Artist Sheila Newman will be the artist-in-residence at Oak Hill Gallery in Mornington from Wednesday, July 31st to Tuesday, August 6th, 2024. This timely residency comes as the Victorian government prepares to impose significant population growth and high-rise development in the fragile and biodiverse region. Newman's exhibition will feature striking portraits of former M.P.

Julian Assange - Out of Belmarsh, but still not home 'free,' until he really is.  Maybe Thursday?

Alison Tahmizian Meuse continues with her Twitter/X account @AliTahmizian to report how Armenians are continuing to resist Armenian President Nikol Pashinyan's most recent betrayal of Armenia - his attempt to hand across to Azerbaijan the region of Tavush. (Below is the latest update of 3 May.)

(Updates from 21 April) After years of surrender of territory to the neighbouring Azerbaijan, by President Nikol Pashinyan, Armenians have stood up and opposed Pashinyan's latest betrayal, the attempted handover of Tavush, the region painted red on the map in the north-eastern corner of Armenia. Currently, Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan is allowing the export of oil to the fascist regime of Benjamin Netanyahu which, has, in the six months since 7 October 2023, murdered over 32,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The oil is piped from Baku in Azerbaijan, through Georgia to the north of Armenia, thence through Turkey to its port of Ceyhan, from where it is shipped to Israel. This is in spite or Turkish President Erdogan's supposed opposition to Israel's genocide. In recent nationwide local government elections, Erdogan's so-called "Justice and Development" party was wiped out because of the disgust by Turkish voters at Erdogan's duplicity. Hopefully these protest in Armenia will not only lead to the ouster of President Pashinyan, buy also of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. For further information, please follow the Twitter/X account of Alison Tahmizian Meuse at @AliTahmizian or her embedded posts here.

As a citizen of Australia, a purportedly democratic country, I understand that the only way to properly fix serious domestic and international problems - threats to the environment and to our standards of living, ending the population growth Ponzi scheme, ending the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange, stopping Israel's genocide in Gaza and stopping US wars against countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria - is to put into office a Government that chooses to serves our best interests.

On March 3, 2023, protesters gathered outside Mark Dreyfus, the Australian Attorney General's office, to complain of Dreyfus's failure to object to the British Government's illegal and cruel imprisonment of heroic Australian citizen, Julian Assange. March 3 is Assange's birthday. Inside is the text of James Sinnamon's speech on that occasion.

Text of James Sinnamon's speech (video embedded below)

In the early hours of Thursday 16 February, the last day on which the House of Representatives, the lower house of Australia's two houses of Parliament, is to sit until the next sitting begins on Monday 6 March, I have been individually emailing members of the House with my Open Letter entitled "Lift Parliament's gag on discussion about Julian Assange - an Open Letter to members of the Julian Assange Parliamentary Support Group".

The Human Chain for Assange was attended by more people than we have seen at any Free Assange demonstration in Australia to date.  SBS says, "Thousands," Victoria Police estimate 3000.

Discussion about the plight of the most famous and most revered Australian forbidden in your Parliament!? In 2020, the shadowy Parliamentary Selection Committee, which is controlled by the Labor Party and the Liberal/National coalition, refused to allow Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie MP to raise, for discussion, the plight of that most famous and revered Australian Julian Assange.

Filmed by James Sinnamon on 28 July 2022 at the Converge on Canberra Protest for Julian Assange.

No sign of Anthony Albanese at this brilliant event, although we know he was in parliament.

Update, 16 June: (see comment) The House of Representatives Selection Committee has ruled that Julian Hill's motion cannot be put this coming Monday 21 June. That motion will now have to wait almost 7 weeks, until 9 August, in the next (joint - both Senate and House of Representatives) sitting of Parliament, before it can be put and debated!

A 336K double-sided A5 leaflet (adapted from previous leaflet) can be found, attached to this page here.

From 6:30PM on Good Friday, last Friday 2 April 2021, Anita Brice, myself and other Melbourne supporters of Julian Assange held their weekly vigil in front of Flinders Street Station. This vigil is the central part of Anita Brice's (see Lorine Anita Brice's Twitter page @LorineBrice) campaign for Julian Assange which she has organised since April 2020.

Each Friday since then they have turned up with placards and printed literature to inform members of the public about Julian Assange.

Since February this year, when I finally learned of this desperately needed support work for Julian Assange in Melbourne, I began attending the vigils myself with my own additional flyers to give to interested members of the public. One flyer has been adapted to become the article Uphold the Rule of Law - demand that the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange (11/2/2019) [1]. My second flyer was, instead, in reverse, adapted from another article, Open Letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison: Act now to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange! (11/3/2021) [2].

Also, at considerable trouble and expense, I created a large (4.8mx1.7m) banner which is pictured to the left. [3] This banner has attracted some interest from overseas supporters of Julian Assange, including from the Denver Free Assange group as well as from many members of the Melbourne public including passing motorists. [4]

At our vigil of 19 February, I made a speech through a megaphone to the public. This succeeded in arousing greater interest from members of the public and considerably raising the the profile of our vigil.  [5]

Other members of our group have also begun to give speeches, and have spoken well, as occurred on Friday 26 March when we marched to the Melbourne British to protest against that government's criminal treatment of Julian Assange.

At our Good Friday vigil, I spoke for 6:30 minutes. My speech was recorded and embedded below.

James Sinnamon demands the Australian government act to end the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange

Your presence needed at next Friday's vigil for Julian Assange

If we are ever to succeed in our campaign to free Julian Assange, we need much larger crowds, here in Melbourne, other Australian cities and overseas. If you can make it to next Friday's vigil at 6:30pm, please be there. You can help us hold up our large banners, distribute leaflets, talk to passsers-by or make speeches.

Footnotes

[1] The PDF file for the double-sided A5 flyer is here.

[2] The PDF file which can be printed on two sides of an A4 sheet, is here, please be warned, printing in colour, rather than in back and white can cost a lot more.

[3] From an artist friend, Sheila Newman, who is also an editor of this site, candobetter.net, and an author of books as well as articles for this site, I received indispensable help in creating this banner.

[4] Unfortunately, because our numbers were fewer on the Good Friday public holiday, there was not a sufficient number people to put in the necessary effort hold up our large banner for the two hour vigil.

[5] Even on some subsequent occasions when my own presentation and delivery was not as good, I believe I still succeeded in arousing more interest and support from members of the public than we would have, had nobody spoken. I would like to aspire to speak as well as Mairéad Farrell, Irish member of the European Parliament as shown, below, in her speech of 5 March 2021:

On May 18, 2010 I was severely brain-injured in a collision which occurred when I was cycling to my job as a Patient Support Officer (cleaner) at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. This was the tragic end to my absence from my real career choice and qualifications in computer science, forced on me because of misinformation given to me by my last employers in that field. At the time of the accident I was seriously attempting to return to my career, having learned, to my utter disgust, that the project from which I was sacked after two years, which I was told was a complete failure, had not failed at all. I may have forgotten a lot due to my brain injury, but I have not forgotten this. The injustice is seared in my memory and I am now publishing the documents that record the truth of my pre-injury predicament. They may also help others in this cut-throat industry. This will be the first in a number of contemplated articles on my experience of brain injury. Sheila Newman has also written a book about it which will probably be published late this year or the next.

How a computer scientist became a hospital cleaner and then a hospital patient

I was overqualified for the role of cleaner because I had an Honours Degree in Computer Science from the University of Southern Queensland and had worked for two years to implement the Distributed Java Virtual Machine in the Computer Science Faculty of the Australian National University (ANU) running parallel on more than 80 computers. (Much of the content of the ANU page that describes the details of this project is missing as of 10 January 2014. The error message states: "Fatal error: Call to undefined function: mysql_select_db() in /data0/web/data/feit/functions/connect.php3 on line 14"). At the end of two years on the ANU project, my supervisors claimed that my work on this was substandard and I was forced to accept that judgment at the time.

I have since learned that my work must have been of a very high standard, because, only 3 months after I finished at the ANU, a Canadian Masters student commenced to use the DJVM as a platform on which to build her Masters degree software project. Had there been the slightest bug, let alone any serious flaw in the DJVM, it would have been much harder, if not impossible for her to complete the project. However not knowing that, I saw no alternative but to seek low skilled work. That is why I ended up working as a cleaner. And that is how I came to suffer a severe brain injury.

Thanks to my RBWH supervisor, Jan Dring, for her kindness

Although my position as a cleaner at the Royal Brisbane and Women's hospital was not what I had studied to do, to be fair to the RB&WH, working conditions at the time were good. My supervisor, Janine Dring, now retired or retrenched, encouraged me to apply for clerical work. She was also the person who identified me when I was brought unconscious to Accident and Emergency after the collision. I have been told that she visited me on the ward and one evening, while I was still unable to form memories, she obtained permission and then took me down to spend time with my work colleagues. I spent over two months in the Neurosurgery ward in Brisbane and then a further six weeks in Mater Private, before coming down to Melbourne because my carer was advised that rehabilitation and services were better there than in Queensland.

Below is a letter that I sent to my former supervisor in 2008, when I realised how misled I had been about my abilities.

Complaint to Dr John Zigman of my treatment by ANU Computer Science staff 2002-2004

Subject: Complaint of my treatment by ANU Computer Science staff 2002-2004
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:56:53 +1000
From: James Sinnamon
[Email sent to: Dr John Zigman, Dr Steven Blackburn, Peter Strazdins, Dr Ramesh Sankaranarayana.]

Dear Dr John Zigman,

This is just to let you know:

I have not worked in my chosen vocation of computer science since my involvement in the Distributed Java Virtual Machine Project (http://djvm.anu.edu.au) abruptly ended in February 2004.

When I last spoke to you, as I recall, in May 2004, and asked if you reconsider your decision to not offer me a PhD scholarship to work on the continuation of the DJVM project in Arc Project DP0449670, I at least gained the impression that you would do anything you would have been practicably able to to help me out of my dire professional circumstances.

I would never have dreamed that you would have failed to take the small amount of effort that would have been entailed in passing on to me knowledge that would have almost certainly have allowed me to confidently approach prospective IT employers for work.

That knowledge was that the DJVM I had helped to implement had been chosen by a Canadian student (http://webhome.csc.uvic.ca/~jbaldwin/) as a platform on which to build her Masters project (http://aosd.net/workshops/late/2006/later/submissions/baldwin.pdf) and that the DJVM had met all of her requirements.

I have been judged for not having more vigorously sought employment since February 2004, but I wonder if those people making those judgements could understand the effect of having the hard work of two years of my life deemed, implicitly or explicitly, as worthless, by every one of those I had worked closely with during that time.

I formed the distinct impression from you that the DJVM I had tested on 72 nodes, packaged and documented was to be shelved in favour of another DJVM to be built using BCEL and it was not until years later that I was to learn that my DJVM had, indeed, been used, after all, on ARC project DP0449670.

If, after working late into the night every night often for weeks on end facing heartbreaking bug after heartbreaking bug (never as far as I recollect having been introduced by myself), I could not produce a product of worth to anyone else, then what possible chance did I stand of being able to produce anything of value to any employer by working normal hours?

As a consequence, I have not been able, for the last four and a half years, to even bring myself to write my resume, let alone a job application. Every attempt I have made to do so has only driven me into despair and depression.

The simple knowledge that the DJVM I had helped to implement had been successfully put to use would have changed everything for me. How that could not have occurred to you is beyond me.

I can only come up with three conceivable reasons why you would have withheld that knowledge from me:

1. That my fate and well-being mattered so little to you that it never again entered your head again after I last spoke to you around May 2004
2. Malicious intent.

3. Acknowledgement of my contribution to the DJVM project would have somehow been an embarrassment to you and would have threatened your own reputation.

4. Some combination of the above.

Instead, as a result, I am working today as a cleaner without any realistic prospects of even being able to gain employment in a white collar occupation let alone in IT.

When I went to Canberra in early 2002 I had hoped, if nothing else, to get from my employment simple unambiguous achievement that I could subsequently use to impress prospective employers.

I badly needed a crowning achievement in my CV because, prior to that, my IT career had been very patchy, I would argue, largely for reasons beyond my control.

As it turned out my implementation was indeed exactly that, but neither you nor anyone else bothered to tell me and I was until April 2008 over four years later that I was to learn this.

Because I was not told this, it looked to me, and to any prospective employer, like shelfware which, for all anyone knew, may not have even worked at all.

As I had been denied the chance to actually use the application I had poured my heart and soul into for two years I had no way of knowing if it would have met the requirements of any other user and prospective employers would have only had my word to go on that it had been meticulously tested on up to 72 nodes using novel debugging techniques I had devised myself.

If I had not worked so hard to do that, on occasions against your own counsel, it is most likely that it would have not met the requirements for the Masters Project to implement Aspect Orientation.

Even if it was true that I was seriously wanting as a prospective PhD student as you, Dr Peter Strazdins, Dr Steven Blackburn, Dr Ramesh Sankaranarayana all implied, then, surely, at least I was entitled to some honest feedback well before October 2003, less than two months before my contract was originally due to expire?

In fact, I distinctly recall being told by you only a matter of days before the news was broken to me that I was not to be part of the DJVM project that you considered me an indispensable part of the DJVM team, but that all changed, apparently after the others told you they didn't think I was up to it.

I was subsequently told in January 2004 that only after that did you bother to think more deeply about my performance and come to arrive at the conclusion that I had, indeed, demonstrated my unsuitability months before that as a result of my own contribution to the ARC research grant application having been judged unsatisfactory and as a result of the way I had worked on the first version of the DJVM in 2002.

Whatever the validity or otherwise of those claimed concerns about me, to have not, at some more timely stage, made the effort to have sorted out in your own mind their implications for my own future with the DJVM project and make them known to me, I consider a gross failure in your duty of care to me as my supervisor.

From all the evidence I can see on the DJVM web site, little has been achieved in well over four years since I was unceremoniously dumped from the project.

In fact, given the seeming lack of progress, it seems to me highly probable that you, Dr Peter Strazdins, Dr Ramesh Sankaranarayana and Dr Steven Blackburn have been hasty and wrong in your judgement of me, made behind my back in 2003.

Perhaps now it may be acknowledged that the supposedly excessive time I spent was, indeed, what was necessary to solve the problems I was faced with.

Wherever the truth lies, I was entitled to much more timely feedback so that either I could have been given the opportunity to lift my game or, if that was not possible, to have begun to make realistic preparations for an alternative subsequent career.

In Dr Peter Strazdins' case, it has since become clear to me that he had decided well before the outcome of the ARC research grant applications were known that I was to be dumped from the project but had never made the effort to inform me. To the contrary, he even asked me to participate in the 24 hour pushbike race that was to be shortly held. I took this to be confirmation that he expected me to remain at the ANU. How anyone would imagine that someone, whose career prospects were as grim as he must have known mine to be, would have wanted to spend weeks training for such a physically gruelling event is beyond me.

On the day that the outcome of the ARC research grant applications were announced in October 2003, you burst into the office to break to me the good news that our application had been successful. That naturally led me to believe that I was to be included on the project and that you wished me to be included on the project.

I asked all present including, as I recall, Dr Steven Blackburn, Dr Peter Strazdins and yourself that a meeting be held ASAP so that we could discuss the future of the DJVM project. no-one else bothered to tell me that I was not to be included. In fact, almost a whole week went by before Dr Peter Strazdins bothered to break the news to me and, even then, it was only after I had gone into his office and had raised the issue.

These are only some of the reasons that I consider your overall treatment of me to be inexcusable. It is hard for me to conceive of a more shabby way for any professional to have been treated by former work colleagues, let alone by colleagues I had considered to be friends.

I intend to make a formal complaint of this through whatever channels are still available to me.

Whilst it is not clear if you can be held to account for what you did as you apparently no longer work for the ANU, I also hold Dr Peter Strazdins, Dr Ramesh Sankaranarayana and Dr Steven Blackburn culpable for what happened to me.

Regardless of what my prospects are and regardless of the eventual outcome, I intend to put this on the public record so that others may be warned not to place their trust in you.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon [...]
Red Hill QLD 4059

Documents indicating DJVM project was successful after all

Below I reproduce two emails recording my correspondence with Jennifer Baldwin, the Canadian student who used the virtual java machine that I successfully produced.

Subject: Re: Distributed Java Virtual Machine and AJVM
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008
From: Jennifer Baldwin
To: james.sinnamon [...]

Hi James,

No worries about the delay in replying, takes me awhile as well. But
you never did call me 'Janet'

> So am I right to assume that you encountered no serious bugs in the dJVM?

That's right, we never did find any bugs that weren't introduced by my own
code.

> Do you mean http://djvm.anu.edu.au/download/DJVM-1.1.0.tar.gz

Yes, that's the one. I haven't really looked at it other than noticing
it no longer has patch files so I couldn't use it for the type of
research I was doing anyways.

Jennifer
-------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Distributed Java Virtual Machine and AJVM
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008
From: James Sinnamon
To: [Jennifer Baldwin]

Dear Jennifer Baldwin,

I worked as a research programmer on the dJVM for two years from 2002 until
March 2004.

I was gratified to learn that the DJVM had been put to use since my
involvement ended. I have just cursorily viewed your documents and found
the dJVM within http://webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~jbaldwin/AJVM.tar.gz

Can I ask how difficult or easy it was to get the dJVM built and then used?

Whilst I had tested it on up to 72 nodes with, as I recall, relatively trivial
Java applications it failed to run a considerably more complex multi-threaded
Java application I had written for an Honours Year project in 2001.

Interfaces were never dealt with as it seemed to me as if no further
modifications to the RVM were required, but when my applicaiton crashed, I
speculated as to whether this because modifications were necessary for
Interfaces. I wasn't able to pursue this.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

A cut-throat industry

Given the extremely high rates of unemployment in the Information Technology/Computer Science industry and the lack of industrial protection in that field in Australia, my story must echo the experiences of many computer professionals. Perhaps few will have had their misfortune amplified to the degree that mine was, but my awful experience still serves to highlight the downstream impact that casual arrogance in employers and supervisors in any field may ultimately produce. Surely in a world less characterised by the anonymity of globalisation and constant people movement, and so-called efficiency, it would be much harder for human beings to treat each other so badly, without actually declaring war.

Towards maintaining credentials in the computer industry, I built the political and environmental internet site candobetter.org (which later became candobetter.net). After my injury I was no longer able to maintain the site, but Sheila Newman, my major collaborator on candobetter.net, has gone out of her way to salvage and oversee its management. For me, this was tremendously important. Without that site I would possibly have little connection with my former activities in the social and political sphere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet the unions failed to act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETU State Branch secretary gives disappointing prognosis, but discussion inadequate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A perspective which needs wider dissemination

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Peter

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

Firstly, thanks for your response.

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

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

Please see below for my responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Cheers
>
> Peter

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

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


Comrades,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards
Tony Reeves

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

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

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

Since Labor won office the following assets have been sold:

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

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

Public outcry against privatisation ignored

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

Why privatisation can be stopped

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

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

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

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

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

A prolonged campaign ...

