. Selling public assets will improve the public sector’s fiscal position only if the price realised for the assets exceeds the value of the income stream that the asset would otherwise generate for the public sector. In this respect, the ‘Facts and Myths’ booklet states The total return from all five businesses in 2008-09 was approximately $320 million

When the sale process is completed, it is anticipated the Government will save $1.8 billion every year in interest payments. This is an invalid, apples-and-oranges comparison. The $320 million figure consists solely of dividend payouts, excluding retained earnings, tax-equivalent payments and the interest paid by the government business enterprises to service their debts. The $1.8 billion represent the interests that would be saved, at a rate of about 6 per cent, if the state realised $15 billion from the asset sale and avoided $12 billion in new investment. Most of this interest would be serviced out of the revenues of the GBEs, and can therefore not be compared with dividends derived from earnings after the payment of interest and tax. The people of Queensland deserve a robust and well-informed public debate over the costs and benefits of privatisation. So far they have not received it.

Signatories Harry Campbell, Professor of Economics, University of Queensland Tim Coelli, Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Queensland Henry Ergas, Economic Consultant, Canberra John Foster, Professor of Economics, and former Head of School, University of Queensland Paul Frijters, Professor of Economics, QUT Joshua Gans, Professor of Economics, Melbourne Business School Ross Guest.Professor of Economics, Griffith University, Nicholas Gruen, CEO, Lateral Economics Christopher Joye, Managing Director, Rismark International Stephen King., Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, former Commissioner ACCC Andrew McLennan, Australian Professorial Fellow in Economics, University of Queensland Flavio Menezes, Professor and Head of School of Economics, University of Queensland Christopher O’Donnell, Professor and Deputy Head of School of Economics, University of Queensland Andrew Leigh, Professor of Economics, ANU Adrian Pagan, Professor of Economics, QUT, former member RBA Board Rohan Pitchford, Australian Professorial Fellow in Economics, University of Queensland John Quiggin, Federation Fellow in Economics, University of Queensland John Rolfe, Professor of Economics, Central Queensland University Prasada Rao, Australian Professorial Fellow in Economics, University of Queensland Rabee Tourky, Professor of Economics, University of Queensland Warwick McKibbin, Professor of Economics, ANU, current member RBA Board

Refugees are dying while they wait in the queue

I missed the last week of Parliament during the ongoing debate concerning boat people.

I was in Uganda at a board meeting of my favorite charity Watoto, a charity that rescues abandoned children and babies and gives them hope and a future.

I've been going to Africa every year for many years working with some of the poorest people on earth.

To abandon your own child in a pit latrine because you can't afford to care for them says much about the overwhelming circumstances of the parent as it does for the lot of the child.

It was in such an environment that I kept abreast of the continuing debate. Different circumstances always cause you to reflect, as does 24 hours flying at the back of a crowded aircraft. I thought anew about the now 45 boats and over 2000 people that have flocked to our shores since August 2008. I pondered why so many of my countrymen and women take a tough line, shake their head and ask why the influx of boats now?

Australians have much to be proud of in our humanitarian spirit.

We resettle over 11,000 refugees annually in Australia making us the most generous resettlement nation per capita on earth.

We were one of the original signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention and as a nation of immigrants; Australia continues to bat above our weight in support of UN Peace Keeping and humanitarian work overseas.

We are a generous, compassionate and fair minded people. So why do Australians hold such mixed views towards boat people?

Whilst reasons differ, a common thread running through all arguments is that Australians think it's just not fair, and the fair go is one of our most unique and beloved of unwritten virtues.

It's displayed in our ANZAC tradition, in our response to disasters, in our regard for errant footy umpires and in our verse and rhyme with such phrases as 'an Aussie battler having a go' and 'fair crack of the whip'.

Australians don't like it when it's not fair. We're happy to all suffer together, but woe betide the self indulgent who think they're above all else!

This is the boat people issue, desperate souls who pay abhorrent people smugglers upwards to US$20,000 a head to take them to Australia.

These poor people are seeking a better life, better economic conditions, a better freedom.

The problem, as many Australians know, is that before they arrived on our shores, these people were already free. When they left their homes and travelled through multiple countries like Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia they were free in each country.

The persecution from which they fled had ceased when they crossed the border out of their country. The problem was that freedom of itself was not enough. They want economic freedom of the kind offered by Australia.

Yet in Africa, there are thousands of people that can't flee to different countries to secure freedom, that can't afford upward to US$20,000 to board a boat.

They would starve to death or be raped and killed if they left the refugee camp that offers scant if any protection and they are truly desperate people who need asylum. It is a similar story in numerous countries across the world.