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

This is insane!

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

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

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

... or decisive action now?

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

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

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

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

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

What you can do

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

About James Sinnamon, the author of this leaflet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2007, Andrew Fraser, as Local Govenment Minister, imposed council amalgamations against the overwhelming wishes of affected residents, even threatening to dismiss councillors who dared hold ballots on amalgamation. For many months, the angry backlash threatened Labor's federal election prospects. In 2010, the same Andrew Fraser, as Queensland Treasurer, claims that the unions' campaign against his unpopular $15 billion fire sale, opposed by 79% of the Queensland public, will threaten Labor's federal election prospects.

What you can do: Attend Queensland Council of Union's Rallies to stop the Sell-off before it starts: Innisfail - 28 Feb, Cairns - 2 Mar, Mackay - 3 Mar, Rockhampton - 3 Mar, Gladstone - 6 Mar, Brisbane - 10.30AM 9 Mar at Roma St Forum
Sign the petition calling for new state elections and the repudiation of assets sale legislation. (You have until 2 March. See also "Why Queenslanders must demand new and fair state elections" of 12 Jan 10).
See also: "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10, "Anna Bligh faces rural anger in Queensland" in the Courier-Mail of 28 Feb 10 , "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" of 9 Aug 07 by Margo Kingston in WebDiary, "Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia" of 7 Sep 07. ...

Andrew Fraser, who almost destroyed federal Labor's 2007 election prospects with his threats to dismiss councillors for consulting their constituents over forced council amalgamations, now wants unionists to call off protests, such as the above protest of 31 July 2009 in order to save federal Labor embarassment in the 2010 elections. (See #WhatYouCanDO">"What you can do".)

Queensland's Treasurer Andrew Fraser has accused Queensland's unionists of "aiding and abetting" a return to Work Choices under a federal Coalition government according to a report in Brisbane Times. He claims their efforts to force the holding of a new state Labor Party conference to to overturn his Government's plans to sell $15 billion of publicly owned assets, would embarass the Federal Labor Government's re-election campaign.

Mr Fraser said unions should consider the "national dimension" of their fight. The Brisbane Times quoted Mr Fraser:

"I just say to unions that are continuing to carry on here in Queensland that they should focus on the real enemy here and that's (federal opposition leader) Tony Abbott and Work Choices," he told reporters.

"And if they continue on this path, they are only aiding and abetting a Tony Abbott-led Work Choices reintroduction and that means they need to think about what is in the best interests of working people, not only in this state but around the nation."_#main-fn1">1

Coming from member of a state Government which had, since it came to power in 1998, notoriously and repeatedly placed its own selfish sort-term interests ahead of those the federal Labor Party as well as the broader community, an appeal for unions to consider the "national dimension" would appear to be the utmost hypocrisy.

In fact, as this article will show, Work Choices would almost certainly not have become law but for state Labor Governments, including the Queensland state Labor Government, having made unprincipled deals with the same Howard Government that brought about Work Choices.

1999: Peter Beattie's unprincipled GST deal

The State Labor Government, which came to office 1998, two years after John Howard's Government won office in 1996, did as much as anyone else to perpetuate the misrule of the latter.

A factor which would have helped the Howard Government regain offices in 2001 every bit as much as the so-called "War on Terror" and the Tampa affair, was the whiteanting by then Premier Peter Beattie of the grass-roots opposition to John Howard's unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST). During 1998 and 1999 Peter Beattie and the other state 'Labor' premiers fell over themselves to negotiate with the Howard Government over the distribution of GST revenue, even at a time when the passage of the GST legislation through the Senate was far from assured. Their efforts undoubtedly gave the necessary encouragement that allowed Democrats Senator Meg Lees and the majority of Democats Senators to turn their back on their own members and their election commitments and provide the Senate majority necessary for the passage of the GST legislation.

2004: Beattie clamours for signing of Australia US Free Trade Agreement

In 2004, as the Federal Labor party was still considering its position on the iniquitous Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) that was before the Australian Parliament, the Labor premiers, with Peter Beattie foremost amongst them, clamoured in public for the signing of that agreement. Then Opposition leader Mark Latham felt cornered into accepting the rotten agreement as a result. Paradoxically, Latham suffered criticism from militant left-wing unionists in the months prior to the 2004 elections as a result. Whether or not outright opposition to the AUSFTA on the part of the federal Labor Party would have made matters better, their electoral prospects had been needlessly damaged.

2007: Anger at Qld Government forced council amalgamations threatens federal Labor

Three years later, as another federal election was approaching, the Queensland Labor again threatened to destroy federal Labor's electoral prospects by suddenly calling off negotiations with Queensland councils for local govenment reform and imposing forced council amalgamations. On 10 August 2007, Andrew Fraser, as Minister for Local Government, rammed the local government amalgamation legislation through State Parliament against an outcry from many of the affected communities. Tacked on to these bills at the last minute was a provision to allow the Government to sack any councillors who attempted to finish holding the ballots that were then underway to guage community attitudes on amalgamation._#main-fn2">2

As a consequence, Prime Minister John Howard emerged as the unlikely champion of Queensland democracy_#main-fn3">3 when he enacted legislation in Federal Parliament, with the support of Kevin Rudd and the Federal Labor Opposition, to over-ride Andrew's punitive provisions. Howard also instructed the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct further ballots on behalf of the Queensland Councils.

Fraser and Beattie faced no choice but to back away from their threats against the councillors, but not from the amalgamations. The amalgamations proceeded despite the fact that they were rejected overhelmingly in all the ballots and unanimously in the case of Waroo Shire_#main-fn4">4

Unsurprisingly, the actions of the state Labor Government, yet again threatened to destroy Federal Labor's chances. The Courier-Mail newspaper, itself an aggressive promoter of the amagalmations, hypocritically gloated at the harm that the amalgamations were expected to inflict on the Federal Labor Party. The headline of its page 1 story of 20 August 2007, screamed "Rudd to Pay". The subeading gloated "Council merger backlash to deliver ballot blow". It continued, "Queensland ratepayers have vowed to vent their fury over forced council mergers on Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd at the federal ballot box."

"Four in five respondents to Courier-Mail online poll said Premier Peter Beattie's decision to slash local council numbers had made them less likely to vote for the Labor Party at the upcoming federal election."_#main-fn5">5

Although the article briefly mentioned that Kevin Rudd was critical of the Queensland Government's threat to sack defiant councillors, it failed to point out to its readers that punishing Federal Labor for decisions outside of its control and which it had opposed was hardly fair.

In September the anti-amalgamation Friends of Noosa group attempted to also scapegoat Federal Labor for the actions of the state Labor Government by putting up huge "Dump Labor" hoardings on the main northern road into Brisbane._#main-fn6">6

Luckily, in spite of the best efforts of Beattie, Fraser, the Courier-Mail and some misguided opponents of amalgamation, the Queensland public was able to distinguish between the Federal and State Labor Party on that occasion and Labor won the 2007 federal elections. It is no thanks to Andrew Fraser that Howard was not able to set the Work Choices in concrete.

2010: Anger at Qld Government fire sale threatens federal Labor

Now in 2010, Federal Labor party faces yet another threat to its electoral prospects as a result of actions by the Queensland Labor Government. Its $15 billion fire sale, enacted without any electorates and opposes by a still 79% of Queenslanders threatens to turn Queensland voters against Labor at the federal elections.

In 2010, unlike in 2007, the Federal Labor Government is not an innocent party. Its squandering of $43 of taxpayers' in its stimulus spending program as supposedly the only possible way it could stave of recession in this country,_#main-fn7">7 ensured that there were far fewer funds available to deal with emergencies such as the Queensland floods which were seized upon as the Queensland Government's initial excuse for the fire sale. When the fire sale was first announced the Federal Government said that they had no extra funds to help the Qld Government over come the difficulties from the flood._#main-fn8">8.

However, those considering voting for the Coalition, should bear in mind that the Howard Government privatised Telstra in 2005 against the wishes of 70% of voters. In recent days the Liberal Party has again raised the spectre of privatising Medibank Private._#main-fn9">9 So, with this as well the prospects of a Federal Coalition government reviving Work Choices, voters may well find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place at the forthcoming Federal elections. They should should seriously consider voting for a third alternative.

Regardless of how voters decide to express their objections to privatisation at the 2010 federal Elections, it is hard to imagine how unions could, on this occasion, make federal Labor's prospects significantly worse than Fraser himself already has, either in 2010 or 2007.

If Andrew Fraser wanted to demonstrate that, for once, he genuinely wanted to help federal Labor win the elections, then surely the onus would have to be on him to repeal his fire sale legislation rather than the unions to give up the fight to save public assets that is supported by 79% of the Queensland public.

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

Attend Queensland Council of Union's Rallies to stop the Sell-off before it starts: Innisfail - 28 Feb, Cairns - 2 Mar, Mackay - 3 Mar, Rockhampton - 3 Mar, Gladstone - 6 Mar, Brisbane - 10.30AM 9 Mar at Roma St Forum
Sign the petition calling for new state elections and the repudiation of assets sale legislation. (You have until 2 March. See also "Why Queenslanders must demand new and fair state elections" of 12 Jan 10).

#SeeAlso" id="SeeAlso">See also: "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10, "Anna Bligh faces rural anger in Queensland" in the Courier-Mail of 28 Feb 10 , "Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances" of 9 Aug 07 by Margo Kingston in WebDiary, "Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide" forum disucssion of 8 Aug 07 on Online Opinion, "Federal election and Queensland local council amalgamations" of 28 Nov 07 by James Sinnamon in WebDiary, "Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia" of 7 Sep 07, "Beattie pledges to stay on" in the Courier-Mail o 11 Aug 07.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ "Unions 'aiding and abetting' Abbott: Fraser" by Jessica Marszalek in the Brisbane Times of 27 Feb 10

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ "Queensland mayors defy dismissal threats to consult their communities" of 12 Aug 07, "Rebel council faces the sack" in the Courier-Mail of 10 Aug 07.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ "Will John Howard save democracy in Queensland?" of 13 Aug 07, "Rebel council faces the sack" in the Courier-Mail of 10 Aug 07.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ Beattie 'drunk with power': PM of 16 Aug 07 on ABC News Online.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ "Rudd to Pay" by Roseann Barrett and Patrick Lion on page 1 of the Courier-Mail of 20 Aug 07. (URL to online version unknown.)

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ "Friends of Noosa's 'Dump Labor' campaign punishes the wrong people" of 13 Sep 07.

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. #main-fn7-txt">↑ "Krazy Kevin Rudd video by Cyrius01" of 7 May 09.

#main-fn8" id="main-fn8">8. #main-fn8-txt">↑ I don't have the Courier-Mail and Sunday Mail articles on hand, but I recall the stories commencing from Sunday 23 May claiming that the recent floods had pushed Queensland into financial peril. This claim was dropped not long after in favour of just the Global Financial Crisis made the fire sale necessary.

#main-fn9" id="main-fn9">9. #main-fn9-txt">↑ "Medibank Private sell plan in Coalition policy" in the Courier-Mail of 17 Feb 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

There are a number of problems with this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Queensland Competition Authority has just announced a draft decision that would see prices rise by 13.83 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The decision would add an additional $276 to the average annual household bill of $2000.

It is the fourth successive jump in electricity costs since the State Government claimed deregulation of the industry would put downward pressure on prices._{#main-fn14">14}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those in a position to help make this happen include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again I ask, what good is such a caucus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Phone radio talkback shows to announce this petition.

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

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

#Footnotes" id="Footnotes">Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Sinnamon debates Andrew Fraser on Privatisation and government encouragement of overpopulation in Queensland, proposing alternatives - Film. Filmed on Sunday, 30 November. Lasts 21 minutes. In three films on You-tube - links inside this article. 2nd & 3rd film of most interest. Please pass round to your Queensland contacts, but, since privatisation is coming up in other States again - notably in Victoria - this should interest people outside Queensland. See film inside

See also: "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, "Queensland Rail workers strike against theft of public assets" of 9 Dec 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 28 Sep 08. Why I am contesting the Queensland Elections, E-petition to Qld Parliament,"Call for immediate resignation of the Queensland government and new elections," on grounds of not consulting public on privatisation.
Update: Letter of 31 July 09 to Andrew Fraser, included as Appendix 1 (12 Dec 09), Full transcript, Table of Contents, etc. added (2 Jan 10).

This article was orignally published on 4 Dec 09. It was subsequently updated with the letter to Andrew Fraser of 31 Jul 09 which propsed alternatives to privatisation on 11 Dec 09. The latest update of 2 Jan 10 includes the full transcript of the videos, together with comments, a table of contents, and other additions and changes.

Image from Sheila Newman's film of the 30 Nov 09 debate between Andrew Fraser and James Sinnamon to which there are links below in the article.

#main" id="main">

On Sunday, 30 November, almost 4 months after I had e-mailed state Treasurer Andrew Fraser proposing alternatives to the $15 billion of asset sales (see #appendix1">Appendix 1), and 9 months after I had e-mailed both the Treasurer and the Premier requesting that they reveal to the public any plans for privatisation and justify them during the course of the elections, I was able to confront the state Treasurer during a 15 minute interview at the Community Cabinet. The following film, divided into three parts, is a record of that interview, which turned out to be quite a debate. The full transcript of the debate is included below as Appendix 2.

#GettingTheMost" id="GettingTheMost">Getting the most out of the film

You can access the three parts of the film on this page, but, most people will find the first part boring, unless they are looking for documentation of the lead-up to the debate. I suggest you go to #part2">Part 2 for arguments about alternatives to privatisation - notably on banking systems - and to #part2">Part 3 for arguments about why Queensland's population is growing irresistibly and whether that is a valid excuse for privatisation.

#part1" id="part1">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 1

The first part of the film consists of Andrew seeming to insist that we had debated together already and that he had answered my correspondence. I try to tell him that he responded to one email only - up until the invitation to meet him at the Community Cabinet - and that it was that response which confirmed my impression that, prior to winning the election, he was leaving privatisation of assets open; i.e. he was not excluding it. Andrew's answer to that is that the government did not know what its policy would be after the election. I maintain that it was well-known that population growth was costing the government money and that the government should have made clear to the public that there was a problem and that privatisation was not ruled out. Although it was the duty of the mainstream press to ferret this attitude out, it was also the duty of the government and the opposition to publicly discuss the problem of debt and the range of solutions ahead of the election. At one stage Andrew remarked that the whole world and the press were free to attend the small public question and answer session/meet the candidates affair that he describes as a debate we both attended. I reply that the press chose not to come. In other circumstances I might have emphasised 'chose'. Because, of course, my point is that the mainstream press have apparently colluded with the two party system to help them avoid publicly discussing the privatisation issue. See Privatisation and the Right to Govern, Part 1.

#part2" id="part2">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 2

Not only did I raise the privatisation issue, but I also raised alternatives to privatisation.

The main one I discussed was for the government to set up a state bank and guarantee its own loans, rather than to go looking for forms of private credit. My reference was a book by Ellen Brown, Web of Debt. This was the source of the system that I had asked Andrew or his department - Treasury in Queensland - to give me a written critique of. If what I proposed was wrong, then, fair enough. I was prepared to learn. But I received no answer from treasury and, in the debate, the treasurer tries twice inaccurately to insinuate that I am proposing to have no ceiling on debt, then simply accepts my proposal as another way of raising money and does not contradict my assertion that it would be a cheaper way. You will find this discussion in Part 2 of Privatisation and the Right to Govern.

#part3" id="part3">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 3

One of the alternatives to privatisation that I raised was for the government to stop encouraging population growth. Andrew gave what some tell me is the property developer shock-factor line on this - he insinuated that stopping population growth in Queensland would be akin to stopping Mexicans coming across the Southern Border of the U.S.. He used the term, "Checkpoint Charlie", and you will get the drift of some fantasy about uniformed guns patrolling the Tweed River. He also immediately pretends that I population growth reduction would inevitably include authoritarian controls over numbers of children per family in Australia. He was painting an extreme scenario, which could have had the effect of making me back down and away from the issue of population growth, but I didn't. At the stage we are at the only limits need to be on international immigration and construction permits.

On the issue of limiting interstate immigration, I should just have said to him that population growth is normally restrained locally by limiting the number of building permits issued. It is a normal function of town and country planning, and you would expect a state as planning-focused as Queensland, not to need to be told that. Restricting building permits goes hand in hand with the democracy of local government, where residents - i.e. members of a community - have the ultimate say over the density of settlement and how their environment is treated. They know best and they have to live there. So, no guns or patrols are necessary, just good old tried-and-true keeping building permits to a level that keeps the population stable.

This is a captured image of the Queensland Government web-site explicitly encouraging people from overseas to move to Queensland as of 2 January 2010. This is completely contrary to Andrew Fraser's #NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth">claim made during the debate that "We're not encouraging population growth".

Fraser said, rightly, that most population growth in Australia comes from overseas immigration, and he stated that the Federal Government is responsible for that. However I am well aware that the Queensland Government, like all the other state Governments in Australia, aggressively tries to attract immigrants to Queensland, from overseas and from interstate. Andrew denied that. The film editor, Sheila Newman, has inserted cuts from one of the Government's advertising films that urges immigrants to come and "Live, work and play" in Queensland. (This 50 Mb video is currently linked to from this Queensland Government videos web page, which is linked to from the Migrating from Overseas web page on the web site www.workliveplay.qld.gov.au.)

Australians should be very aware of how the Federal and the State governments- which are all aligned with the growth lobby - and even most local ones - have this agressive formula for putting people off discussing the problem they have created, and of how they will insist that it is not of their own making, even in the face of abundant evidence.

This is discussed in the last part of the YouTube video "Privatisation and the Right to Govern, Part 3," embedded below.

#history" id="history">History of this debate and information about material mentioned within

On 21 March 2009 the Queensland Labor Government was re-elected at the end of a snap early election campaign with little scrutiny by the newsmedia.

As an independent candidate, I tried, during the course of those elections, to hold the government to account for its past record of selling off publicly-owned assets without any electoral mandate. Since 1998, the Labor Government had sold off the state Government Insurance Office Government, airports, a lottery agency, the retail arm of the state owned electricity supplier, a coal loader and much public land.

I also asked for an assurance that the Queensland public would be informed of any further plans to sell off assets during the course of the elections.

On 17 February, even before the elections were announced, I e-mailed Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser. My e-mail listed the assets sold since 1998, concluding:

"Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell off yet more of their assets ...

"The reason I write this letter is to seek your assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections ..."

The letter was ignored, along with my subsequent correspondence.

My strenuous efforts to obtain air time, or, at least, to get the media to raise this issue were almost entirely ignored.

When the Queensland Government, barely two months after their re-election, announced plans to sell ports, a coal loader, the freight arm of Queensland Rail, commercial forests and toll roads, most Queenslanders felt outraged.

An opinon poll revealed that 84% of Queenslanders opposed the sale and 66% believed that the Government had intentionally misled them about privatisation during the elections.