For every boat person Australia accepts, a truly deserving refugee is shunted further down the list. Our humanitarian programs will only stretch so far, at present they are the most generous in the world but are at capacity. This is where it is so unfair.

When I was asked by a Zimbabwean refugee who had lost everything and is a pariah in every country they have trudged to, why Australia is so difficult to get into when those on boats are accepted, the only answer I had was to say it is unfair.

It's unfair that processes can be jumped or ignored because you can pay modern day slave traders called people smugglers, to get you to Australia. It's unfair that people will die in refugee camps waiting for their application to be processed whilst others pay to get a head start.

This is how many Australians view the current boat people question.

There is no question our processes must be compassionate and humane, yet watering down our border protection laws is neither if it leads to a flood of human misery, which it has.

This is the irony of what the Prime Minister has done. In fundamentally altering the laws that were responsible for reducing boat arrivals to zero, he has opened the flood gates. The push factors haven't changed, as Scott Morrison's recent article testifies. The pull factors of watered down policy has caused the surge.

As the surge continues, whilst the Prime Minister so ironically seeks Indonesian assistance, refugees seeking actual freedom continue to wait, pushed further down the line because of those seeking economic freedom. Because freedom of itself is not enough.

It's just not fair!

While the government frames climate change as a blunt choice between action and inaction, even they acknowledge as they negotiate with the Opposition that there is a point when action becomes so weak that it is useless. The Greens and many others believe it has been passed long ago.

If the CPRS were merely too weak, the Greens might have supported it as a start. But we recognise that, when faced with a serious and complex problem, it is the choice of the right action that is vital, not the decision to act. Prescribing and locking in the wrong treatment to a seriously ill patient can hasten death rather than prevent it.

The Greens oppose the CPRS as it stands not because it is too weak but because it will actually point Australia in the wrong direction with no prospect of turning it around in the 2015 timeframe within which emissions must peak. This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure.

A weak target undermines global action

The key stumbling block to a global agreement is the refusal by developed nations to sign up to the kind of targets the science, the community and the developing world demand - in the order of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The Rudd Government's 4% target (below 1990), and the obnoxious conditions placed on moving to the still too weak 24% target, are part of the problem globally.

A weak price signal and weak target will drive wasteful investment

A weak target and price signal will drive regrettable and short-sighted investment in infrastructure that will have to be uneconomically closed down when appropriate targets and price signals are implemented. This potentially includes gas fired power stations, slightly cleaner industrial plants and refurbishment of coal fired power stations that should really be closed down.

Over-generous compensation to polluters, and linking compensation to continued generation, exacerbates this problem. In WA, generators are considering recommissioning two old coal fired power stations to take advantage of this.

If we set out on the right trajectory with a realistic price signal from the beginning, we will make fewer of these mistakes and waste less time and money.

While the economic impact of 25% cuts is almost identical to 5%, there is evidence that steeper cuts will be cheaper, as we will learn faster and make fewer mistakes.

A weak target and undermined voluntary action demoralises the community

There is significant disquiet in the community about the impact of the CPRS on voluntary and additional action to cut emissions.

We need the community to be inspired, not disempowered.

Over-allocation of free permits locks in failure

The Government has been at pains to point out that scheme will provide long-term certainty by setting a 5 year rolling cap, supported by longer term gateways. Once set it will politically very difficult for the Government to set a more ambitious target.

Just as the over-allocation of water in the Murray Darling has made a fix almost unimaginably difficult, the over-allocation of free permits in the early years would lock in a weak trajectory and make it almost impossible to strengthen the scheme without massive additional compensation to polluters or cost to taxpayers through purchasing imported permits.

How can these problems be fixed?

The simplest way to fix all of these fatal flaws is to lift the target to what the science demands straight away and accrue the benefits of early action - slow starts mean higher costs later. While the remaining design flaws would make it more expensive to reach that target, they would not prevent it from being reached.

However, it should be noted that the Greens have a suite of proposed amendments which have been presented to the Government and the community. Beyond lifting the targets, the Greens' amendments would:

adopt Professor Garnaut's economically credible proposals to:

auction all permits;

compensate trade exposed industries only to the value of their lost competitiveness, not for lost profits; and
not compensate electricity generators at all; fix the problem of undermining additional and voluntary action by providing for such action to be tallied and equivalent emissions cut from the following year's target;
remove market distortions such as the price cap and the ban on permit export;
ensure that transport is covered by the scheme; and
only allow the import of the most highly credible permits and restrict total imports to ensure credibility of the scheme and drive domestic economic transformation.

Fran Kelly told ABC Insiders program on Sunday November 15: "There's lots of positive changes within the Greens' amendments that could make this bill better."