The Queensland Government proceeded with its fire sale regardless.

On Friday 17 July, Andrew Fraser made the claim on the radio that no alternatives to privatisation had been put to him by anyone in state Parliament. This drove me to send him an e-mail (see #appendix1">Appendix 1) which proposed several alternatives. These were:

1. #StateBank">Setting up a state owned bank to raise the necessary loans to fund infrastructure projects more cheaply than could be done with private loans.
2. If the state owned bank is not to be created, then #borrowing">raise the commercial loans necessary to cover the shortfall, which would still have to be cheaper in the long term, anyway.
3. #population">Cease encouragement of population growth, since Premier Anna Bligh said that asset sales were necessary to fund the cost of new infrastructure to service that population growth
4. To Implement, at the state level, the comprehensive University of Newcastle #UsefulJobs">Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE) program. This program is fully costed, Australia-wide, at $9 billion per annum and would provide gainful employment to all the unemployed to meet the current needs of existing Australians, This would be a vastly cheaper alternative to the environmentally destructive infrastructure and housing construction juggernaut.

Andrew Fraser ignored this e-mail and my repeated subsequent attempts to have a meeting with him in order to discuss his proposals. On 21 November, during a discussion on Madonna King's program, Andrew Fraser repeated the claim that no alternatives to privatisation had been offered inside or outside of Parliament. This moved me to contact both the ABC and Andrew Fraser to ask that that misleading statement be corrected and to again request an interview with Andrew Fraser. Late on the Afternoon of 28 November I was informed in a voice message that a 15 minute interview at the Queensland Government Community Cabinet consultations on Sunday 30 November had been granted.

I was not able to prepare himself as well as I had hoped for the ensuing interview, which was filmed, and I made some mistakes during the course of the discussion.

Nevertheless, despite its weaknesses, that interview is the single most comprehensive debate with the Treasurer on privatisation recorded on any newsmedia. The only other broadcast 'debate' was a short conversation between Andrew Faser and economist Professor John Quiggin on Brisbane's ABC local radio station on Friday 28 November lasting all of five minutes. The ABC has, so far, failed to make a recording of that debate available.

At my meeting with Fraser, recorded on film, I still received no written response from Treasury, despite all the resources it has and the almost four months time which had elapsed. Also, neither Andrew Fraser nor the ABC have corrected the misleading statement that no alternatives to privatisation have been offered.

I hope that people will use this record as a resource to bring the Bligh government under control and/or to inspire future political candidates. I will be standing in the next Federal election myself, and this will be one of my important platforms.

See also: "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, "Queensland Rail workers strike against theft of public assets" of 9 Dec 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 28 Sep 08.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1 - Letter proposing alternatives to privatisation.

Sent Friday 31 July.

Subject: Request for meeting as discussed on the phone

Dear Andrew Fraser,

You stated on ABC 612 Radio's Party Games a fortnight ago (I think) is that no-one had put to you alternatives to privatisation.

In fact, I think there are a many alternatives that would make unnecessary the $14 billion privatisation program, opposed by 84% of Queenslanders according to one opinion poll.

I would like at the meeting to put to you those alternatives, in case they had not already occurred to you, or else learn from you the reasons why you have not adopted those alternatives, if you have considered them.

I would also like to share this dialogue with the broader public.

If, after our meeting, you remain determined to persist with privatisation, and are confident in your case, then you would surely agree that this would be to your advantage.

A number of my suggestions are within the power of the Queensland Government to implement, whilst a few others could be implemented by Federal Government if the Queensland Government were to present its case publicly and assertively.

I can guarantee that all of the alternatives I intend to put would be far more acceptable to his constituency than continuing to sell off the family farm.

The alternatives include:

#StateBank" id="StateBank">1. Setting up a state bank

A state bank could be used to raise the necessary credit to fund any necessary infrastructure. This could be done at far less cost than raising funds through private banks. A state bank has been used successfully by North Dakota in the United States since 1919. Currently it is only one of two States in the US which is still solvent.

Ellen Brown, who has extensive knowledge of banking systems in the US and elsewhere has proposed that the North Dakota model be used as a basis for the solution in California.

Her articles include:

"But Governor, You CAN Create Money! Just Form Your Own Bank." at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/But-Governor-You-CAN-Crea-by-Ellen-Brown-090529-87.html

"California's Empty Wallet: Turning Crisis into Opportunity" at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/californias-empty-wallet_b_222622.html

"California Dreamin': How the State Can Beat Its Budget Woes" at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/California-Dreamin--How-t-by-Ellen-Brown-090709-934.html

"Towards a Solution to the Debt Crisis in California: The State Could Walk
Away and Create Its Own Credit Machine" at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/towards-a-solution-to-the_b_231021.html

I have yet to see the flaws in Ellen Brown's case. Of course, California still faces serious problems of water shortage, which are being exacerbated by population growth (as does Queensland - see below and see "Crazy From The Heat: An overcrowded California is running out of water and leadership" at http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=690&menu_id=8), but California would stand a much greater chance of getting on top of its ecological problems if it followed Ellen Brown's advice.

I am sure that Ellen Brown would be willing to advise you how to get Queensland out of its financial mess for a cost to Queensland taxpayers vastly less than the $200 millon cost of hiring Merrill Lynch and the Bank of Scotland for advice on how to sell our assets, or if she is too busy, I am sure she would be able to recommend others who could, possibly even from Australia.

#borrowing" id="borrowing">2. Borrowing the additional $14billion

As Dorothy Pratt pointed out in her speech in Parliament on 18 June out the $14 billion that Queenslanders stand to gain from the asset sales is trivial compared with the eventual $85 billion deficit that Queensland is expected to incur.

What, then, is the practical difference between $85 billion and $99 billion (less the enormous overheads, including the abovementioned $200 million incurred in privatisation) if in the latter case Queenslanders retain democratic control of so many of our assets and the income streams?

Also, what guarantee is that the ratings agencies won't next year demand that the debt be reduced from $85 billion in order to retain Queensland's AAA rating?

What guarantee do we have that the same arguments won't be put to justify the sale of our power stations, remaining ports, and water infrastructure?

And in any case, why should anyone pay any regard to what ratings agencies think, given their infamous role in having caused the global financial meltdown?

It has been well established by economists like John Quiggin that the benefits obtained by reducing debt almost never outweigh the loss to society of losing valuable assets.

The claim that private investors are somehow more efficient than Governments has been shown again and again to be nonsense. If anything the reverse is the case.

Where figures have been produced that 'prove' greater efficiency, they invariably ignore the shifting of costs onto the broader community by the private investor.

These costs include:

• wanton neglect of the environment;
• destruction of jobs and working conditions;
• loss of training opportunities and career paths;
• removal of services deemed to be 'unprofitable' (in the narrowest monetary sense)
• neglect of infrastructure and equipment;
• etc.

If all these were to be fully costed, we almost always find that large Government enterprises, particularly in natural monopolies, are more efficient.

Clearly, Queenslanders stand to lose massively and if privatisation is the means adopted to reduce debt.

#population" id="population">3. End Queensland economy's dependence upon population growth

In April 2007, then deputy Premier Anna Bligh defended population growth (explicitly encouraged by your Government by a full-page advertisement placed in the Courier Mail of 8 December 2005) implying that it was necessary to keep people in the construction industry employed.

So, according to Anna Bligh, we are deliberately crowding ever more people into South East Queensland, which has insufficient water reserves to cope with a prolonged drought.

This is why we face impossible congestion on our roads, and it is supposedly to fix this problem that communities all over Brisbane are being destroyed.

The clearing of habitat in order to house additional people is why the Koala may well be extinct in South East Queensland in two years.

We are all paying ever greater rates, water and electricity and gas charges, tolls in order to pay the cost of building additional infrastructure.

As you rightly pointed out a fortnight ago on the abovementioned "Party Games" it costs far more to build necessary additional infrastructure in established areas than in new areas.

On top of that, in a letter sent to me on 19 June, Premier Anna Bligh stated as a justification for the fire sale, "... a State with a rapidly growing population can't afford to ease off building the infrastructure that supports our economy and community."

So, according to the Premier Queenslanders are expected to pay by selling off the family silver for population growth that we didn't ask for in the first place.

To inflict all this upon Queenslanders in order to keep construction workers employed is insane.

At some point, before Queensland becomes as crowded as Rwanda was in 1994, this will have to stop and, according to Anna Bligh's logic, those workers will lose their jobs anyway. Why not, instead, take the truly 'tough' decisions today?

#UsefulJobs" id="UsefulJobs">4. Create jobs which meet the needs of Queenslanders foremost

The University of Newcastle Centre of Full Employment and Equity (http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/) has fully costed at $9 billion a year a program that will employ every unemployed Australian in fulfilling socially useful jobs. You can download their Full Regional Development Report from http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/pubs/reports/2008/CofFEE_JA/CofFEE_JA_final_report_November_2008.pdf

Why not implement this at a state level in order to wean us off our dependence upon socially and environmentally destructive housing and infrastructure building, for which we are now being made to pay with our rail forests, ports and roads, according to the Premier?

I look forward to discussing all of this with you in person at our meeting.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#transcript" id="transcript">Transcript of Sinnamon-Fraser debate

This transcript was created by film maker Sheila Newman in the process of producing the three part YouTube video. All is included including some of the more clumsy parts of my own contribution. This was not me at my best. I know I have been a more effective speaker on a number of other occasions. Nevertheless, this interview remains the most substantial and sustained public challenge to Andrew Fraser on privatisation of which I am aware, that is, outside of State Parliament. Although a number of good speeches were made against privatisation by Independents and Liberal National Party members, they were not reported by the media.

I have added comments where I believe they would help clarify the issues.

#transcript1" id="transcript1">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 1

Go to #part1">embedded video.

JAMES SINNAMON: ... email on the 31st of July... in fact I wanted to actually debate alternatives even before the election. That's why I wanted to have a debate with you and Anna Bligh about - or at least see a debate between you and Anna Bligh and someone who's competent to discuss privatisation.

ANDREW FRASER: You and I did participate in a public debate during the election campaign.

JAMES SINNAMON: Well ...I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

FRASER: It was a candidates' forum that you and I were both present at, James.

SINNAMON: It wasn't ... well, I...I...Anyway, it wasn't actually a debate. It was a 5 minute speech by me. You had a speech...

FRASER: There was questioning from the floor and it was organised by an independent agency, not organised by me.

SINNAMON: It wasn't a debate. You know it was not. I didn't have a chance to respond to you.

FRASER: I'm pretty sure I turned up and there was a debate between candidates and all four candidates were there so let's not pretend something didn't happen that happened.

SINNAMON: That was a debate between about 40 people. It wasn't a debate between ... ah, you know, the public.

A whole lot of people that voted in that election had no idea that um, what was going to be at stake, the further sell-off of 14 billion of their assets. And, polls indicate quite clearly that a hell of a lot of people didn't know that that was on the cards, what was on the table. And the reason I raise this is that I think that people who are the owners of those assets - had every right, every entitlement - to know, firstly, that it was on the table and, secondly, to have the people that were in favour of privatisation put the ... defend ... put the arguments for, and those that are against privatisation put the arguments against it, and have the public decide. Have the public decide which ... whether, privatisation is necessary and whether they'd vote for a pro-privatisation candidate or an anti-privatisation candidate.

Now the people of Queensland were not given that opportunity because my letters were ignored by Anna Bligh and yourself and ...

FRASER: I've written back to you.

SINNAMON: Um...the ...question ...

FRASER: Let's be really clear for the record, seeing as you've chosen to videotape this. 1. We participated in a debate during the election campaign... 2. ...

SINNAMON: In front of 40 people, not on the media, not on any major television [unintelligible] not on prime time ...

FRASER: The media were free to attend. It was an open debate.

SINNAMON. Yes, and they chose not to.

FRASER: Secondly, I replied to your letter and other correspondence.

SINNAMON: You did not!

FRASER: And third, I'm now meeting with you now. So, I don't think you
need to ... um... mount a case that is not, in fact, supported by the
very plain fact that we did all those things.

SINNAMON: The fact was that ... and I freely replied ... I said I didn't get from you the categorical assurance that I sought against privatisation and I thought that since you didn't give that categorical ref... assurance, that what was in order was a proper debate, so that you could defend your refusal to give that categorical assurance. And you did not; you ignored that. That was ...

FRASER: Well, as I said really clearly during the election campaign, James, there were going to be tough choices that we had to face, and we've had to face those.

SINNAMON: But, you did not defend a specific tough choice. That was kept under wraps. 66 per cent of people ...

FRASER: Well we didn't make that ...

SINNAMON: ... believe that they were misled on that

FRASER: We did not make that decision about what we needed to do in terms of a budget.

SINNAMON: Well a lot of people seem to think it was. There's an article ...

FRASER: Well, I'm here to tell you ... I'm here to tell you James, that that's not what the case is ...

SINNAMON: The Courier Mail said that you were just looking for a good ..."it's a shame to waste a good crisis" ...[unintelligible] That's the Courier Mail, 21st of October 2009. I haven't heard your response to that.

FRASER: I'm happy to have a look at what you're suggesting. [Mr Fraser looked at the article.] That's an unnamed source about a meeting between the QC unions and the government and, I think you can safely presume that was something that was said by the QC unions, not by the government, so they can choose to defend that statement, rather than me.

SINNAMON: I note you didn't respond to that ...

FRASER: It's an unnamed source from a quote that's not from the government, so ...

SINNAMON: Okay.

FRASER: I'm happy, I'm happy to defend things from the government, but the other people can defend their unnamed sources.

SINNAMON: The fact is that you didn't raise the issue. You didn't respond to my asking you to debate the issue.

FRASER: I did attend the candidates' debate with you, James.

SINNAMON: That was in front of 40 people.

FRASER: And the whole world was free to turn up. I didn't organise the debate. I didn't set the terms of reference. It was organised by the local Chamber of Commerce and all of the rules were set by them. It was a free and open debate and people could raise questions and issues as you did on the night.

SINNAMON: And I said to you afterwards, in an email, that you had not categorically ruled out privatisation and that that needed to be debated before a wider audience and that was ignored, and because it was ignored the people ...

FRASER: And I acknowledge the point you're making, that I did not rule it out, because we couldn't rule it out, because we hadn't decided what or the way in which we would deal with the challenges of putting together a budget after the election, and that's what we said, clearly.

SINNAMON: Before a wider audience - not just the 40 people who were there - that was ignored. There was no further response. There was numerous correspondences between myself and you and Anna Bligh and I got no response further from that. So the whole thing was quietened up.

FRASER: James, I replied to your correspondence.

SINNAMON: You're trying to say...

FRASER: And I also did, on average, a media conference one day a week during the election campaign, so, the notion that you're putting forward, isn't in fact supported by the facts.

SINNAMON: The fact is that 66 per cent of the people felt that they were misled, according to the polls. 84 per cent of the people, according to the polls, opposed privatisation.

SINNAMON (Continues): They feel, as if they, the owners of the assets, were not given any say in the elections about whether ...

FRASER: So do you agree then that we should spend Queensland taxpayer money building rail-lines for BHP and Rio Tinto?

SINNAMON: I don't think ...I think..

FRASER: Whereas, in Western Australia, those rail lines are built by BHP and Rio Tinto?

SINNAMON: You're giving a false dichotomy. What you are saying is ...

FRASER: No, no, one fact is in West Australia BHP and Rio build the rail lines and in Queensland, the government does. So, my question to you is, do you agree with that situation?

#transcript2" id="transcript2">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 2

Go to #part2">embedded video.

SINNAMON: I don't think it's as simple as that. You are, we are choosing on the one hand, these assets that belong to the public; I put to you in an email on the 31st of July (see #appendix1">Appendix 1) a lot of alternatives to privatisation, one alternative - and I've actually ... I've asked you several times could you please tell me what is wrong with my proposal.

One alternative is that we set up a state bank as does the state of North Dakota, and then, instead of going to private banks, we raise a loan ourselves, through the bank, set up a state bank - North Dakota does that - it's obviously not cost-free but it's a hell of a lot less costly than having to raise it through a private bank then we use that to fund the infrastructure, rather ...

FRASER: James, whether you're a private bank or a state-owned bank, you still raise money through the same channels on the international market.

SINNAMON: No ...

FRASER: So GDC is the treasury corporation which raises capital ...

SINNAMON: Not true.

FRASER (continues): in the international markets for the use of Queensland government agencies, government owned corporations, and the budget sector. There's no such thing as magic money where you get debt for free.

SINNAMON: Well, in fact, the fact is that private banks create money out of nothing. All they do ... a bank considers an asset a promise to repay a loan as an asset, so, essentially you could have a state bank. A state bank that simply gets from the state government a promise to repay the loan. And that is actually considered as money. That's exactly the way that private banks raise their own finances and there's no reason why a state-owned bank can't do it as well. The only difference is that we ...

FRASER: So, your solution is more debt, raised in a different way?

SINNAMON: My solution is debt raised in a different way, but it will be a lot cheaper because it would ...

FRASER: But, more debt.

SINNAMON: Because, it's the way that North Dakota does it. That is the state that is not bankrupt whereas all the other states are done. It's been done successfully in other places.

FRASER: But if you just keep raising more money and more debt, without a way of paying it back, then what's your alternative?

SINNAMON: [Unintelligible]

FRASER: There's a limit, is there not?

SINNAMON: It is cheaper to do it if the government owns it. If you don't have to ...

FRASER: But is there not a limit?

SINNAMON: There are limits to how much a state can go into debt.

FRASER: And, what would you propose is the limit for Queensland?

SINNAMON: We're talking about a difference of $14 billion. And the total number of debt is of the order of $90 billion, so it's not making a huge amount of difference. Anyway, I've sent you my email. What I would like, is from Treasury, a written response as to what is wrong with it, rather than argue it out in this way. I haven't got that.

FRASER: Well, I've [? been] undertake to meet with you, James. So ...

SINNAMON: Yeah, okay, but I have also sent you a written document as well and I'd like that... You've had it since the 31st of July. I've given you all four points about the State bank and so forth... and ...

FRASER: And I've just answered your questions ...

SINNAMON: Well, you know, that is ... I don't think that is an answer because my point is that you haven't ...

FRASER:Well, I do not agree with the principle that you can continue to raise debt without a limit.

SINNAMON: But my point is that that is a cheaper way ...

FRASER: You're just proposing a different way to raise more debt.

SINNAMON: A cheaper way. A cheaper way that is done.

FRASER: You'd still have to pay it back.

SINNAMON: That is right. I didn't say it was cost free. I said it was cheaper.

We could have our own state bank. We could raise the finances as a state bank, the same way as any private corporation.

It was done in the past, when we had the Commonwealth Bank. It was done in North Dakota. It's probably been done in lots of other places in the world. It can be done that way. If you have a state bank tomorrow, we could do it. Okay, debt wouldn't go away. But it would be cheaper.

SINNAMON: (continued from above) The second alternative that you haven't responded to is population growth.

Now, my letter from Anna Bligh read, said, that we are paying for ... um... we are selling the assets in order to pay for infrastructure that is necessary to cope with population growth.

Now it is the */choice/* of Queensland Government and Commonwealth Government to deliver the greater population. Back in 2005, Peter Beattie put in an advertisement in the Courier Mail newspaper that asked people to move interstate- move from interstate into Queensland. He never told the people that four or five years down the track, we were going to be paying for extra population growth by selling off the family silver.

FRASER: Well, James, in fact, the biggest population flows, rather than interstate migration, are, in fact, from overseas migration.

SINNAMON: That's right ...

FRASER: So, let me finish my point, please ...

FRASER (continues): and secondly from increase in the natural birth rate. And, I do not believe, as a nation, that we need to have Checkpoint Charlie set up at the Tweed River. It's not only unconstitutional; it's unAustralian. Secondly, I don't support having birth limits for Australians who want to start a family and the reality is that population growth is not a pre-determined government policy, but, the challenge is for us to deal with the population flows which are occurring. So we can't stop people from coming over the border from New South Wales and Victoria. The Federal government sets the migration policy. People are free to move about within Australia, and, thirdly, I don't support a population limit in terms of birth limits, so there is a challenge that needs to be dealt with.

SINNAMON: Both you and Anna Bligh came out after Kevin Rudd made the statement in favour of Australia's population increasing to ... um...I think the figure was 40 million by 2050 or something like that.

You both said, that 'We can meet the challenge' ...

And it's obvious - the newspapers - every day of the week - are full of stories about how the Queensland government has failed, completely failed to meet the challenge of past population growth.

Our streets are a schmozzle. We are being told that our rates and our electricity rates must go up; we must pay more for water, because we have to build more infrastructure to pay for the additional numbers that the Queensland government has deliberately encouraged to come here.

Now, if - ah - and then back in - when the auditor general's report came out and you - it slammed the Queensland government's management of health, management of transport, Anna Bligh stood up and said, "It's not my fault, it's the fault of population growth." And yet, when there's a raging debate about increasing Australia's population by another 60 per cent, both you and Anna Bligh came out and publicly said that we can rise to the challenge.

Other people who are responsible, who care about our future, recognise that there are limits to what water, what we can pay for, said, "This is not on, this has to be stopped." The fact is that the Queensland Government, at every point, has encouraged population growth and it hasn't told the public, 'if we grow the population of Queensland, then you've got to pay for that population growth with selling off the family silver.'

FRASER: The reality that we have to face, James, as we said very clearly in the public arena, is we have to make choices. There's not - There's a finite resource out there in terms of the ability to raise debt. You don't accept that; you agree with more and more debt. I don't. That's the starting point to the debate.

SINNAMON: No, I don't agree with more and more debt. I think there has to be a limit too. So I propose one way to limit ...

FRAZER: What's your limit?

SINNAMON: Stabilise population. And if we are paying [by] selling off our public assets ...

FRASER: Do you support cutting the migration intake, banning interstate migration, and capping the birth rate?

SINNAMON: I say start with stopping international immigration. I say that, if the Federal government is so irresponsible that they want to increase our population by 60 million, then our state governments have responsibility to say, "Hey, we are having to flog off our assets to pay for this."

We are ... and we had to find the money to build desalination plants because there won't be enough water for people to drink, if we don't ... I mean ... we need that point of leadership. Now, a few councils, like the Sunshine Coast council are trying very hard to put a population cap up there. The Queensland government is bent over backwards to make sure that that doesn't work. You know, they're over-ruling their ... um... Instead of supporting those councils they are using every possible opportunity, including this advertisement back in 2005 to actually encourage more people to come here.

You know, it's clear that the Queensland government has created the problem that it now says it has to solve by flogging off our assets. Which are opposed by 84 per cent under Beatty so that people were never asked about in the first place. They were never asked about population growth. They were never asked about flogging off our assets.

FRASER: [Note distortion of terms] I'm happy to have a public debate about whether or not people think we should cap the birth rate orwhether we should put Checkpoint Charlie up at the Tweed River. I happen to think that the community won't support it.

And neither do I. And neither does the government.

SINNAMON: Do you think that it's excusable to actually encourage population growth as well? I mean, we're not talking about "CheckpointCharlie", we're just simply saying that the population has increased to astronomical levels that already raise ...

FRASER: I think we need to be honest about what controlling population growth means, and that means migration controls ...

SINNAMON: That's right, yes.

FRASER: That mean's Checkpoint Charlie, and that means, capping the birth rate, and I don't support it.

SINNAMON: It means that ... okay... well, basically we disagree, don't we? I say any community has a right to say what numbers come in tot his community. I'm saying that, if the community has to go bankrupt, as you are basically saying we are...

You're saying, you're basically telling me, and Anna Bligh has said, that we have to sell-off the family silver, we have to pay for ever-higher electricity rates, we've got to pay more water ...

We've got to basically throw the Mary River people off their farms, and so on and so forth. It's just never ends - to pay for population growth.

#transcript3" id="transcript3">Privatisation and the Right to Govern - Part 3

Go to #part3">embedded video.

SINNAMON (from before):Now I think that the community are entitled to have those alternatives put to them.

FRASER: James, you and I have very different views on this and you exercised your democratic right to stand as an independent candidate in the last election and put those views into the arena. I also stood as a candidate and others did and others are welcome to in the future and I'm happy for the debate tocontinue from here on in, but I don't agree that the propositions you're putting forward are supported by the broader community.

SINNAMON: Well, what do you say to the fact that 84 per cent of the people oppose privatisation, and that they felt - 66 per cent felt - that they were misled in the last election?

FRASER: What I've said - what I'll say to you - is what I've said all day every day, and that is, we had to make a choice; none of the choices were easy: cutting wages, freezing wages, less teachers, less doctors, less school cleaners, when population's increasing. Or you can make a decision about those things that government has done in the past, but, needs to make a choice about whether we choose to fund new rolling stock and new railway lines for BHP and Rio Tinto or, whether we put it into schools and hospitals and other resources that only governments would provide. We're not selling - ah - the timber business as the whole land ... we're selling the right to mill the trees... They're sold anyway, so they're getting the right to mill the trees. That's what we're proposing to transact there. Those are just the elements of what we are doing in making a decision about doing those things that we need to do ... and those things that are the priorities of government. And, when it comes to it, investing in hospitals, investing in schools, investing in disability services, are all the things that we believe, as a Labor government, ... are the priorities over building infrastructure for commercial interests that are able to do it themselves. That's the essential choice that we had to make and it's the one we made.

SINNAMON: Are you going to stop encouraging population growth? Are you going to come out and tell the public, tell the government, that we are ...

FRASER: #NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth" id="NotEncouragingPopulationGrowth">We're not encouraging population growth, we're just dealing with the natural consequences.

SINNAMON: Why not tell the Queensland public that we are paying for the past population growth ...um... with selling our public assets and inall sorts of ways? And why don't you get up and say to the Queensland public that, if this continues, then, what prospect do we have of having anything left in another fifty years time?

FRASER: Well, the problem with your analysis, James, is that it doesn't accept the fact that we're proposing to put $15 billion worth of assets onto the market, from an asset base of more than $200 billion... and by the time we finish, the asset base will be over $250 billion. So, this year alone, we're building an $18 billion dollar infrastructure program which supports building the asset base. Now, the debate we're having here is about $15 billion, which represents ... ah... a component of just one year'sinvestment that we're undertaking. So, everything that we are proposing to put to the market facilitates the capital expansion of the state. Building more assets, each and every day, each year, into the future. And that's the bottom line.

Comment: If this were true, then it would count as a substantive argument for privatisation. As result of selling $14 billion worth of assets, the Queensland Government's asset base is increased from $200 billion to $250 billion. Part of the reason for this would lie in the fact that more infrastructure assets are needed for Queensland's increased population, anyway. MUch of the money is being openly raised by increasing the charges for services as discussed above, so would not be dependent upon asset sales. All the same the figures Fraser has provided don't seem right and need further scrutiny.

SINNAMON: Okay. This letter in the Courier Mail, Friday, said that you haven't yet released the business case for privatisation. When do youintend to do that?

FRASER: We've put the rationale into the broader public arena.

SINNAMON: The general business case, the actual hard figures that actually show the sort of thing the figures of John - Professor John Quiggin's been asking for. When do you intend to do that?

FRASER: Well I debated Mr Quiggin on radio on Friday.

SINNAMON: For five minutes. For all of five minutes. Hardly a debate, I would have thought.

FRASER: Well, I certainly was ... ah... happy to debate him. The reality is we've had to make this decision and all those ... ah... figures are in the public arena, all the entities have reported as government-owned corporations, and ultimately ... and ultimately, you proposed a different policy and platform at the elections, which didn't gain the support of the people. You're entitled to put your views, James, and I'm entitled to put mine.

SINNAMON: Yes, I that's a bit [??vague]. I think that if people realised that privatisation was up for ... was an issue at the last election it would have been a very different story. I don't think you would be treasurer today if people realised that you were going to sell off $14billion of their assets. And I don't think Anna Bligh would be Premier.

FRASER: Well, you're entitled to put your views, James, and you're entitled to ... ah... proceed with them. That's your perfect entitlement as a citizen and I respect that. I've allowed you to film and record this interview. Use it for whatever political purpose you like into the future.

SINNAMON: Just one other question, Andrew, if you're wrong, if you're proven wrong, and our leaders have been proven wrong every time about privatisation, particularly the privatisation of the retail arm of electricity ... where we were promised cheaper electricity. If you're proven wrong, four or five years down the track, just as the Federal government was proven wrong about privatisation of Telstra, what recourse will they have? How do we get out of the mess that will have been created, that most people believe will happen?

FRASER: James, ultimately, I believe that what we are doing is the right thing to do ...

SINNAMON: How do we ... You're not answering my question ...

FRASER (continues from above): and that what we are doing is the correct thing to do, and that's what's decided to do.

SINNAMON: How do we, what recourse do we have? We have no recourse against Peter Beattie who privatised Ergon without ourpermission ...

FRASER: The recourse as ever, is daily media scrutiny, the parliament, and election. That's the way it's always worked in Australia.

SINNAMON: We've had no recourse against Peter Beattie, who sold off the assets against our wishes and we're all paying higher electricityprices. We believe that the same will happen.

SINNAMON (continues): What recourse will we have when it all goes pear-shaped, as people believe?

FRASER: I'm happy to be accountable for all my decisions, James.

FRASER: Thanks for meeting.

SINNAMON: Yeah. Just as Peter Beattie is accountable today. You know, he's headed off and we're in hock because of the decision that he made today and we'll be [indecipherable] ...

FRASER: Well, I disagree with you. You're entitled as a political candidate to put your view and I'm entitled as a political candidate to put mine.

SINNAMON: Why won't you hold a referendum on this? People ... 84 per cent of people are against it, why can't people have the final say on privatisation? You haven't swayed me.

FRASER: Because we're elected to make decisions. We're elected to make the tough decisions.

SINNAMON: People oppose that decision. They have consistently opposed that. They have opposed every privatisation. 70 per cent ofpeople opposed the Telstra privatisation. I believe that you know that they would have opposed you and would have voted you out if they were aware that you ... if they had had any hint that you were going to privatise, and I think ...

FRASER: Well, James, you're advancing a contradictory thesis that ... um...that one time you're saying I did say that in the election campaign, and the second time ... the second part of your question is that I didn't. So you need to decide which accusation you're going to make against me and the government.

SINNAMON: No, I believe that you're [??indeciferable] ...

FRASER: You're a political candidate and you're entitled to your views. I need to progress, so thanks very much for coming along.

SINNAMON: Okay, well thank you for your time.

#DebateRequest" id="DebateRequest">Appendix 3: Correspondence concerning my request for a debate amongst candidates contesting Mount Coot-tha electorate

The e-mail below is a request that there be a debate between the candidates. I took from Andrew Fraser's reply, that the 'candidate's forum' would be something approximating a debate. It turned out not to be. I was first speaker on the night and given only 10 minutes. No opportunity was provided for me to respond to Andrew Fraser's 'rebuttal' of my arguments against privatisation in my own speech.

My many other attempts to get Andrew Fraser to properly debate privatisation and the issues at stake in the elections can be found in "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" of 17 Mar 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09.

#request" id="request">E-mail requesting debate

Mount-Coot-tha candidates' public debate
Date: 24/02/09 03:47 pm
From: James Sinnamon
To: Andrew Fraser, Larissa Waters, John Pollard

Dear Andrew Fraser, Larissa Waters and John Pollard,

As an Independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha, I would like to have the opportunity to debate all other candidates standing for election before the electors of Mount Coot-tha.

I believe that this would give voters the best possible opportunity to decide which of us is the most suitable candidate.

I think it should still be possible, even given the time constraints (which I personally believe to be unnecessary) to find a suitable public venue for the debate and to organise a meeting.

I also think it would be worthwhile to engage in online debates. I suggest an online forum be set up for the Mount Coot-tha electorate.

In the meantime you can all also feel most welcome to post your own comments to my web site. The most suitable places to comment would be:

http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

I look forward to hearing from you all.

yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha.

--

(contact details)

#response" id="response">Andrew Fraser's response

RE: Mount-Coot-tha candidates' public debate
Date: 24/02/09 04:50 pm
From: Andrew Fraser
To: James Sinnamon

Dear James Sinnamon

Thanks for your email. It has been past practice that the Brisbane Inner West Chamber of Commerce has hosted a candidate forum. I have already been approached, and I understand the Chamber is again proposing to approach candidates for participation in such a forum. I propose that, once again, the Chamber host such an event. I've forwarded your email to Lynne Brown of the Chamber, who is coordinating the time and place.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Fraser

On 18 December 2009, Queenslander's were greeted with yet more bad news by Brisbane's Courier-Mail newspaper in the story "Monster power price hike" (in 19 December printed edition):

The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) has just announced a draft decision that would see prices rise by 13.83 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The decision would add an additional $276 to the average annual household bill of $2000.

It is the fourth successive jump in electricity costs since the State Government claimed deregulation of the industry would put downward pressure on prices.

The heavy price, already paid Queenslanders for former Premier Peter Beattie's decision, made without their consent or any electoral mandate, to privatise the retail arm of the state owned electricity utility, continues to climb.

The Courier-Mail's editorial of 18 Dec 09 attempted to rationalise this. It's title "Using less power is key to beat price rise" gave a clue as to what its tack would be.

It began by appearing to empathise with, but at the same time diminishing the grounds for outrage against this decision.

PRICE rises, particularly when the hand of government is involved in some way, are always going to be politically contentious.

As such, yesterday's draft decision by the Queensland Competition Authority ... sparked the predictable howls of protest from consumers and the Opposition, and grumblings from the Government.

Then it immediately proceeded to provide its own wholely predictable justification for the increases.

With the massive investment required to maintain and expand Queensland's electricity network to cater for a growing and increasingly power-hungry population, rises such as this were always inevitable -- ...

If price rises were 'inevitable' as a result of population growth actively pursued by both the Queensland and Federal Governments, then why weren't the people who are now being made to pay the costs, first asked?

As we have shown in other earlier articles, the Courier-Mail newspaper like the state Government has been playing a double game with the Queensland public on this issue.

For years both have been shifting between the outright encouragement of population growth and then, when the detrimental consequences have become too obvious to deny, a pretence that it is beyond our own contol. This has been described elsewhere in the articles "Exposing Queensland Government population growth duplicity" of 1 Apr 09 and "How Government and the Murdoch press deceive Australian public on immigration" of 27 Oct 09.

Whilst, in more recent years, Courier-Mail avoids explicitly stating its support for population growth, the same is not true of the national daily newspaper the Australian also owned by Rupert Murdoch. Examples of promotion of population growth and high immigration are listed in the abovementioned article. Another is the editorial with the lofty and pretentious title "Population is destiny" of 19 Sep 09 which enthusiastically endorsed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's stated goal of increasing Australia's population to 35 million by 2050.

The editorial makes sweeping claims about how such population increases will be of enormous indisputable benefit to all, but, of course, no-where does it mention the environmental, social and economic costs that Queenslanders are now being made to pay for population growth. No-where does it warn that charges for services such as electricity, gas and water will rise as a consequence.

For their part, the Courier-Mail's reporters and editors write of the effects of population growth as if unaware of the role played by the Australian in bringing it about.

If it chose the Courier-Mail could use, very effectively, its voice towards stopping population growth and the consequent harm, only one example of which that this editorial addresses. I have demonstrated that it has shown that it is able to on other political questions in the article "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 11 Dec 09, but in regard to population growth, it chooses not to.

It lets off the hook the politicians whose undemocratic unpopular decisions have so harmed the public interest and continue to do so. In regard to former Queensland Premier Beattie, the editorial Courier-Mail's editorial contines:

... and former premier Peter Beattie was foolhardy at the time of the Energex retail sell-off to talk up the prospect of cheaper power.

The possibility that Beattie's long since discredited promise of cheaper power, rather than having been 'foolhardy' may have been judged necessary to achieve his goal of bludgeoning public opinion into accepting the deregulation and privatisation of the retail arm of the state's electricity utilities sector, is not considered.

Beattie's claim is only one of many examples of similarly baseless claims of the benefits of privatisation made by politicians. The possibility that claims made by Premier Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser today in support of their current bid to flog off $15 billion worth of public assets may be similarly groundless is, of course, never raised by the Courier-Mail with its readership.

The editorial argues against aginst any direct Government intervention to reject or curtail the price risese approved by the QCA:

Not only would this undermine the authority of the QCA itself, it would also be a recipe for disaster for commercial entities in Queensland's power sector, many of whom are operating on very thin and competitive margins as it is.

In fact, such a move would likely drive away participants from the sector, resulting in less competition and ultimately even higher prices.

So, the fabulous competitive energy market is apparently economically unviable, that is unless it is allowed to charge massively more than what the previous Government owned electricity retail arm charged for the same service!

Instead, the editorial argues that the Government act to modify consumer behaviour:

As was demonstrated during the water crisis, a concerted public information campaign can result in an enduring behavioural shift when it comes to consumption patterns.

Our love affair with airconditioners and other power-hungry appliances has resulted in average household consumption rising from about 6400 kilowatt hours to 11,000kWh in the past decade. And in the past five years the network has been expanded to cater for an extra 4200 megawatts of electricity at times of peak demand -- enough to power South Australia and Tasmania combined.
This additional capacity does not come cheap, and the costs must ultimately be passed on to the end user – and these are consumers who, on average, have increased their electricity consumption by 70 per cent in only 10 years.

Of course, the Courier-Mail now conveniently forgets its own past role in encouraging ever greater per capita consumption of energy and other resources.

One of the principle reasons for "our love affair with airconditioners" as the editorial puts it, is the shoddy designs of housing crammed together on sprawling suburban developments with little tree cover in between the concrete, the often black-coloured tiled rooves, guaranteed to absorb the maximum possible amount of heat and bitumen roads. Whilst the Courier-Mail clamoured to expand the housing development industry and the importation of customers for it, the Courier-Mail showed little leadership of which I am aware, towards at least ensuring that what was built would not be so energy inefficient.