The Greens have attempted to negotiate with the Government on multiple occasions, and have been rebuffed each time.

If the Government and Opposition reach agreement on the CPRS, it will be a hollow victory for both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.

In the face of climate crisis, it will be an agreement to fail.

What About Constituents Who Are Ideologically Opposed To Lending Their Eyeballs To News Ltd. Publications Such As 'The Punch'?

The political issue of the moment is surely asylum seekers and it seems unlikely to simmer down until the boats stop coming.

Read my piece on The Punch about my own experiences with refugees and why I think Australians favour taking a hard line on unauthorised arrivals by boat to our shores.

You can also see my take on the Government's refusal to take responsibility for the increasing number of boat arrivals in question time here on the Liberal Party's Youtube Channel Liberal TV.

Stuart Robert MP
Federal Member for Fadden

That's the plan. You can read the opinion piece at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Refugees-are-dying-while-they-wait-in-the-queue/

Good to hear from you

Thanks Stuart,

Unfortunately the "net nanny" does not allow me to link to Rupert Murdoch's websites.

When do you think your article will be up on your website?

Regards,

The UN climate meeting, COP15 in Copenhagen, is approaching at breakneck speed and most of us lay our fears and hopes in the hands of the world leaders, wishing that they will come up with a sustainable climate agreement. But we can't afford to leave it all to them.

We want to make COP15 not only a global, but a local issue as well, because it's only through local actions we can achieve global change. We have to shift focus: from abstract percentages and climate targets to concrete political measures. A powerful climate adjustment requires comprehensive infrastructural changes in the transport sector. The key to climate adjustment is to be found in the cities, where most of the emissions are generated. Through simple reforms such as planning our cities for public transport, bicycle and pedestrian transport, we can actively reduce car traffic and cut the emission rates in our cities.

So far, the local transport sector has been sadly neglected in the climate debate, and we doubt that COP15 will produce any change in that area. It's up to us to make this important issue visible and put it on the agenda. Even though the inflation in car traffic is one of our biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and unnecessary oil use, few cities have any serious plans to radically decrease their car traffic.

Freeing public transport from fares would effectively create incentives for car drivers to choose public transport instead. With just a marginal tax-raise (in Stockholm, capital of Sweden, all commuters who earns less than 5000 Euros a month would benefit from this), the public transport system could be made free at the point of entry. Free public transport is one solution to pollution!

If you are going to Copenhagen in December, please join us in the pink block in the big demonstration on the 12th. And if you are not – make a demonstration at home and turn to your local politicians with demands for a radical, climate friendly transport policy with investments in public transport and zero fares!

Best wishes from Planka.nu - The Swedish free public transport group

Mr JOHNSON (Ryan) (3.57 pm)-I am very pleased to speak on this important motion in the House of Representatives and to commend the motion by my senior colleague the deputy leader of the parliamentary party. The government's failure to properly manage Australia's foreign relations is a very important topic because in today's world it has all kinds of implications. It is not just an issue of hardcore security but it affects softcore security as well. It has enormous implications for social and economic prosperity in our country, so it is absolutely incumbent upon Australians, Australia's Prime Minister and the Australian government to manage our relationships with all the key countries of the world, and indeed those nations in our part of the world, with great care and diligence.

Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate-

(a) notes:

(i) that Thursday, 19 November 2009, is World Toilet Day - a day to celebrate the importance of sanitation and raise awareness for the world's population who do not have access to toilets and proper sanitation,

(ii) that 2.5 billion people worldwide are without access to proper sanitation, risking their health, stripping their dignity and killing 1.8 million people (mostly children) a year,

(iii) a lack of proper sanitation is the world's biggest cause of malnutrition and infection, causing diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, typhoid and worm infections that kill 5 000 children each day,

(iv) that clean toilets contribute to poverty eradication by protecting one's health and ability to work,

(v) that safe collection and treatment of human waste and other various wastewaters protects drinking water sources and eco-systems, creating clean and healthy living environments, particularly in urban areas,

(vi) the Millennium Development Goals (supported by all parties in the Australian Parliament) cannot be reached unless sanitation conditions are rapidly improved, and

(vii) the upcoming Global Framework for Action on Water and Sanitation meeting in Washington in April 2010 is an opportunity for global support of the sanitation policy leadership of the United Kingdom, Dutch and Australian Governments; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) invest via its aid program in programs and projects aimed at improving sanitation levels, increasing the number of public toilets and improving their cleanliness and accessibility,

(ii) ensure that it plays a constructive, proactive role at the highest ministerial level at the Global Framework
for Action on Water and Sanitation meeting, and

(iii) fast-track the development of sanitation policy by disaggregating sanitation spending from water spending in its budget reporting on official development aid. ...