Now people who paid so dearly to buy these dwellings may have be forced to swelter without air-conditioning in the summer heat or pay probibitively for it.

Before the Global Financial crisis, the Courier-Mail fed to Queenslanders expectations that the economic boom would last forever and, not that long ago it was considerably less circumspect in its support for population growth. It openly clamoured for ever greater numbers of people to move to Queensland to fill what it insisted were critical labor shortages as I described in the article "The Courier Mail beats the drum for more Queensland population growth" of  Jan 07.

Now we have discovered, to our cost, that this state never had the unlimited capacity to cater for new arrivals and ever higher per-capita levels of consumption that the Courier-Mail insisted that we did have, the Courier-Mail's own past consumerist propaganda, at least in some respects, is turned around 180 degrees.

The editorial concludes:

Without altering our behaviour, the only way to keep a lid on electricity prices is via government subsidies. And then we all end up paying more -- no matter what our individual usage -- through higher taxes.

Of course, we know better than to expect of the Courier-Mail to argue to end reckless Government policies of population growth and privatisation that created the shambles that the electricity secore has been turned into.

Instead, we are expected to fix the mess by reducing our consumption whether through smart means or by brutal means which will reduce our livng standards.

But even if we achieve this, it can only provided a temporary reprieve until we achieve population stability.

What you can do: Queensland citizens can sign the e-petition calling for the resignation of the Queensland Government and new elections. See "Anti-privatisation e-petition calls on Queensland government to resign" for further information.

Originally published: 8 Dec 09. Updated twice since then.

Many Queenslanders, appalled at their state Government's blatant disregard for their wishes not to sell AU$15billion of worth of publicly owned assets, actually look to Rupert Murdoch's Courier-Mail newspaper to stand up to what has to be amongst the most inept and despotic of state governments in Australia's history. However, the dishonest spin encompassed in the title of the story "Asset Sale Anger on the wane"_#main-fn1">1, together with the sub-heading "Christmas boost for Bligh", reveals that newspaper's true colours on that issue.

To at least 79% of Queenslanders reported by the story as remaining opposed to the fire sale, surely the most pertinent fact was that the Queensland Government was so brazenly ignoring their will.

However, for Steven Wardill, the Courier-Mail's state political editor the apparent drop by 5% in public opposition to the sale, giving a total of all of 17% of Queenslanders in favour of privatisation as opposed to 79% against was of far greater significance.

December 2008: Courier-Mail openly calls for elected dictatorship

The Courier-Mail newspaper has been playing a double game over the fire sale at least since 4 December 2008 when state political reporter Craig Johnstone wrote an opinion piece_#main-fn2">2 calling for Premier Anna Bligh to break an earlier promise and to call an early election_#main-fn3">3. The arguments in Johnstone's article were echoed in an edtorial_#main-fn4">4 on 28 December 2008.

These articles complained of Premier Anna Bligh, backing away from unpopular, but, in the Courier-Mail's view, necessary decisions. The backdowns complained of were the abandonment of plans to impose recycled water on South East Queensland, a seeming backdown on plans to build the Traveston Dam in the Mary River Valley_#main-fn5">5, banning the shale oil mining in the Whitsundays and the scrapping of plans to entomb half the Brisbane River adjoining the CBD at the North Bank beneath high-rise concrete residential blocks.

The Courier-Mail perceived that this to be the result of the Government paying too much heed to the wishes of fickle public opinion. The cure it prescribed was an early election so that Queensland could once again have, with elections behind it, the "firm leadership to steer it through uncertain economic times".

March 2009: Courier-Mail gets its wish

On 23 February 2009 the Courier-Mail got its wish when Bligh announced an early election to be held less than four weeks away on Saturday 21 March. Together with the ABC and the rest of the corporate newsmedia, the Courier-Mail ensured that during the ensuing weeks that Bligh's government escaped any real scrutiny for its monumental mismanagement of the Queensland since 1998, particularly it's sell-off of public assets, and that electors remained ignorant of Independent candidates such as myself or the Greens, who were prepared to offer any real alternative to the Bligh Government.

May 2009: Bligh shows "firm leadership to steer [Qld] through uncertain economic times" ...

Anna Bligh was re-elected and barely 2 months later on Saturday 23 May, citing the cost of the floods as the apparent straw that broke the camel's back, announced a fire sale in order to make ends meet. As reported in the Courier-Mail:

The repair bill from the fifth natural disaster in a year is likely to wipe hundreds of millions of dollars from the June 16 State Budget.

It has forced the Government into unprecedented action, with Ms Bligh declaring yesterday that "nothing is sacred" as she looks to recover over $14 billion in lost revenue._#main-fn6">6

In the following weeks and months that excuse was dropped_#main-fn7">7 and the Global Financial Crisis became the principle justification for the fire sale.

... but Queensland public doesn't buy Bligh's and Fraser's arguments

The public didn't buy any of these excuses. Letters to the editor, talkback shows and online forums were overwhelmed by expressions of anger by people who felt that they had been deliberately deceived by the Queensland Government. The Galaxy Opinion polls in June and Sept both showed 84% opposition to the sale and only 13% and 12% respectively in favour. One Courier-Mail online poll showed 91% opposition. One poll showed that 66% of Queenslanders believed that Anna Bligh had deliberately lied to them about her privatisation intentions.

Courier-Mail hypocritically postures against "the way" Qld Government went about privatisation

During that time, the Courier-Mail has succeeded in giving many Queenslanders an impression that it was opposed to privatisation. It certainly made some telling points about the conduct of Bligh and Fraser in that time. One occasion an editorial_#main-fn8">8 rightly took Treasurer Andrew Fraser to task for his claim that his ambiguous vague answer to a question put to him by ABC presenter and Courier-Mail journalist Madonna King on privatisation amounted to him being frank with the Queensland public.

However, the Courier-Mail never opposed privatisation per se. A careful reading of the Courier-Mail articles on privatisation would reveal only its objection to "the way" the Queensland Government had gone about it.

Why Courier-Mail could have stopped privatisation if it had wanted to

Clearly, with such overwhelming opposition to privatisation, the Courier-Mail could have easily forced the Queensland Government to abandon privatisation if it had the will to do so.

One example is its own campaign in which it enlisted its readership to force Swire Shipping to eventually pay $25 million, rather than its initial offer of $14.5 million out of the total cost of $34 million towards the costs of cleaning up the mess created by the spillage of dangerous chemicals during Cyclone Hamish in May 2008_#main-fn9">9. Another was its campaign in 2008 to force the Rudd Labor Government to honour its commitment to fully fund the Ipswich Bypass_{#main-fn1">10}.

But, of course, the Courier-Mail clearly had no wish to stand in the way of privatisation. It was stridently in favour of the deeply unpopular full privatisation of Telstra by the Federal Howard Government and largely turned a blind eye towards the more recent privatisations carried out by the Beattie and Bligh Governments_{#main-fn10">10} since 1998.

Given the Courier-Mail's own role in bringing about the needlessly early state elections of 2009, as described above, its objection to "the way" it went about it would seem to have been disingenuous.

How the Murdoch press hedges its bets with discredited political leaders

Reading between the lines of various articles_{#main-fn11">11}, it is clear that, in time, the Courier-Mail's intention, if the economy 'improves', to eventually 'forgive' Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser for the harsh, but necessary means employed by them to bring about 'reforms' they deemed to be in everyone's best interest.

In the months and weeks of the 2004 Federal elections the Murdoch press was full of stories about Howard Government scandals. As a result of public servant Michael Scrafton's revelations about the "Children Overboard" scandal, Prime Minister John Howard was pronounced a liar in an editorial of Australian newspaper, also owned by Rupert Murdoch. This was even republished on the johnhowardlies.com web site. However, in the final days of the elections, the Howard Government scandals were deemed by the Murdoch press to be unimportant in contrast to his supposedly monumental economic achievements and the public seemed to largely swallow that.

So, whatever damning pronouncements the Courier-Mail may make against the Bligh Government, the example of the Murdoch Government's treatment of the Howard Government, and its subsequent about face, illustrates that there may be plenty of scope for the Courier-Mail to rehabilitate the reputation of the Bligh Government in future should it judge it still to be useful to it.

Pro-privatisation weasel arguments beneath the veneer of apparent moral indignation

Although the Courier-Mail has rarely, if at all, put the argument in favour of privatisation outright, it has pushed subtle and not-so-subtle pro-privatisation propaganda. The most common is to simply uncritically report the repetitive rationales put by Fraser and Bligh in favour of privatisation. Another is apparent efforts to deflect anger against Premier Bligh by promoting, for example, Bligh's participation in the program Celebrity Chef. Another is to simply treat privatisation as inevitable and convince the public that they are powerless to stop it.

The editorial "Under the influence: Anna Bligh dances to union tune" of 20 Aug 09, as the title implies, tried to argue that the privatisation saga as well as the forced local government amalgamations of 2008 was an example of the state Government dancing to the tune of the union movement tune in spite of the fact that the union movement sought neither. Both were imposed undemocratically upon Queensland by the state Government.

How could the Courier-Mail editorial writer have so inverted reality?

In regard to the Council amalgamations, all the problems are apparently the result of unions having obtained guarantees of protection of jobs and working conditions for 3 years prior to the forced amalgamations.

The editorial made much of Bligh's agreement not to privatise the non-coal freight arm of Queensland Rail, including rural livestock and grain transport services upon which much of rural Queensland is dependent. The editorial continued:

Even the surviving items on the Government's privatisation shopping list will have conditions attached, courtesy of union influence._{#main-fn12">12}

By 'surviving items', the editorial writer meant everything else: the Abbot Point coal loader, the coal fright lines, the ports and the forests, not to mention, all else that had been privatised since Labor won office in 1998 without any popular mandate._{#main-fn13">13}

The editorial went on to complain:

In a similar deal to the one giving amalgamated councils so much grief, the 450 workers employed by Forestry Queensland Plantations have been guaranteed their jobs for three years after the sale of the government-owned company.

Earlier in the editorial, agreements to protect workers' jobs and entitlements in the process of the anti-democratic forced council amalgamations of 2008 that the Courier-Mail had supported to the hilt were held to be solely responsible for the problems caused by those amalgamations. For workers in the industries to be privatised to insist upon similar guarantees was presented as beyond the pale. The editorial continued:

The Australian Workers Union also wants the Government to help find a job for any worker sacked in the two years after the three-year no-job-loss deal expires.

How selfish is that! Instead of agreeing to be thrown onto the scrap heap, forestry workers have asked that they be given help seeking new employment. The editorial continued:

With conditions such as these attached to any contract of sale, the Government has doubtless pleased its union mates, but in the process it has devalued the private sector's attraction to these assets, thereby potentially lumping the taxpayer with a less-then-optimal price for their asset.

This ignores the opposition of 84% of the Queenslanders to the sale and that, therefore no price likely to be offered by a private investor would have been considered 'optimal'. The editorial continued:

In return, the unions say they will continue agitating against privatisation of public assets, an outcome that, to use the Premier's parlance, looks for all the world like a "loss, loss" for the Government.

As neither the workers nor the public were asked about the sale, then why shouldn't they?

How Trade Union inaction helps union enemies

The editorial appears to be an attempt to fan the flames of resentment of ordinary Queenslanders against the workers in the industries to be privatised. The editorial purports to be standing up for ordinary Queensland taxpayers against the supposedly unreasonable demands of the workforce, but takes no account of the fact that Queensland taxpayers overwhelming oppose the sale. If those wishes had been respected none of this would even be an issue.

To date, the union 'agitating' against the sale to which the Courier-Mail takes such apparent exception has been notably ineffectual and promises to be little better in future._{#main-fn18">18} Not one union, least of all the right wing Australian Workers' Union,_{#main-fn19">19} covering the plantation workers, has attempted to oppose privatisation with a coordinated campaign of industrial action. At best, only a few short-lived actions have been taken at the initiative of rank and file members. This is in spite of the demonstrated willingness of many members to support such a campaign as well as the support expressed by many members of the public, many not even normally sympathetic to the union movement, for such a campaign.

Yes, even the Queensland Trade Union movement has failed to stand up for the best interests of its own members, let alone those of the broader Queensland public. It has thereby thrown away the best opportunity it has had in years to win broad public sympathy for trade unionism. Moreover, as the Courier-Mail editorial demonstrates it has needlessly handed to the hostile newsmedia a propaganda advantage.

Censorship of news of protests against privatisation

One fact that stands in stark contrast with the Courier-Mail's ostensible moral indignation at "the way" privatisation is being brought about is the Courier-Mail's almost complete failure to report any of the protests against privatisation. The last protest that I remember which received any coverage in the Courier-Mail was the protest outside the Queen's Birthday weekend State Labor Conference on Sunday 7 June, which it could hardly have pretended not to have known about. Protests since that date, unreported in the Courier-Mail, include:

• The union sponsored protest and March through the Brisbane CBD of Friday 3 July that attracted approximately 2,000 supporters;
• A protest of 350 unionists against privatisation in Ipswich on 31 July;
• A protest of 100 people in West End outside Premier Anna Bligh's electorate office on 15 August.
• A protest of 200 people in Ipswich outside the state Government Community Cabinet meeting of Monday 30 November._{#main-fn14">14}

Another reporting omission was of Opposition leader John-Paul Langbroek's call for a referendum on privatisation on 10 Nov 09. This was reported once on the ABC news at 2.00PM and then dropped and not reported at all by the Courier-Mail.

Even if the participation in some of the protest events could have been construed as small -- and who could blame opponents of privatisation for not giving up more of their free to time to attend such rallies, given the lack of any coherent strategy by the unions to defeat privatisation? -- they are significant events involving groups of people expressing views shared by the overwhelming majority of Queenslanders and clearly of interest to the latter. Failure to report any of these events is a failure of the Courier-Mail to serve the Queensland public.

Courier-Mail's hollow pretence at being champion of the Queensland people

The Courier-Mail's failure to report grass roots protests undoubtedly helps it give its readers the impression that it will attempt to convey at every possible opportunity, that it, alone, is the cause of all things good that have occurred in Queensland in the last 20 years. The Courier-Mail makes a great deal of its campaigns for better Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, against some of the more blatantly corrupt practices of the Queensland Government, its pet stances on civil liberties such as its position against the uncontrolled use of tasers by the Queensland police, and brutality against aboriginals, etc.

However, if the Courier-Mail were objective it would acknowledge that, regardless of who can claim credit for these achievements, they are insignificant in comparison to the overall decline in the standards of governance, the quality of life the environmental health and financial security that has afflicted Queensland in the last 20 years.

Why Courier-Mail is culpable for what is rotten in the state of Queensland

At both the 2009 and 2006 state elections a majority of Queenslanders expressed dissatisfaction with both the major political parties. During the 2009 elections 2 successive Galaxy polls showed that 59% of Queenslanders supported neither of the major political parties. If the Courier-Mail was sincere in its stated desire to move Queensland well and truly beyond the corruption of the pre-Fitzgerald era, then it would have used the opportunity in both these elections to promote alternatives to the two major parties, which had brought Queensland to where it is today.

But it did not. Instead, most Queenslanders voted, not for what they truly wanted, but for the less unpalatable of the only two viable choices that they saw on offer in 2009, that is the Bligh Labor Government.

And since the elections, for all of its sanctimonious bluster against some of the excesses of the Bligh Labor Government, the Courier-Mail has appeared, at best, an ineffectual voice against this elected tyranny and, at worst, one of its puppeteers.

#update">Update: Murdoch's Australian openly endorses Bligh Government's disregard of the will of 79% of Queenslanders

Whilst Brisbane's Courier-Mail continues to tread somewhat warily through the minefield of Queensland public opinon in order to peddle its pro-privatisation propaganda, the national daily newspaper The Australian in its editorial "Anna Bligh's on the right track"_{#main-fn15">15} of 10 December is far less circumspect:

"Reform has always been tough in a state where the conservatives have long been happy to engage in agrarian socialism, and Labor has long been hostage to entrenched union power. In embarking on privatisation, Ms Bligh risks becoming Queensland's Jeff Kennett, the Liberal premier who, after a seven-year tsunami of privatisation, was unceremoniously dumped by Victorians in 1999."

This editorial echoes all the same contempt for the ordinary public that was evident of the Australian's coverage of the controversy over the Iemma Government's attempt to privatise New South Wales' electricity generators in 2008._{#main-fn16">16}

The Australian editorial writer treats the public, which it acknowledges 79% of whom are opposed to privatisation as being too stupid to understand what's in its own best interests. So it is up to supposedly more visionary politcal leaders like Bligh, Fraser, Kennett, Iemma and Costa to act heroically and selflessly bring about the 'reforms' they know to be necessary. in the face of and then incur the odium of the public for having done so. Like Kennett before her, Bligh risks facing a similar fate in two and a half years time from similarly ungrateful electors.

The first lie in these words is, of course, the familiar, but, nevertheless, Orwellian use of word 'reform' right at its start.

Privatisation is nothing of the sort. It is no more than the organised looting of publicly owned property by corporations, facilitated nearly always undemocratically by political leaders serving them rather than the broader public.

The Australian well knows that whether or not politicians like Bligh succeed in holding onto power, they can normally expect to be well looked after by their corporate benefactors for what they do, whilst the public, whose wishes they blatantly disregard today, will pay the cost for years to come. So, perhaps its depiction of Bligh as a martyr is a little wide of the mark.

Kennett was deservedly dumped in 1999, but the damage he inflicted has not been reversed by the succeeding 'Labor' government, even in the case of the privatised trams and railway, where the 'Labor' Government subsidises these services with hundreds of millions of dollars of public money instead of re-nationalising them.

The same newspaper that insists that Australia's past invasion of Iraq and continuing intervention in Afghanistan are necessary to defend democracy both there and here.

One can only hope that the democracy now practised in Iraq and Afghanistan is somewhat different to the kind of 'democracy' that the Australian would see prevail in this country.

#update2">Further Update: Courier-Mail also openly endorses Bligh Government's disregard of the will of 79% of Queenslanders

With the editorial "Premier must hold the line on asset sale"_{#main-fn17">17} of 11 Dec 09, the Courier-Mail has changed tack from its abovementioned weasel-argument peddling of privatisation to explicit overt support.

The third paragraph begins:

The Courier-Mail has supported the Premier in her privatisation program ...

In fact, this would be news to many readers who had not read each article on privatisation carefully and, at that, between the lines of each of those articles. The Courier-Mail had indeed supported privatisation, but up until now not so overtly.

Its pro-privatisation propagandahad largely avoided explicitly putting the case for privatisation. Instead, it peddled its propaganda in a more roundabout way as described above. And for much of the time this propaganda was shrouded in hypocritical denunciations of "the way" that the Government went about privatisations.

It should also be remembered that like Bligh and Fraser, the Courier-Mail avoided coming out so openly in favour of privatisation during the election even though it could hardly have been unaware that privatisation was at stake.

That it failed to do so then and only now, that the elections are so far behind, does it openly reveal its hand to the Queensland public, confirms that it has been playing a double game with them,

Of course, given that railway workers struck against privatisation and given that the public, in spite of the prevalence of anti-union propaganda appears to overwhelmingly support that action, the Courier-Mail is clearly playing with fire.

Perhaps the Courier Mail editors are gambling that as the workers are likely to be dissuaded before Christmas from taking further action, now is the time to go all out to push its pro-privatisation message,

It seems unlikely that such propaganda will succeed in convincing the public of the case for privatisation. Nevertheless, they are, no doubt, gambling that a less subtle propaganda campaign in the coming weeks may succeed in wearing down the resistance on the part of both the unions and the broader public to privatisation.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ The headline was "Queensland anger over Anna Bligh's asset sales on the wane" in the online version.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ "Early election" by Craig Johnstone in the Courier-Mail of 4 Dec 08.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ See also "Courier-Mail misreports water recycling to demand early election" of 25 Jan 09.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ Courier-Mail editorial "Time to put an end to early poll speculation" of 28 Dec 08.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ This perceied backdown was short-lived. The Bligh Government went all-out to build the dam, but was finally over-ruled by Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett in one of his very few decisions in favour of, rather than against the environment. See "Decision to block the Traveston Dam no more than what should have been expected of a Minister for the Environment" of   09

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ "Floods, storms spark State Government fire sale" by Darrell Giles and Daryl Passmore in the Courier-Mail of 23 May 08.

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. #main-fn7-txt">↑ Perhaps the change in the story was because it may have been too reminiscent of the disaster capitalists' excuses for plundering New Orleans, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Maldives etc in the wake of other natural disasters as chronicled in "The Shock Doctrine" (2007) by Naomi Klein.

#main-fn8" id="main-fn8">8. #main-fn8-txt">↑ My guess is that this editorial was written in August 09. I have the hard printed copy of it somewhere but no URL.

#main-fn9" id="main-fn9">9. #main-fn9-txt">↑ "Swire shipping boss wipes hands of oil spill bill" in the Courier-Mail of 9 Jul 09, "Swire Shipping cuts oil clean-up offer for Queensland spill" in the Courier-Mail of 16 Jul 09, "Pay up, Swire shipping! Online petition" in the Courier-Mail of 9 Jul 09, "Queensland oil spill sparks calls for tougher polluter penalties" in the Courier-Mail of 3 Dec 09.

#main-fn10" id="main-fn10">10. #main-fn10-txt">↑ "Labor denies it ever pledged to fix Ipswich Motorway" by Steven Wardill in the Courier-Mail of 13 Jun 08.

#main-fn11" id="main-fn11">11. #main-fn11-txt">↑ I am unable to provide citations for the articles I am referring to. However, I recall more than one article argued that Bligh's hasty actions to curtail the activities of lobbyists and reduce political donations in the wake of Tony Fitzgerald's damning speech about of the record of the Queensland Labor Government should go some way towards absolving her of her poor record thus far. Another argued that the public are likely to come around to the Government's view on privatisation once the claimed economic benefits had been realised. A good example of how the Courier-Mail attempts to rehabilitate the deservedly tattered reputations of the likes of Anna Bligh can be found in my article "Courier Mail praises Bligh Government's 'solving' of population-growth-driven water crisis of its own making" of 3 Feb 09

#main-fn12" id="main-fn12">12. #main-fn12-txt">↑ "Under the influence: Anna Bligh dances to union tune" of 20 Aug 09.

#main-fn13" id="main-fn13">13. #main-fn13-txt">↑ See "Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09 for list of assets privatised prior to 2009 state elections.

#main-fn14" id="main-fn14">14. #main-fn14-txt">↑ The Queensland Times newspaper story "Ministers dodge QR protest" of 1 Dec 09 reported that "more than 100 QR workers protested", whilst the Ipswich News newspaper story "Call to come clean on rail privatisation" of 8 Dec 09 reported that 200 attended.

#main-fn15" id="main-fn15">15. #main-fn15-txt">↑ "Anna Bligh's on the right track", editorial in The Australian of 10 Dec 09.

#main-fn16" id="main-fn16">16. #main-fn16-txt">↑ See "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 28 Sep 08.

#main-fn17" id="main-fn17">17. #main-fn17-txt">↑ "Premier must hold the line on asset sale" in the Courier Mail editorial of 11 Dec 09.

#main-fn18" id="main-fn18">18. #main-fn18-txt">↑ On Wednesday 9 December 1300 workshop workers struck against privatisation. On the whole, notwithstanding some hostility and ambivalence towards unions that can be read in online discussions (see 119 comments as of 11 Dec 09 posted to Courier-Mail story "Rail workers walk off job" of 9 Dec 09), it appears that the industrial action has very strong public support. An online poll in Brisbane Times shows 68% support for the strike as of 11 Dec 09.

See also "Queensland Rail workers strike against theft of public assets" of 9 Dec 09.

#main-fn19" id="main-fn19">19. #main-fn18-txt">↑ The following comment posted to the article "Rail workers walk off job" of 9 Dec 09 is most revealing about the Australiand Workers Union (AWU):

QR workers, you are lucky with the union you have got, our union the AWU called a meeting straight after the sale of FPQ (Forestry Products Queensland) was announced . All they wanted was to do the three year deal and a membership drive, not opposing it ,this is what we pay $500 dollars a year for, but not for long. So stick it to Captain Bligh and her band of cut throats. Their day will come in 2011

More than 1,300 Queensland Rail workship employees walked off the job in Ipswich, Rockhampton and Townsville in protest against plans to include the workshops in the Queensland Government's $15 billion public assets fire sale. The workshop employees had been led to believe that they at least would be spared from privatisation. However, on 8 December, Queensland Government announced that workshops were to be included after all. Instead of selling Queensland Rail to a private bidder the Queensland Govenment intends to offer shares to the Queensland public in a manner similar to the way in which Telstra was floated. Workers, who would only be guaranteed employment for a further two years after change of ownership were to given $1,000 sharess and offered $4,000 more at a discount.

But the broader Queenland public, many of whom had been burnt in buying Telstra shares aren't interested. An comment in response to a Courier-Mail online article "Rail workers walk off job" was typical of the public's response on both talkback radio and online forums:

Why should the people of Queensland by shares in QR or any other government owned assets. They own it already!!!!!!

Nor were workers interested in the miserable pittance of bribe that they were expected to accept in return for the destruction of their own and their children's job security. ABC online news reported Owen Doogan Secretary of Railway, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) stated that there was "Absolute anger at the idea that $1,000 worth of shares is going to be okay for them to sacrifice the job security of what they have at the present time - absolute joke."

Another ABC online story "Rail workers strike over Government asset sales" reported RTBU Vice-President Ian Moffit had promised more industrial action leading into the new year. He said:

"The union movement have now declared war on the Queensland Government,"

"We are not going to sit back idly and allow all this to go ahead.

It is certainly not a moment too soon. The Queensland Government has been at war with trade unionists together with the rest of the Queensland public for years. The $15billion fire sale is but the latest salvo in that war.

Finally they are getting back a small taste of their own medicine.

Update, 11 Dec 09: A Brisbane Times poll question "Do you support rail workers decision to strike against the Queensland Government asset sell-off?" had 67% of respondents voting 'yes'. Whilst it is possible for the poll to be biased in either direction, this result is encouraging. It would seem consistent with the current 79% of opposition to the sale, but allowing for the fact that many Queenslanders have still swallowed the virulent anti-union propaganda, exemplified by the Courier-Mail editorial "Under the influence: Anna Bligh dances to union tune" of 20 Aug 09. Also, Trade Union equivocation over the sale and their past failure to take decisive action would have compounded the problem. This is discussed in the article "Courier Mail spins news of 79% opposition to fire sale to reveal its privatisation colours" of 8 Dec 09. If this industrial action were to grow into a strong and decisive industrial campaign against privatisation and the union movement were to carefully explain the necessity of industrial action to the public, there is no reason why support for the Trade Union could not at least match the current 79 public opposition to the sale.

Grounds are that the government failed to inform people during the last Queensland State elections of their intentions to privatise Queensland assets to the value of $15billion.

If you are a Queensland resident and Australian citizen, please sign the petition.List of Queensland e-petitions http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetitions.aspx?LIndex=1

CURRENT E-PETITION
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/EPetitions_QLD/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=1360&lIndex=-1
Subject:

Call for immediate resignation of the Queensland government and new
elections

Eligibility: Queensland Citizens
Sponsoring Member: Dorothy Pratt MP
Principal Petitioner: James Sinnamon
PO Box 86
RED HILL QLD 4059

Posting Date: 02/12/2009
Closing Date: 02/03/2010

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

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

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

Five weeks after I made my complaint, the ABC has responded. The reponse defends the ABC Brisbane local Radio journalists' failure to hold to account the Queensland Government over these issues: privatisation, encouragement of runaway population growth, housing unaffordabilty, plans to triple our coal exports as the polar ice caps melt, and the devastation of agricultural and wilderness areas by open cut coal mining, etc. The ABC deems these issues not to be newsworthy.

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

Five weeks after I made my complaint, the ABC has responded. The reponse defends the ABC Brisbane local Radio journalists' failure to hold to account the Queensland Government over these issues: privatisation, encouragement of runaway population growth, housing unaffordabilty, plans to triple our coal exports as the polar ice caps melt, and the devastation of agricultural and wilderness areas by open cut coal mining, etc. The ABC deems these issues not to be newsworthy. The full text is included below.

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

Dear Mr Sinnamon

Thank you for your email of 1 May concerning 612 ABC Brisbane's coverage of independent candidates during the 2009 Queensland State election, and your email of 27 May concerning talkback on the 612 ABC Brisbane Morning program with Madonna King of the same day. In keeping with the ABC's complaints policy, your emails have been referred to me for investigation and response. Please accept my apologies for the delay in response.

With respect to your concerns about the ABC's coverage of independent candidates, including yourself, during the 2009 Queensland State election, we note you raise a number of matters in your blog post of 30 April on the website http://candobetter.org, and have responded to your substantive concerns in turn below. However, by way of context, please note that the editorial principles fundamental to the ABC are articulated in the ABC's Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. Complaints made in respect to ABC content are assessed against these editorial principles. The ABC's provisions in respect to political and election broadcasts are outlined in section 12 of the Editorial Policies. Copies of both the Code and the Policies are available at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/charter.htm.

The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view. Whilst not discounting the views or policies of the other parties and independent candidates, coverage in respect to such parties and candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. The Policies also note that the ABC reserves the right to withhold free broadcast time to political parties, including those not currently represented in the Parliament concerned, on the basis of the measure of demonstrated public support for the party.

Whilst we note you refer to a number of specific broadcasts of concern, which are addressed in further detail below, we believe that the 612 ABC Brisbane coverage of the Queensland State election was consistent with the ABC's approach to election coverage, as outlined in the Editorial Policies. By way of illustration, external monitoring of 612 ABC Brisbane's coverage of the first week of the election campaign by Media Monitors showed the 'share of voice' coverage to be 43.3% ALP, 38.3% LNP, 13% Greens and 5.4% Independents. We note your view that listener dissatisfaction with the major parties should encourage a greater level of coverage of non-ALP and non-LNP candidates; however, we cannot agree that this changes the ABC's editorial obligations as stipulated in the Policies, or that the ABC's level of coverage of independent candidates was discriminatory.

We note you raise concerns that the ABC failed to cover the issues of privatisation and population growth during the campaign. Whilst we do not dispute that such issues may be of some interest, and we note they were platforms on which you conducted your campaign as an independent candidate in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha, we believe that the two issues were not raised as significant election issues and hence were not afforded detailed coverage on the basis of newsworthiness.

ABC Radio notes that the Morning program took hundreds of talkback calls during the campaign on a variety of issues and the matter of privatisation was only raised by you. We further note that your question on the topic was put to State Treasurer Andrew Fraser by Ms King on 13 March and answered on-air. Ms King was clear in putting the question to Mr Fraser that it was submitted by you, noting you were an independent candidate for the seat of Mout Coot-tha, and that you had previously written directly to Mr Fraser on the matter. This was as part of a weekly segment on the Morning program during the campaign in which Mr Fraser and his LNP Opposition counterpart Tim Nichols discussed the big political issues of the week. The segment covered a range of topics that day including preference deals, uranium in north Queensland, the mood of the electorate in key Brisbane seats and the Leaders debate.

We note you raise concerns that Mr Fraser's on-air response to your question concerning privatisation appeared contrary to the written correspondence you received from Mr Fraser on the matter, and that you were 'entitled to air-time... to rectify that misinformation'. Having reviewed the broadcast, we note that Mr Fraser's on-air response to the question 'yes or no: are there any assets you plan to privatise' was 'no, and I've written back to James and we don't have an ideological commitment to pursuing privatisation'. We cannot agree that further correction or clarification was required by you; the statement made by Mr Fraser on-air was not presented as factual content by the ABC but clearly were the views of Mr Fraser and the ALP. Accordingly, we believe that if you have any concerns as to the level of assurance Mr Fraser provided in his written correspondence with you on this matter is most appropriately raised by you directly with Mr Fraser.

With respect to the interview with Mr Fraser by Ms King on 13 March, we note you raise specific concerns of 'lightweight' treatment, when compared with Ms King's treatment of Ms Bligh in an interview on 18 March, most notably in respect to the issue of privatisation. The Editorial Policies state that, with respect to interviews, it is a matter of editorial judgement as to how, if and when the completed interview will be broadcast or published. Accordingly, we assess each interview for compliance with the ABC's editorial principles. In respect to the two interviews to which you refer, we can find no evidence to suggest they were not in keeping with the ABC's editorial standards.

We note you raise concerns regarding the interview with Ms Bligh's husband, Greg Wither, on 17 March on the Morning program. ABC Radio advise that the interview intentionally focussed on Mr Wither's experiences as the spouse of the leader of a political party, not policy information. ABC Radio also note that the Morning program sought an interview with LNP leader Lawrence Springborg's spouse, but this was not granted. Having reviewed the interview, we consider it to be appropriate and relevant in providing a different human interest angle to the current major news event of the time - the election - and of interest to the listening audience.

As indicated above, coverage in respect to the non-major parties and independent candidates during election campaigns is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. Whilst we note you provided information in respect to issues you considered to be worthy of coverage - including population growth, privatisation, and a survey being conducted on your website - the ABC determined, consistent with the principles outlined in the Editorial Policies that note staff are responsible for exercising editorial judgement, that these issues were not of news value at the time, and hence detailed coverage was not warranted. We further note that it is not the ABC's role to 'use its influence to prevail upon the major parties to respond' to the survey you were conducting on your website.

In addition to your question concerning privatisation being put to Mr Fraser on 13 March, you spoke on-air on the Breakfast program with Spencer Howson on 10 March. ABC Radio advise that Mr Howson had asked if community members were willing to pay $130 for a ticket to attend the Leaders debate. We note that your talkback call on the matter was put to air, you were identified by your full name and as an independent candidate for the Mount Coot-tha electorate. In addition to expressing your views on the Leaders debate ticket pricing, and concerns that the media and the debate would not address a number of important issues, you advised that you were participating in a free public debate in the Mount Coot-tha electorate and advised the date, time and location.

We regret you feel that the ABC demonstrated disdain for independent candidates in the Queensland State election, based on your experiences and those of fellow independent candidate Dave Zwolenski. However, we again point out that ABC coverage of independent candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness, consistent with our statutory obligations.

We note you make specific reference to a comment by either Ms King or Kellie Higgins-Devine on 20 March that noted an independent candidate was very late in releasing their policy statement, some two days before the election. On the basis of the information you have provided, we have been unable to identify the comment in the broadcasts of that day.

In both your blog and your email of 1 May, you allege 'shabby treatment' by 612 ABC Brisbane Program Director Kellie Riordan. ABC Radio advise that Ms Riordan telephoned you in March to assist you in understanding the process by which stories should be pitched to program teams, and also provided to you contact emails for those program teams. Ms Riordan explained that stories are judged on newsworthiness and relevance to the listening audience. We understand Ms Riordan noted you had already appeared as a talkback caller on the Breakfast program once, and had your question concerning privatisation put to Mr Fraser, and considered you had been provided sufficient coverage. We note that following this telephone conversation, you emailed Ms Riordan on 20 March regretting having argued so heatedly with her for so long, and reiterating your concerns that 612 ABC Brisbane was serving Brisbane voters very poorly.

Having reviewed your exchanges with Ms Riordan, on both the information provided by you and ABC Radio, we cannot agree that you were treated disrespectfully or inappropriately. Instead, we note that Ms Riordan articulated the ABC's editorial principles with respect to election coverage, and provided you with appropriate means by which to pitch stories to program teams to enable opportunities for coverage.

In your email of 27 May, you raise concerns that Ms King deleted two blog posts you submitted to the Morning program website. Please note that the ABC publishes blog posts based on numerous criteria including their relevance to the on-air program, their coherence and focus. The ABC is under no obligation to publish all blog posts submitted, and the moderation principles for user-generated content are outlined in section 9 of the Editorial Policies.

Unfortunately, the two blog posts you submitted are no longer available. However, ABC Radio advises that the Program Director, Ms Riordan, recalls that they articulated a general view as to why the Government should be opposed to privatisation and, on the basis of lack of relevance to the matters being covered on the program, were not published. Further, Ms Riordan advises that she cannot recall any posts that were critical of Ms King being submitted by you, but notes that posts that are critical of the program are routinely published on the blog.

I wish to assure you that the ABC is committed to editorial independence, and to coverage of election campaigns in accordance with its editorial principles outlined in the Code of Practice and Editorial Policies. The ABC establishes, for each election, an Election Coverage Review Committee which monitors and reviews the ABC's performance, balance and fairness in accordance with the editorial principles. Having reviewed the ABC's coverage of the Queensland State election, the Committee found it to be in keeping with the editorial principles. By way of illustration, 612 ABC Brisbane's cumulative coverage during the election, which closely matches polling, was 5:01:31 for the ALP; 4:53:59 for the LNP; 0:30:09 for the Greens; 0:46:59 for independents; and 0:20:45 for other coverage.

In summary, and having reviewed all the matters which you raise in your email of 1 May and blog post of 30 April, we believe that the 612 ABC Brisbane coverage of the Queensland State election, and the treatment of you as an independent candidate, was fair and appropriate, and in keeping with the editorial principles for election coverage and news and current affairs content as outlined in the ABC's Code of Practice and Editorial Policies.

With respect to your email of 27 May, we note you raise a separate concern as to whether you were deliberately cut off when you phoned in to the 612 ABC Brisbane Morning program that day to participate in talkback during a segment featuring Ms Bligh that covered, amongst other issues, privatisation. You also seek advice as to whether you are welcome to express your views on 612 ABC Brisbane, in particular the Morning program.