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate-

(a) notes that:

(i) neither the former Howard Government nor the Rudd Government has implemented the first recommendation of the 2007 Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report, Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, namely, that Geoscience Australia, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Department of the Treasury reassess both the official estimates of future oil supply and the 'early peak' arguments and report to the Government on the probabilities and risks involved, comparing early mitigation scenarios with business as usual,

(ii) of the nine recommendations of that report, only recommendation 6 relating to incentives for fuel efficient vehicles have even been considered let alone addressed,

(iii) in the week beginning 8 November 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its annual 'World Energy Outlook', predicting that global oil demand is forecast to rise from 85 million barrels per day in 2008 to 105 million barrels per day in 2030, and

(iv) a whistleblower at the IEA has claimed 'it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying' and that a 'senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves'; and

(b) calls on the Government immediately to develop a national plan to respond to the challenge of peak oil and Australia's dependence on imported foreign oil.

...

Senator IAN MACDONALD - Next year, is it? Thank you, Senator Boswell. It is happening now, so why interfere with that process? Why have half the people demonstrating in the streets, arguing against it and getting all upset when it is not necessary? This conservation zone is not needed. The bioregional planning process will continue. So why bother with it?

I pay tribute to Senator Ron Boswell. We have not always agreed, and some of the things that I have said today I know Senator Boswell will not agree with, but I commend a senator who has been passionate in his support for the fishing industry in Queensland and, beyond that, for the tourism industry. He, as do I, has this great concern about the unemployed in Far North Queensland and the impact that this will have upon their jobs. I plead with those in the Senate who have not yet made up their minds to ask themselves: why is this being pushed forward? I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, but it is not necessary, so why is it being done? Why is it being pushed by a group from America-who were formed, I might say, with oil money? Perhaps there is a guilty conscience there. Why not talk to some people in Cairns rather than talking to some Americans? What is behind it? There is no conspiracy, perhaps, but what is the purpose of it all when it is quite unnecessary? It was announced without any warning, without any consultation with those directly involved and it is completely unnecessary. I, like Senator Boswell, am passionate about these things. I am passionate about the Barrier Reef. I am passionate about marine conservation. I am also passionate about my fellow North Queenslanders who donot have a job-all they want to do is argue with the government, because the government in this instance and in one other instance has not taken them with it. We can solve all that. We can pursue the bioregional process and keep it going at a fast rate, but let us not destroy the goodwill for the sake of these regulatory measures, which are completely unnecessary. No-one who has spoken in this debate so far has in any way convinced me that there is anything that this proclamation will do that would not happen otherwise.

...

Senator CARR (Victoria-Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) (4.53 pm) - On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism, Mr Martin Ferguson, I table a ministerial statement on an update on the Montara oil spill incident.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (4.53 pm)-by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Senators will be acutely aware that I have taken a very deep interest in this oil spill in the Timor Sea. This is a disaster of incredible proportions. It went on for over 10 weeks-73 days-and, even by the company's estimates, which we think are inaccurate, leaked over 4.5 million litres of oil. However, the estimates given to us by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism during Senate estimates indicate that it could have been as high as between 10 and 20 million litres of oil. The extended environmental damage of this spill is unknown because monitoring from the start of this spill was not undertaken. The government in fact only commissioned a five-day scientific review of those impacts. I am not maligning the scientific report at all-I think it was very good given the circumstances. It showed that there were a lot of animals that were potentially interacting with the oil and being attracted to it, including sea snakes, turtles, killer whales and dolphins. Of course, they are also very important fishing and fish-sporting grounds. The damage to the fishing industry is unknown at this stage. There is evidence that the oil has gone into Indonesian waters and is impacting adversely on Indonesian fishing communities.

We believe that the oil spill and the inquiry will have important consequences for the offshore oil and gas industry in Australia and that, if there are any problems found with our regulatory process or anything could be done to prevent this type of accident happening again, we will need to make some amendments. The government has rightly called for an inquiry into the oil spill. I was pleased to see that the Minister for Resources and Energy announced that two days later the oil leak was stopped. However, we believe there remain some significant unanswered questions about this commission of inquiry. For a start, it is still unclear whether there will be public hearings. The minister has not, through the terms of reference, explicitly make clear that public hearings will be part of the inquiry. To date, the commissioner has withheld comment on whether there will definitely be public hearings. In our view, to ensure that this process is accountable and transparent, there have to be public hearings. The way that the terms of reference for the inquiry are drafted means that the inquiry could happen totally behind closed doors, which we do not think is appropriate.

Commissioner Borthwick needs to quickly reassure the community that there will be public hearings. We also believe that the government needs to guarantee that it will release the commission of inquiry report at the end of April and release it in a very timely manner.

One of the key elements that we are deeply concerned about is the fact that the terms of reference do not make it plain that the inquiry will review the government's response to this spill. It does not have specific terms of reference. The terms of reference mainly focus on the actions of the company, the particular agency's response, whether the regulatory process was met and whether it is adequate. While we of course support those terms of reference, we believe there needs to be a very clear review of how different government agencies responded, how ministers responded and how the responses were coordinated. That was unclear, as I highlighted during the 10 weeks of the incident, and that needs to be reviewed. Another area that we are concerned about is that it is not clear in the terms of reference whether the possible impact on Indonesian waters will be reviewed. It is unclear at this stage whether the inquiry will investigate the impact of the oil spill and, in particular, its impact on Indonesian fishing communities. There is evidence to suggest that the Montara oil may be impacting on the fishing grounds of Indonesian fishers. These claims need to be investigated and the government must secure a guarantee from PTTEP that, if the oil is found to have impacted on Indonesian waters and on Indonesian fishers, they will be compensated quickly and fairly. These fishers rely so heavily on these fishing grounds as a source of both income and protein. It has been reported that some families are not eating fish at the moment because they are concerned that they may be contaminated with oil, and this needs to be addressed by the commission of inquiry as well. The inquiry was put in place 12 days ago, but we are concerned that there is still nowhere for people to send submissions. We are fielding calls from stakeholders wanting to make submissions and to be involved in the process and at the moment I am not able to direct them anywhere. We are hoping that the commissioner will announce where people can send submissions immediately, because of course these issues are currently in people's minds. People want to be able to contribute to the inquiry. In fact, I have had dozens of emails about this issue. People clearly want to contribute their evidence, their thoughts and information that they have into this inquiry. It is absolutely essential that the commissioner open the process. It has been said thatthey will be taking submissions. It is unclear at this stage whether those submissions will also be made public. We believe that they should be, but we are calling on the commissioner to please open the period for submissions immediately so that people can start contributing. Although we agree with the reporting date, it is at the end of April. Given the complexity of some of these issues, that is a relatively short period of time. I am not complaining about that, but it does mean that the commissioner needs to get down and get those
submissions in so the commission can review them and hold hearings. As I said earlier, we believe the hearings need to be public hearings. We believe there is a lot to be learned from this incident. We still do not know the causes. The company are now claiming that they know but, unfortunately, they have not let on to the community.

If I understood correctly what was said at estimates, up until that date they had not told the government what they believed was the cause of the incident. We do not know the cause of the fire, which unfortunately started on 1 November and was put out-thank goodness-on 3 November. As I said, we do not know the impact of this disaster on the marine environment. We do not know if it is having an impact on Indonesian waters or on Indonesian fish. We do not know what impact it has had on the fishing industry. We do not know if the regulatory process was in fact complied with or if that caused the accident, and we do not know at this stage whether there needs to be a tightening of the regulation. There are clearly a wide range of issues that need to be considered during this inquiry, and we encourage the community to participate in the inquiry as much as possible. We believe that it needs to be an open and transparent process. We encourage as many people as possible to participate and we look forward very keenly to the report of the inquiry and the government's response. …

Q. I'm always left with the question of should we do anything about this? And the answer I always get is well we have no choice. We have no choice to eliminate AIDS or to eliminate poverty. Can you answer that question?

Should we do something about this?

A. (Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg) Well I could be a bit selfish and say I've probably got another 35 years on the clock … and so things won't actually be too bad for me…. We might lose the Great Barrier Reef, but I won't be diving by then…. But I guess it's an inter generational issue. Judging by your age, you're going to be around in 2080, and if you look at some of the projections about how things will change, if we continue on the current pathway you will be living in Mad Max World. You'll see huge amounts of inequity in the world. Your lifestyle will suffer, their will be water shortages. It will not be a pretty world.

On that basis, … the fact is that many people living today will be seeing the worse case scenarios. .. The old model often points to the fact well you know it's only a .5 trillion cost and so therefore there are these other big problems we should deal with. This issue compounds all of those. So you add on top of already some desperate situations with AIDS and poverty and so on - this will magnify those. And that's the thing that's come out of almost all the modelling itself. I think it leaves you in the same position - we've got to something.