ABC Radio advise that you did not identify yourself by name when calling the program for talkback that day, and hence your call could not have been deliberately screened with the intention of not putting you to air. As is often the case with talkback, the volume of calls and time constraints were the likely cause of your call not being put to air. In this case, the Morning program producer, Simon Scoble, notes that callers telephoning after approximately 10:23am that morning were thanked for calling and advised there was no further time available for calls.

I understand Mr Scoble telephoned you on 28 May to explain the talkback process and your concerns in respect to this matter. As Mr Scoble advised, talkback calls are put to air at the producer's discretion and are judged on a number of factors including, but not limited to, relevance to the topic being discussed, whether the point to be made by the caller has already been sufficiently covered, and whether the point to be made will be of interest to the audience and can be made clearly and succinctly. Where possible, programs endeavour to give as many people as possible an opportunity to contribute to talkback, within the context of putting to air a diversity of voices and views, and other programming constraints and considerations.

I am assured by ABC Radio that you are welcome to contribute to 612 ABC Brisbane talkback, as is the case for all members of the community, noting that all calls will be assessed in respect to the editorial talkback considerations described above. In the case of your call on 27 May, we do not believe you were deliberately cut off or not put to air, and instead note that the management of the talkback session with Ms Bligh was in keeping with the ABC's editorial principles.

Nevertheless, please be assured that all of your concerns with respect to both election coverage and talkback on 612 ABC Brisbane have been conveyed to ABC Radio management.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for providing us an opportunity to respond. Please note, for future reference, that complaints about ABC editorial standards are best submitted via our online complaints form at: http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm.

Yours sincerely

Kirsten McLeod

Audience & Consumer Affairs

See also: "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09.

The following has been adapted from a leaflet (see attached as pdf file, 48K) handed out at the protest against privatisation outside the Queensland state Labor Party conference on Sunday 7 June 2009.

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

Since Labor won office the following assets have been sold:

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

Except where Peter Beattie broke his election promise to retain half ownership of the the SGIO (State Government Insurance Office, now known as SunCorp) the public were never consulted.

In the 2009 state elections, Queenslanders were once again denied their democratic right to decide the issue of privatisation by Anna Bligh's silence.

Public outcry against privatisation ignored

In recent weeks, the Queensland public has resoundingly rejected privatisation in letters to the editor, on talkback radio and online forums. 91% of respondents to a poll run by the Courier Mail answered 'no' the question "Should public assets be sold to balance the budget?'. Workers, threatened by privatisation, have protested, some even going on strike.

Anna Bligh has disregarded this outcry and, instead, obstinately pushed ahead, stating her intention to ignore the State Labor Party Conference should the vote go against privatisation.

Why privatisation can be stopped

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

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

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

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

"I'm not a union man, but if they are seriously planning to stop privatisation, they have my support." (from Courier Mail letters page, 5 Jun 09)

A prolonged campaign ...

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

This is insane!

If the union movement cannot win public support now, then when can we ever hope to win?

If decisive action is not taken early and, instead, the industrial campaign is drawn out, this will surely only make our fight harder.

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

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

... or decisive action now?

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

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

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

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

What you can do

• Attend protests against privatisation outside Parliament House at 9:00am on Tuesday 16 June, the day that the Budget that is to contain the privatisation legislation, is to be put to the Queensland Parliament. Note: not on Monday 15 June as previously advertised;
• Contact your member of state Parliament, Labor, LNP or independent and ask him/her to vote on the floor of Parliament for a bill requiring that the privatisation be put to a referendum;
• If you are a member of the Labor Party, demand the disendorsement of each and every MP who votes against the Labor Party's anti-privatisation policy;
• At election time vote for candidates opposed to privatisation;
• Attend union meetings and support any industrial action against privatisation
• Write letters to the newspapers, phone talkback radio and state your support for this campaign on online forums.
• Stay in touch with others opposed to privatisation, including the author of this leaflet.

About James Sinnamon, the author of this leaflet

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

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

I administer web sites and write articles for those web sites about my concerns. These include candobetter.org and citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com. I encourage others, who share my concerns, to also contribute to those web sites.

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

What you can do to prevent the theft of your property:
Sign the petition against privatisation;
Attend protests against privatisation at 9:00am on on Tuesday 16 June, the day that the Budget that is to contain the privatisation legislation is to be put to the Queensland Parliament. Note: not on Monday 15 June as previously advertised.

Dear Premier Anna Bligh,

Today, you told the Queensland public "(Privatisation) was not something that we had even fully contemplated because we didn't understand - nobody knew - the size and the extent of the effect of the global financial crisis on our revenue."

How is it that a political "nobody" like myself understood that privatisation would be on the political agenda even before the last state election, and yet you would have the Queensland public believe that this never occurred either to you nor to any of your full-time paid advisers?

On 17 February, even before the early elections were suddenly announced, I sent to both you and to the Treasurer an e-mail, #appendix_1">included below (and here), in which I stated my objections to privatisation. That letter is included below. In that letter, I pointed out that your Government had privatised a large number of publicly owned assets since winning office in 1998 without ever once having consulted the public.

During the election campaign I repeatedly raised this question with both you and the Treasurer, against whom I was standing, and challenged both of you, as well as Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg to debate the issue.

Correspondence concerning privatisation was sent either sent directly to you or cc'd to you on 12 March, 13 March, 18 March and 19 March (2 sent).

On 13 March, Madonna King asked Treasurer Andrew Fraser on my behalf if he would commit himself to not privatising further Government-owned assets. Andrew Fraser failed to answer that question.

On 18 March I sent a survey to you and to every Labor Party candidate and every other candidate I could reach, a survey which included the following question:

Will you give electors a categorical assurance, if elected, that either you will oppose any further sell-off of public assets, such as Queensland Rail, water infrastructure, electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, ports, airports, schools, hospitals, etc., or you will not support any sales until such time as the Queensland public have shown support for privatisation through a referendum or public opinion polls?

You have denied the Queensland public, the rightful owners of the assets you intend to sell, their democratic right to settle this critical issue at the last election, in spite of my best efforts.

I therefore ask that you either withdraw your privatisation plans and come up with other means acceptable to the Queensland public to get our state out of its current financial difficulties, or put the whole issue to a referendum.

Yours sincerely,
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Coot-tha
March 2009 State elections

Update (5 June 09): Anna Bligh's own Labor Party branch votes unanimously for her expulsion.. See story in the Courier Mail.

See also: Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise of 27 May 09,"Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections" of 17 Feb 09, "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09. Courier Mail Readers comments about privatisation, 299 so far, nearly all opposed.

What you can do to prevent the theft of your property:
Sign the petition against privatisation;
Attend protests against privatisation outside the state Labor Party conference this Queen's Birthday weekend including a protest organised by the ETU for Sunday at 11am.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1: E-mail sent to Premier Anna Bligh an Treasurer Andrew Fraser on 17 February 2009

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

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

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

One issue is privatisation.

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

Yet, most Australian governments, including your own, have persisted in imposing privatisation without any popular support and without any electoral mandate.
The list of privatisations, which comes to my mind, includes Energex, Ergon, the Golden Casket, the Mackay and Cairns airports, the Dalrymple Bay Coal loader and numerous tracts of valuable publicly owned land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 2: E-mail sent to Premier Anna Bligh an Treasurer Andrew Fraser on 12 March 2009

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

In the letter I sent to both of you on 17 February, before the elections were called I asked for "your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any (publicly owned) assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda."

I have still not received that simple assurance.

I ask this because I believe that, in a democracy, the public should be consulted by their elected representatives about all questions that will affect their lives, particularly decisions the (claimed) need for which can be easily foreseen.

However, as you are both surely well aware, the Queensland public has never been consulted about any of the numerous privatisations that have occurred since your Government came to power, starting with the full privatisation of the already partially privatised State Government Insurance Office (SGIO - now called SunCorp) in 1998 against a specific election promise made by former Premier Peter Beattie.

Had the Government retained ownership, or at least partial ownership, then at least one insurance company could have been directed by your government not to have resorted to the unconscionable business practices that have been described on the Madonna King radio show over the last two days.

Other privatisations, which have been imposed on the Queensland public since then include:

• The remaining government stake in Brisbane airport in 2009;
• Cairns Airport in 2009;

Mackay Airport in 2008;

• The Qld Government's stake in the Emu Downs wind farm in Western Australia in
  2008;
• The Enertex (not be confused with Energex) gas business5 in 2008;
• The Golden Casket state lottery agency in 2007;
• Ergon in 2006;
• Energex, the retail arm of Queensland's electricity generation utility in
  2006;
• the Dalrymple Bay coal loader in 2001
• TAB in 1999

I believe all have been detrimental to the public interest and some, including the privatisations of Energex, Ergon, the Dalrymple Bay coal loader and the SGIO, as discussed above, have been indisputably disastrous.

If the public had been consulted, none of these privatisations would have occurred and the Queensland public would have been spared the harm caused to them.

I therefore ask that you give, to the Queensland public, a categorical assurance that you will not privatise any more assets during the coming Parliamentary term.

If you are not prepared to give such an assurance, then privatisation is an issue at stake in these elections and should be openly discussed.

Accordingly, I would ask that, as a candidate opposed to privatisation, that you justify your stance before the Queensland public in a debate with me.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha

#reply" id="reply">Appendix 3: Anna Bligh's reply of 16 Jun 09

Dear Mr Sinnamon,

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the Government's recent announcement about asset sales.

My Government's Renewing Queensland Plan seeks to realign the State's asset base with the community's needs. I have enclosed a copy of my Ministerial Statement in this regard. It proposes the sale of a number of Government owned assets -- Forest Plantations Queensland, Queensland Motorways Limited, Port of Brisbane,Abbot Point Coal Port and the non-passenger sections of Queensland Rail.

The money raised will all be used to build new publicly owned assets -- public hospitals, schools, roads, and public transport infrastructure.

Of course, the Government would rather not have to contemplate the sale of these assets. It was not an easy decision to make and was not taken lightly.

However, falls in coal royalties, stamp duty, GST and other income in this global recession has robbed $15 billion from our budget over the next four years. That's about one-third of our entire annual State Budget.

These circumstances have brought into sharp focus the future challenges we face as a State and they are different to the challenges we've faced in the past.

In the last century, a key challenge was to provide the infrastructure to unlock our State's vast natural resources. So, for example, the Government built and owned ports and railways to haul coal at a time when private companies wouldn't do so.

But the coal industry is now well established with many of the world's largest, multi-national companies operating global businesses. Continued investment of tax payer funds into a commercial transport business for these companies simply cannot be prioritised over investment in passenger trains and public transport.

Do we continue to haul coal for private multinational coal companies? Or do we build new passenger rail networks and more buses for urban and regional Queensland?

Do we continue to own a forest plantation and buy and sell timber? Or do we finish building and rebuilding major hospitals in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Mt Isa, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, and the Gold Coast?

Do we continue to own a tollway on the Gateway Bridge? Or do we build new and safer roads in our many growth areas, like the Sunshine Coast Motorway, the Townsville Port Access Road, Forgan Smith Bridge in Mackay, Flinders Highway upgrade & the Bundaberg Ring Road?

Do we continue to own a port? Or do we build the new public housing and social infrastructure our State needs?

Or do we keep running these businesses, stop investing in them and let them run down? These are the choices. Doing nothing is not a choice.

The businesses we have chosen to sell are requesting investment of $12 billion from the Government over the next 4 years. That's $12 billion that can't be spent on schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.

It's true that some of these assets earn revenue for government. We will forgo about $280 million a year as a result of these sales. But the interest bill alone on the $12 million investment requested from Government is $750 million every year.

Some people are concerned about what this decision means for jobs. All enterprise bargaining agreements with workers will be honoured. As well employment guarantees will be in place for at least two years beyond the date of sale. Employees transferring to the new businesses will experience no interruption to their continuity of service, or accrued entitlements.

An industrial relations working party has been established to discuss the details of these arrangements with unions.

These are hard decisions. My Government went to the last election promising to maintain the State's record $18.1 billion building program. Not just for the 127,000 jobs it supports, but also because a State with a rapidly growing population can't afford to ease off building the infrastructure that supports our economy and community.

At a time when the State's income is under pressure due to the global recession, it is not possible to keep owning all we own while still borrowing to keep this building program going.
I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

ANNA BLIGH MP PREMIER OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane's local ABC radio morning presenter Madonna King failed to use knowledge that she had in her hands that would have demolished Queensland Premier Bligh's excuse for not raising the issue of privatisation during the recent state elections. When I tried to phone the ABC to put this knowledge directly to the Premier, I was cut off.

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise" of 27 May 09.

On the morning of Wednesday 28 May I heard Madonna King interviewing Queensland Premier Anna Bligh over her suddenly announced plans to privatise Queensland's publicly owned electricity generators, ports, railways and other assets.

When Madonna King asked Anna Bligh why she had not discussed her plans to privatise during the recent elections, the Premier claimed that the issue had not occurred to her.

For the Premier to have claimed that such a critical issue as privatisation would not have entered her head during the course of the election campaign would have truly been stretching he credulity of the ABC's listeners.

Almost certainly the real reason for her omission was that she knew that privatisation was overwhelmingly opposed by the Queensland public as even the editorial of Tuesday 26 May in the virulently pro-privatisation Courier Mail acknowledged:

"Predictably, (Premier Bligh and Treasurer Fraser) made no mention of this during the recent election campaign. This means they have either just come up with this idea in the face of worse-than-expected revenue figures, or, as is equally possible, they decided to wait until they were re-elected before unveiling a strategy that, if carried out, will almost certainly result in job losses."

In fact. Madonna King knew perfectly well that I, as a candidate, had attempted many times during the course of the election campaign to get both Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser to come clean with the Queensland electorate regarding privatisation during the course of the campaign. Indeed, only the previous day I had sent her a copy of a letter I had sent to the Courier Mail. In that letter, I wrote:

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

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

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

So, there could have been no possible excuse whatsoever for Premier Bligh not to have not mentioned the issue of privatisation during the elections, but in spite of having been repeatedly supplied this knowledge by me, Madonna King failed to put it to the Premier.

I attempted to phone the talkback line on 1300 22 612 in order to put this to the Premier.

When I phoned, I told them that I wanted to ask the Premier why my letter of 17 February was ignored and put to her that she therefore had no mandate to privatise.

I was thanked for my call, but after a few seconds, I was cut off.

I tried to dial again but found the lines engaged.

As I had already been treated poorly by the ABC during the course of the recent election campaign, it seemed likely to me that I had been deliberately cut off. So, during the day, I attempted to ring the ABC in order to establish whether or not this was the case. I left a message asking that I be called back, but was not contacted. I then posted the following letter to the ABC's feedback page:

"Hi,

"I'm trying to ascertain whether or not I was deliberately cut off, when I phoned in this morning to put a question to Premier Anna Bligh on the issue of privatisation.

"I wanted to ask her why she ignored my e-mail which asked her, prior to her calling the election, if she would inform Queenslanders of any plans to privatise any more of their assets during the election campaign.

"As Ms Bligh was trying to claim that the issue of privatisation had never occurred to her during the course of the campaign, I thought that this would be of utmost interest to your listeners.

"However, shortly after I was thanked for my call, I was cut off.

"I need to know whether or not this was deliberately done.

"So could someone please call me on ... so that I can know, from now on, whether or not I am welcome to express my views on Brisbane ABC local radio, in particular, Madonna Kings's Morning Show?

"I have already left a message to be called back and have tried unsuccessfully to dial 130022612 in order to be able to discuss this.

"Thank you.

"Yours sincerely,

"James Sinnamon

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

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09, "Queensland Government has no mandate to privatise" of 27 May 09.

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Sinnamon,

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

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

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

Air of panic in a cash-strapped state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brisbane's local ABC radio station 612 disregarded its own listeners' expressed dissatisfaction with both the major parties when, during the 2009 Queensland state elections, it refused any air time to local independent candidates. Instead, virtually all the available time was given over to candidates from the governing Labor Party or the Opposition Liberal National Party, who even according to the ABC's own listeners, provided little useful information.

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Courier Mail, ABC back Department of Main Roads land grab" of 29 Mar 09, "Why the Brisbane Mayoral elections should not have been 'boring'" of 23 Mar 08, "Courier Mail provides 'boring', yet unbalanced, coverage of Brisbane City Council elections" of 17 Mar 09.

See also: ABC's response in "ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections" of 10 Jun 09, "Courier Mail, ABC back Department of Main Roads land grab" of 29 Mar 09, "Why the Brisbane Mayoral elections should not have been 'boring'" of 23 Mar 08, "Courier Mail provides 'boring', yet unbalanced, coverage of Brisbane City Council elections" of 17 Mar 09.

#PopulationElectionIssue" id="PopulationElectionIssue">Population-growth-driven chaos observed by ABC, but ignored as election issue

On Friday 20 March 2009, the last day of the hectically brief Queensland state election campaign, a listener phoned Brisbane ABC radio 612 to say:

"It would be a lot better if the Queensland Government would stop inviting people to come to Queensland."

The following morning, on the day of the actual elections, Tony Eastley, ABC radio's national AM program presenter, reported:

"... Transport is increasingly a problem because of the huge population that's coming to south-east Queensland. Thousands and thousands of people arrive each week in south-east Queensland to take up employment, searching for something new in their lives, and the infrastructure in those places has really struggled to keep pace.

"When we were down there the other day there's always road work going on, there's always something happening, and I think people just genuinely get frustrated. Anyone listening to this program who lives in a city knows that there's an ongoing battle between what you want and what you get in cities as far as infrastructure goes."_#main-fn1">1

The fact that the Queensland Government had deliberately encouraged the population growth that had needlessly resulted in the "ongoing battle between what you want and what you get," as Tony Eastley had put it, and fully intended to continue doing so_#main-fn2">2, should have been a hot issue in the election campaign.

However, the Queensland Opposition is every bit as committed to the reckless encouragement of population growth as the Government,_#main-fn3">3 although this has not prevented it from taking cheap political shots at the Government for the problem of traffic congestion mentioned by Eastley and other problems that simply would not exist but for past population growth.

The Queensland Greens, on paper, stood opposed to population growth, but said nothing about it during the election campaign._#main-fn4">4

So that only left myself, and possibly a few other independents, who were prepared to speak out against population growth. None were approached by the ABC as far as I could tell. Even though I had sent a lot of material on population growth, the ABC ignored the issue or ignored me.

This meant that the majority of Queenslanders opposed to population growth, were kept ignorant by the ABC of how to express those views at the ballot box.

#InformationNeeded" id="InformationNeeded">Voters' wishes for information on alternatives to the two major parties ignored

During the elections there was abundant evidence of voter dissatisfaction with both the ruling Labor Party and the Opposition Liberal National Party. Population would have been one of many factors.