And the last part of the question if it's all too much, should we just simply party to the end? That's also an option. But of course I'd prefer to die with my boots on while I'm trying to do something, and I guess that's why I get up every morning on this issue. …

Q. I guess you're talking about new technologies to improve efficiency in response climate change. But I haven't really heard any discussion of the alternate causes of climate change, which is increasing growth and over consumption. So I'm just wondering to what degree do you think these new technologies are really just a kind of band-aid to what to what the core problem is? And how can we possibly try to rectify climate change without actually addressing the ultimate causes, given that, apparently we don't want to do anything that will effect the economy

A. (Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg) That's a very good question and I notice several other people in the audience hold this view.

Climate change is yet another symptom of essentially a lot of people demanding a lot of resources. And in fact it grows the problem as we have more equal consumption across the world as we know. So… we could turn it on its head and say that climate change is finally making us wake up to the idea that we should have sustainable systems and that we recycle continuously, and that we think about the issues down the line as opposed to the model we had post World War Two, which was a good economy is one that's constantly growing in material resources.

And I think if we could have one that grows in value … we will get to a world where maybe will we have to eventually reduce the population slowly but drastically. This could be the turning point. It could either do us in or it could actually make us into that next generation of people that will be very fundamentally different to people we have seen over the last hundred years.

Climate change is a symptom of a much greater problem. ...

... Thanks very much for taking the time to get in contact with us, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. This query has only just made its way to me.

In answer to your question, XXXX does not currently use any purified recycled water from the Queensland water supply, we use only town water supply, which we then treat, filter and clarify for use in our beer. However, we do use our own purified recycled water (from the water recycling plant that we installed last year) for non product related uses - including the heating of cooling towers, cleaning between lines etc. ...

Which Dick Will Lead Us?

Buy Nothing Day morphs into a Wildcat General Strike on November 27 There is only one way to avoid the collapse of this human experiment of ours on Planet Earth: we have to consume less. So this November 27 (November 28 in Europe and overseas), we're calling for a Wildcat General Strike. We're asking tens of millions of people around the world to bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding - if only momentary - halt. We want you to shut off your lights, televisions and other nonessential appliances. We want you to park your car, turn off your phones and log off of your computer for the day. We're calling for a Ramadan-like fast. From sunrise to sunset we'll abstain en masse - not only from holiday shopping, but from all the temptations of our five-planet lifestyles. ...

The Purse Seine

by Robinson Jeffers

Our sardine fishermen work at night in the dark of the moon;
daylight or moonlight
They could not tell where to spread the net, unable to see the
phosphorescence of the shoals of fish.
They work northward from Monterey, coasting Santa Cruz; off
New Year's Point or off Pigeon Point
The look-out man will see some lakes of milk-color light on the
sea's night-purple; he points and the helmsman
Turns the dark prow, the motorboat circles the gleaming shoal
and drifts out her seine-net. They close the circle
And purse the bottom of the net, then with great labor haul it in.

I cannot tell you
How beautiful the scene is, and a little terrible, then, when the
crowded fish
Know they are caught, and wildly beat from one wall to the
other of their closing destiny the phosphorescent
Water to a pool of flame, each beautiful slender body sheeted
with flame, like a live rocket
A comet's tail wake of clear yellow flame; while outside the
narrowing
Floats and cordage of the net great sea-lions come up to watch,
sighing in the dark; the vast walls of night
Stand erect to the stars.

Lately I was looking from a night mountain-top
On a wide city, the colored splendor, galaxies of light: how could
I help but recall the seine-net
Gathering the luminous fish? I cannot tell you how beautiful
the city appeared, and a little terrible.
I thought, We have geared the machines and locked all together
into interdependence; we have built the great cities; now
There is no escape. We have gathered vast populations incapable
of free survival, insulated

From the strong earth, each person in himself helpless, on all
dependent. The circle is closed, and the net
Is being hauled in. They hardly feel the cords drawing, yet they
shine already. The inevitable mass-disasters
Will not come in our time nor in our children's, but we and our
children
Must watch the net draw narrower, government take all powers
-or revolution, and the new government
Take more than all, add to kept bodies kept souls- or anarchy,
the mass-disasters.

These things are Progress;
Do you marvel our verse is troubled or frowning, while it keeps
its reason? Or it lets go, lets the mood flow
In the manner of the recent young men into mere hysteria, splin-
tered gleams, crackled laughter. But they are quite wrong.
There is no reason for amazement: surely one always knew that
cultures decay, and life's end is death.

The death toll in El Salvador from the rains and flooding caused by Hurricane Ida last weekend has reached 184, local authorities said Friday ....

The Environment Minister Donna Faragher says a spate of dolphin deaths in the Swan River will be fully investigated. About six of the river's 25 bottlenose dolphins have died in the past five months. At least four of the mammals had failing immune systems and three had high levels of the banned pesticide Dieldrin....

LULEA, Sweden, Nov. 13 (UPI) — A herd of more than 400 reindeer drowned Friday in a river in Jokkmokk, Sweden, after the thin ice on the river’s surface gave way, a local official said.

Bertil Kielatis, chairman of the Sirges Sami village in Jokkmokk, said the incident occurred as nearly 3,000 animals were being herded across the river in northern Sweden by reindeer herders, The Local reported Friday. ...

Adelaide's extreme hot weather is now officially in the record books as the city's first heatwave for November. There have been five days in a row above 35 degrees Celsius. ...

It has been reported in the 'Brisbane Times.com' today [13/11/09]:

... Meanwhile, Swanbank and Tarong power stations used more than 14 billion litres of recycled water that previously came from these dams between July 2008 and October 2009.

"The Government will continue to source users for Purified Recycled Water in addition to those industrial customers who are already taking this product," the QWC spokeswoman said. ...

I just wondered if you are presently using "purified recycled water", and if not, do you intend to use it in the future at your Milton/Yatala brewery?

Also, are you able to advise how much water you use per day at your Milton/Yatala brewery?

Regards,

According to a story in the Fairfax press (28 October 2009):

"Supermarket giant Coles will change the name of its home label Creole Cream biscuits in a move it said was unrelated to the product's brand being criticised as racist.

The major chain said its decision to rename its chocolate and vanilla biscuits, which resemble Oreo biscuits, was part of a wider rebranding plan put in motion months ago. ..."

At that time, we noticed the Creole Cream biscuits had been removed from the shelves. While shopping at your Runaway Bay store today [11/11/09], we spotted Creole Cream biscuits on sale.

Has Coles' previous decision to rename the biscuits changed?

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email. We wish to advise that the name and packaging change of the You'll Love Coles Creole Creams is scheduled for early next year.

We appreciate you taking the time to offer your comments and look forward to being of service to you in the future.

Yours sincerely

CUSTOMER CARE CONTACT CENTRE

(*) The term "Creole" had originally been used to describe white men such as those from places like Spain and France in the New Orleans are in the late 1700s and early 1800s. It is from the latin root to "create." Then there was a massive influx of freed slaves from Haiti who were not white and could not be used as slaves, they were free. So the local community began to refer to them as "Creole" to distinguish them from the rest of the community.

(*) The word Creole then in time, began to be used as a way to describe people of that racial group and later the children of those mixed race relationships that featured Creole women and white men.

(*) In time the Creole community embraced that word and developed their own language, cuisine, clothing and music.

(*) Those biscuits are not made of Creole ingredients and they are not cooked according to Creole cuisine, so why use a brand name such as "Creole?"

(*) Coles are really using race as a commercial commodity and strongly I object to that.

(*) Any attempt by corporate Australia to racialise commercial commodoties or commodify race, must be challenged.

Construction Helmets For Cavill's Cows

They've been putting up with the Frank Street (Labrador) roadworks for nearly two years now, so it's no surprise they've finally got into the swing of things! [11/11/09]

Thank you for taking time to contact Senator McLucas with your thoughts regarding the issue of Internet Service Provider Filtering. I have been asked by Jan to respond to you on her behalf. I apologise for the delay in responding.

ISP Filtering has attracted criticism from some who believe it will lead to censorship of the internet. Whilst freedom of speech is of fundamental importance to a democratic society, most Australians have accepted for many years that some material is simply not acceptable, particularly for minors. Australia established the National Classifications Scheme (the Scheme) for classifying films, computer games and publications to assist in protecting vulnerable people and children from undue exposure to unacceptable material. Under the Scheme, it is illegal to distribute, sell or make available for hire, material that has been Refused Classification (RC)

The internet is subject to regulation preventing content providers from hosting prohibited material as defined under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Prohibited content is determined by referral to the Scheme. We also have strong criminal laws which aim to prevent people possessing and/or distributing material relating, for example, to child sexual abuse and these laws extend to cover internet activity.

The Government recognises though that the internet is an essential tool for all Australian children. The ability to use online tools both safely and effectively will provide young people with skills for life and the means to acquire new skills. For this reason the Government has committed $125.8 million to a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including law enforcement and education, as well as filtering.

In relation to ISP filtering measures, the Government's plan is to examine the introduction of ISP-level filtering for RC material. Content defined under the Scheme as RC includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

In addition, the Government is considering additional ISP content filtering options for those families who wish to have such a service. In considering its policy for ISP filtering, the Government is examining overseas models to assess their suitability for application in Australia. Filtering technologies have been adapted voluntarily by Internet Service Providers in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Finland, predominantly to filter child pornography. In these countries, ISP filtering has not affected internet performance to a noticeable level.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has prepared material on a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) about ISP filtering and this list is available on the Department's website at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan

I trust this information will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Office of Senator the Hon Jan McLucas

Labor Senator for Queensland

Bad arguments can be used to defend good ideas. But when the arguments used to defend a policy proposal are invariably spurious, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the policy itself cannot be defended on its merits.

The policy of privatisation, popular with governments around the world since the 1980s, is a perfect example. Time after time, governments have sold privatisation to the public as a way of freeing capital that can be invested in social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. And time after time, economists have pointed out that such claims are fallacious.

Just this week I (like every other Queensland householder) received a taxpayer funded pamphlet advocating the sale of public assets, stating that ‘Keeping these businesses would cost the Government $12 billion over the next five years. That’s $12 billion spent on new coal trains and new wharves that can«t be spent on roads, schools or hospitals.”

The pamphlet is entitled “The Myths vs the Facts”, but appears to have its labelling wrong. There can be few myths that have been refuted more often than the idea that privatisation creates a ‘war chest’ from which new social infrastructure can be financed.

Coal industry assets generate income. Selling income generating investments and using the proceeds to fund investments that return no additional revenue leaves the government with no flow of income to service the associated debt. The necessary income must be raised by increasing taxes or cutting expenditure.

Economists have been making this point for decades. In 2002, NSW and Victorian Treasury Secretaries, John Pearce and Ian Little observed that Public-Private Partnerships ‘do not provide governments with an additional bucket of money for use on infrastructure projects‘. The validity of the point is unchanged if PPPs are replaced by asset sales.

Selling public assets will improve the net fiscal position of the public sector only if the price realised for the assets exceeds the value of the income stream that is foregone through publication. Is this the case with the Queensland asset sales. “The Myths vs the Facts” says it is, claiming that ‘The total return from all five businesses in 2008-09 was approximately $320 million … When the sale process is completed, it is anticipated the Government will save $1.8 billion every year in interest payments’.

That looks convincing, but it is an apples-and-oranges comparison that would never be allowed in a corporate prospectus. The $320 million figure appears to consist solely of dividend payouts, excluding retained earnings, tax-equivalent payments and the interest paid by the government business enterprises to service their debts.

The $1.8 billion, though unexplained, appears to represent the interest that would be saved, at a rate of about 6 per cent, if the state realised $15 billion from the asset sale and avoided $12 billion in new investment.

This calculation entirely is invalid. New investments in coal infrastructure can be justified only if the regulators are willing to approve additional revenue sufficient to cover the cost of capital. This revenue will cover the interest needed to service the additional debt, so forgoing the investment will not save the government money.

It is true that selling assets is likely to improve Queensland’s credit rating, which was reduced from AAA to AA+ earlier in the year, and thereby knock around 30 basis points of the interest rate on state debt. That will save the state about $65 million a year. It’s not a trivial sum, but it would not justify a sale except at a price high enough to compensate for foregone earnings.

AAA ratings are not necessarily indicators of good economic management. Leaving aside the failures, and anti-government biases of the ratings agencies, their job is to advise bondholders. Asset sales will always reduce debt equity ratios and reduce the risk faced by bondholders, whether or not they are economically sound.

With the spectacular failure of the efficient financial markets hypothesis over the last two years, it is no longer possible to put any faith in general claims about the superiority of the private sector. In a mixed economy, it is necessary to assess the merits of private and public ownership on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps there are better arguments for these privatisations than those that have been presented so far. If so, the Bligh government should put them forward, instead of relying on long-refuted myths.

Dead Peasant Insurance is sometimes used as a shorthand reference for life insurance policies that insure a company’s rank-and-file employees and name the company as the beneficiary. This means that the company receives the life insurance benefits when the covered employees die. This insurance may also be called “janitor insurance,”…

Seems my attempt to reach your country has been in vain
On the Oceanic Viking in an Indonesian port I remain
If only I could work out what it was that I did wrong
Seems that I will never be an Australian

Of compassion, we have not any
And we love ourselves to distraction
A bunch of bigots, singing one voice:
I am, you are not Australian

Most of our politicians are a bunch of arseholes
Their main concern is mining and the saving of their souls
Tell me why it is that you want to come here again?
'spose at least you don't get bombed to bits being an Australian!

If I was white, would there be any
Chance that maybe you might say to me "welcome"?
What does one do, when one has no choice?
Do I really want be an Australian?
Aren't you embarrassed to be Australian?

'I am Australian' (or 'We are Australian') is a popular Australian song written in 1987 by Bruce Woodley of The Seekers and Dobe Newton of The Bushwackers. ...