On 6 March, the Courier Mail newspaper's Galaxy Poll showed that 56% of voters did not believe that the Labor Government deserved to be re-elected. 57% of voters did not believe the Opposition Liberal National Party (LNP) deserved to win. Immediately prior to the date of the elections, two weeks later, on Friday 20 March, the same poll showed that attitudes had barely changed. 57% of voters believed that the LNP did not deserve to win and 57% believed that Labor did not deserve to win.

These poll results were confirmed throughout the election campaign by many listeners' calls to the ABC's local Brisbane Radio station 612.

One listener objected to the LNP because they supported Uranium mining, but he said he didn't like the Labor party either. Another said she would be voting for the LNP, but not because she liked the LNP, only because she saw it is preferable to Labor. Still another stated, "None of them are any good."

One listener stated that he wanted to vote for a good independent and explicitly asked that more information be provided.

The fact that most of their listeners had expressed dissatisfaction with the major parties did not deter the ABC from devoting nearly all the available election coverage to those same major parties -- usually state government ministers and shadow ministers -- and to almost no-one else.

Of what was said on air by the major party spokespersons, one listener complained, "they come on and waffle on and on." That they had indeed waffled on, and that the ABC had wasted its listeners' time was further confirmed immediately after the elections.

On the Monday 23 March, at least two listeners phoned in to say that the ABC had provided them with insufficient policy detail about the major party candidates. One of them stated that she consequently voted for Anna Bligh only on the basis of her having been depicted well in a personal light in interview with her husband (referred to also below).

#DisdainForIndependents" id="DisdainForIndependents">Open ABC disdain for independent candidates

It was incumbent on the taxpayer-funded ABC to encourage any independent candidate who overcame Anna Bligh's engineered time constraints and had information ready for the voting public despite often limited campaign budgets. Instead, one ABC presenter effectively ridiculed an independent candidate before her audiences on one occasion, when, on Friday 20 March, the day before the elections, a morning presenter_#main-fn5">5 told listeners of an independent candidate who had only managed to release his policy statement the previous day. Then she remarked:

"They're leaving their pitch until a little late, aren't they?"

No useful information was given to the audience about that candidate.

#RequestsIgnored" id="RequestsIgnored">Requests for air time ignored

In fact, one candidate, namely me, had provided the ABC with plenty of information, and in plenty of time, but the ABC presenter neglected to tell her audience this.

I was not given air-time and the information I made available was not used, in spite of its clear relevance to concerns expressed by ABC listeners during the election campaign.

Although I presented it to the ABC through e-mails, media releases, text messages, telephone calls and even a printed brochure, delivered to the studio on Saturday, one week before the elections, no information was passed on to the public. Nor did the ABC give me any opportunity to put that information to voters myself. If any other candidate also campaigned actively for those policies, they certainly got no exposure either.

The total return on all my efforts was only two tiny instances of exposure (see, also, below):

• When I phoned in around 8.00am on Monday 9 March, I was able to introduce myself as an independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha and then announce a 'meet the candidates' night for my electorate scheduled for Monday 16 March;
• After the 10:00am news Friday 13 March, Madonna King put to Andrew Fraser a question on my behalf: Would he commit himself to not privatising any more Government owned assets? His response to that question, which I considered unsatisfactory, was accepted without further pursuit.

#SpuriousJustifications" id="SpuriousJustifications">Spurious justifications for refusal of air time

On the two occasions I spoke to ABC staff to request more time, they protested that I had had more than a fair amount of coverage. They argued that they could not allocate air-time to every independent candidate.

However it was Anna Bligh's decision_#main-fn6">6, and not mine to hold an early election of less than four weeks duration.

So, far from compensating the electorate for Anna Bligh's own decision, the ABC lavished her and other Labor candidates with air-time. At the same time the ABC seemed to go out of its way to ensure no Greens or independents like me, might challenge her policies with substantially new or different ones.

The ABC even found time to broadcast an interview with Anna Bligh's husband Greg Withers, who, unsurprisingly, depicted Anna Bligh sympathetically, but gave no useful policy information._#main-fn7">7

Thus the ABC, the nation's public, tax-paid broadcaster, utterly failed to disseminate vital information to taxpayers on the core business of government - a state election. It did not just fail; it seemed to present an obstacle to a real election choice.

Much of the little time scheduled for election coverage was often taken up with other stories of little practical relevance to ordinary voters. For instance, one session discussed an article by Murdoch journalist, Glen Milne, in the Australian,_#main-fn8">8 which advocated that Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman join the campaign on Lawrence Springborg's side. Whilst the article may have held interest for LNP strategists, it is clear that these sorts of programming decisions prevented many of the ABC's listeners from being able to arrive at informed decisions when they voted.

Why didn't the ABC schedule enough time to interview all the candidates? In fact, that is the policy of the ABC's local Adelaide Radio Station. On 22 Mar 09 the following was posted to a forum discussion:

"Here in South Australia, we enjoy the award winning ABC 891 Adelaide who make a feature of giving all the independents adequate time to present their policies and issues.

"Listeners obviously appreciate being fully informed, a fact which seems to have gone over the heads of ABC 612."_#main-fn9">9

If it could be done in Adelaide, then why not also in Brisbane?

#MyApproaches" id="MyApproaches">Madonna King refuses to hold Labor Government to account for public asset fire sale ...

As part of my efforts to obtain air time on the ABC, I sent a number of ABC presenters, including Madonna King, copies of an e-mail concerning privatisation, which I had sent to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser (see #appendix3">Appendix 3).

The e-mail pointed out that a large number of publicly owned assets had been privatised since the Labor Party won government in 1998, but that those privatisations had not been put to the Queensland public at election times, nor had the public been consulted in any other way. I concluded the letter as follows:

"If the public had been consulted, none of these privatisations would have occurred and the Queensland public would have been spared the harm caused to them.

"I therefore ask that you give, to the Queensland public, a categorical assurance that you will not privatise any more assets during the coming Parliamentary term.

"If you are not prepared to give such an assurance, then privatisation is an issue at stake in these elections and should be openly discussed.

"Accordingly, I would ask that, as a candidate opposed to privatisation, you justify your stance before the Queensland public in a debate_{#main-fn10">10} with me.

On the following day, Friday 13 March, when I heard that Andrew Fraser was to be interviewed by Madonna King, I created the text message which follows as fast as I could and sent it off as the interview was proceeding:

"James Sinnamon, Independent for Mount Coot-tha asks: Why weren't Qld public consulted about privatisation of Brisbane, Mackay Cairns airports, Energex, etc?"

It turned out that Madonna King had already decided to put a question to Andrew Fraser on my behalf as James Sinnamon, an Independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha. She asked him:_{#main-fn11">11} would he commit himself to not privatising further Government-owned assets?

Andrew Fraser responded by telling listeners that he had already sent me a letter in response to my question.

In fact, no posted letter ever arrived and I only received an e-mail later that day, which means that it could not have been sent at the time Andrew Fraser claimed. The e-mail actually arrived three and a half weeks after I had first e-mailed my question to Andrew Fraser._{#main-fn12">12}

Any impression audiences may have received that Andrew Fraser was in this case responsive to the concerns of his detractors, would have been misleading, in fact.

Mr Fraser then claimed that the Government had no plans to privatise more assets and that he was ideologically opposed to privatisation.

Nothing further was asked by Madonna King concerning privatisation.

None of the many other facts contained in my e-mail, my text message, or my web site, were put to Andrew Fraser. The fact that he neither made the firm commitment I was seeking, nor agreed to defend his stance in a public debate, was not pointed out to the audience. The interviewer did not confront him with the general failure in the previous election to consult the public about the privatisations which had followed, including Mr Fraser's own enactment of airport privatisations. Nor did she put to him that the public overwhelmingly opposes privatisation.

To my knowledge, that was the only time during the whole election campaign, that I am aware of, that the ABC ever raised the issue of privatisation with the Labor Government, although the ABC's listeners did raise it themselves on a few occasions.

After I received the promised letter from Andrew Fraser, I found its contents differed significantly from his account on the ABC. At one point the letter stated:

"We will only ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the Queensland community."

This was clearly different to Fraser's stated claim that he had "no plans to privatise" and it obviously fell even further short of the assurance I had been seeking.

At the end, his letter stated:

"We ... will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation."_{#main-fn13">13}

Again different to Mr Fraser's claim that he was "ideologically opposed to privatisation".

I believe that I was entitled to air time on the ABC, to rectify that misinformation.

However, my subsequent e-mailed requests for more time were also ignored.(see Appendices #appendix8">8 and #appendix9">9)

My e-mail to Andrew Fraser and Anna Bligh (see #appendix6">Appendix 6 ), CC'd to Kellie Riordan and Madonna King, pointing out Mr Fraser's self-contradiction and re-affirming my challenge to debate him on privatisation, was also ignored by all recipients.

#ElectricityShambles" id="ElectricityShambles">... but proves capable of asking hard questions when she chooses to

In contrast to her lightweight handling of Andrew Fraser on privatisation, the following week, on Wednesday 18 March, Madonna King showed that she could, when she applied herself, nail politicians down with their own words.

A listener called in to ask if Anna Bligh was prepared to apologise to electricity consumers for promising them that electricity charges would not go up as a result of privatisation of Energex - the retail arm of the state's electricity service, when, in fact, they had faced massive hikes, with the caller's own annual electricity having risen by $450.

Anna Bligh did not apologise. Instead, she claimed that she merely promised that no-one would have been any worse off than they otherwise would have been (which, if it had been made at the time, would have been regarded as the meaningless guarantee that it was). She attributed much of the increases to the need to build more electricity infrastructure (which would have been unnecessary if she had not encouraged #PopulationElectionIssue">population growth, although she neglected to mention this).

Madonna King confronted Bligh with the question:

"Are you absolutely sure that you didn't say that it would be cheaper?"

Anna Bligh responded:

"I didn't say that."

The next day, Anna Bligh's words from Hansard of 28 Sep 2005 and which had been looked up by a researcher from the LNP were quoted by Madonna King:

"Most importantly, it does not matter where you live, nobody--not one Queenslander--will be worse off under the government's proposal."

So, whilst no evidence that Anna Bligh had explicitly told the Queensland public that electricity prices would be cheaper was found, her guarantee that nobody would be worse off had been unconditional and it would have appeared that Queensland consumers were, after all, entitled to the apology that had been asked of Anna Bligh.

Over the following days, the ABC rightly reminded its listeners of this.

If Madonna King could have held Anna Bligh to account on that one issue, then why not on others, and why not also with Andrew Fraser on the issue of privatisation, when she had all the information provided by me at her finger tips?

The fact, that the link to the question put to Andrew Fraser about privatisation the previous week, which should have been blindingly obvious, was not pointed out to the ABC's audience, contributes to the impression that these rare examples where politicians are asked truly hard questions are part of a token, rather than systematic approach.

#GoalPostsShifted" id="GoalPostsShifted">The ABC shifts the goal posts

On the morning of Monday 16 March, I received a mobile phone voice message from Kellie Riordan, the ABC Radio's news director. The message advised me once again that they could not give me any more time than I had already been given. However, if I sent them anything that could be considered newsworthy, I might stand a chance.

I sent an e-mail back (see #appendix9">Appendix 9) restating that I believed that I was entitled to time, anyway, in the circumstances, but that I would do my best to provide material that was newsworthy.

The following day, I sent a media release "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" (see #appendix10">Appendix 10) to Kellie Riordan and other ABC staff, but they still did not report it and they still failed to give me air time.

During the rest of that last week before the election I sent to the ABC's Brisbane radio station:

• On Wednesday, an e-mail to Madonna King asking for air time in response to listeners' expressed dissatisfaction with major party candidates (see #appendix11">Appendix 11);
• On Thursday, an e-mail asking that they publicise a survey sent to all candidates I could reach and the responses to which had been published on my web site (see #appendix12">Appendix 12).
• On Thursday, a text message sent at the time Lawrence Springborg was being interviewed: "Could u ask Mr Springborg if he would agree to respond to my survey at candobetter.org/qldelections/survey ? James Sinnamon ind 4 mt coot-tha"
• On Thursday, an e-mail to Lawrence Springborg challenging him to defend the pro-privatisation view that he had espoused in an interview in a public debate (see #appendix13">Appendix 13), which was CC'd to the ABC;
• On Friday, a media release about my challenge to debate Lawrence Springborg (see #appendix14">Appendix 14);

All of these communications were ignored. None were used in any news broadcasts as far as I am aware and no air time was given to me as a result.

#SurveyIgnored" id="SurveyIgnored">Survey ignored

The survey mentioned above was to inform voters of candidates' attitudes towards the issue of privatisation and population growth, mentioned previously, as well as:

• Premier Bligh's plans to triple Queensland's already record levels of coal exports by 2030 entailing the destruction of agricultural land and nature refuges;
• the construction of a second massive Chinese-owned aluminium smelter in addition to the existing smelter at Gladstone;
• making access to affordable housing and water a human right; and
• a government sponsored full-employment program.

The list was not comprehensive, but, nevertheless covered a good many more important issues that I believe the Queensland public had a right to be informed about before they voted.

Evidently, the ABC did not agree.

I had set it it up to make it as easy as possible for any voter to quickly work out where each candidate standing in his electorate stood on each of these issues. I included a table with an entry for each candidate in each electorate. Where a candidate would not have been able to simply provide a 'yes', 'no' or 'undecided' to any of the questions, a further column included a link to another page containing comments.

By the morning of 19 March I had received responses to the survey from some of the Greens and Independents and had published them. Although not one major party candidate had answered and although the ground covered by the survey was far from complete it was a start and provided an opportunity for voters to gain more vital knowledge of the candidates' policies. Had other politicians been encouraged to respond to the questionnaire and had its existence been made known, it would have filled a major deficit in electoral policy information.

As I have said above, I sent an e-mail (see #appendix12">Appendix 12) to Madonna King and other presenters on Thursday 19 April, advising her of the survey. I also asked that the ABC use its influence to prevail upon the major parties to respond and, on the following day, a text message was sent whilst Lawrence Springborg was being interviewed.

Even the fact that on Thursday morning the ABC's own listeners had, yet again, expressed their dissatisfaction with the major parties and had asked for information on alternative candidates, as I pointed out in the e-mail, failed to galvanise our public broadcaster.

#DaveZwolenski" id="DaveZwolenski">Dave Zwolenski's campaign material also not good enough for the ABC

Dave Zwolenksi stood as an independent candidate in the same electorate in which I stood. He campaigned on the more limited, but, nevertheless, important platform of total truthfulness and openness in our politicians. During the campaign he produce some polished and original material included a media release, posters and a YouTube video.

In the YouTube video, he appeared in a succession of scenes in the Mount Coot-tha electorate, each progressively closer to the Queensland Parliament, itself not far outside the electorate. In each successive scene, he takes off more and more clothes. In the final scene, he removes his pants and stands stark naked, although with an electronic equivalent of a figleaf in from of him, in front of the Queensland Parliament as a metaphor for the openness for which he was campaigning.

This campaign was also totally ignored by the ABC as well as by nearly all of the rest of newsmedia._{#main-fn14">14}

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the ABC never seriously intended giving substantial air time to me or any other independent candidate. Had they had the courtesy to say so at the outset, then I could have used the time I had spent trying to get air time on the public broadcaster more productively elsewhere.

#VotersRightsDenied" id="VotersRightsDenied">ABC's election coverage denies voters the right to hold elected representatives to account

Democracy was famously defined by US President Abraham Lincoln during his address following the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 as "government of the people by the people for the people."

In Australia, in the early 21st century, democracy has been effectively redefined by the mass media to mean something far more limited. It has come to mean no more than the right of the electorate to decide, every three or four years, which of the two major parties, promoted by Australia's corporate elite, may make the sweeping decisions they claim via the mainstream media to be in the electorate's best interests.

In the intervening period between elections, voters have practically no right to influence what the elected government can and cannot do.

Even during the elections only a small subset of policy areas is ever discussed. In the 2004 federal elections, as examples, Prime Minister John Howard made no mention of his plans to savagely attack the wages and conditions of ordinary workers with his so-called "Work Choices" legislation, and discussion of his plans to fully privatise Telstra was almost completely avoided. In the 2009 Queensland state elections, the issues covered were mostly limited to fiscal management, health, road transport (but not public transport), water, and power supply and only within very restricted parameters.

In effect, this means that the public are usually left with very little to choose from between the major parties when they reach the polling booth and are largely ignorant of candidates, like me, who question the status quo.

This practically guarantees that politicians who have poorly served their constituents will continue to be re-elected or, at worst, only be replaced occasionally by one from the other major party who is unlikely to be any better. New candidates stand hardly any chance of being heard, let alone winning.

This is how the ABC has itself largely brought about the circumstances of which its own listeners complain, that is, about how they are ruled by governments that 57% don't believe deserve to rule.

In the past, the ABC in Queensland was rightly viewed as a fierce and independent critic of the state government, particularly during the Bjelke-Petersen years. However this is no longer the case. The ABC is no longer part of the solution. It has become part of the problem.

#appendix1" id="appendix1">Appendix 1: E-mail of Fri 6 Mar 09 to Kellie Riordan requesting air time

Subject: Air time on ABC 612 for independent candidate for Mount Coot-tha?

Dear Kellie Riordan/Anna Reynolds,

Could you tell me what my prospects are to have air time on the ABC in these coming two weeks?

I am essentially available at any time.

Whilst I am slow off the mark, you will find some information about my campaign at http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha http://candobetter.org/QldElections.

There's more about me on my home page, included below.

Throughout the years I have been interviewed on radio, mostly on the issue of privatisation of Telstra(1). I also stood as candidate for Lord Mayor and was interviewed once last year in the studio at Lissner Street.

If you know of anyone else you think may be interested, please let me know. Also, please feel welcome to pass on my contact details to such people.

Best regards,

James Sinnamon
Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
james -dot- sinnamon |AT| gmail -dot- com
0412 319669
http://candobetter.org/james

1. Some information (although now largely dated) can be found at http://citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com.

#appendix2" id="appendix2">Appendix 2: E-mail of Tue 10 Mar 09 to Madonna King requesting air time

Subject: Please give more air time to discuss election issues of substance

CC'd to Kellie Riordan, Richard Fidler and Spencer Howson.

Dear Madonna King,

I believe that yesterday's discussion on whether or not Lord Mayor Campbell Newman should enter the Queensland election campaign could have been better spent discussing issues of substance at stake in the elections.

In my view far too much air time and newspaper column inches has been given in recent years to topics which, whilst of interest to members of the LNP and Labor Parties, hold far less interest to members of the broader public.

I am an independent candidate contesting the seat of Mount Coot-tha. I am standing, in part to raise, before the broader public, issues of critical importance which I believe are at stake in this election, but which are not being adequately covered by the newsmedia.

These include:

* Privatisation, of which my electoral opponent Treasurer Andrew Fraser has been principle architect.

* The run away housing unaffordability crisis, which is literally impoverishing many Brisbane people, including even well-paid professionals (such as a surveyor who lives near me who had to cancel his annual flight back to Europe because of recent rent increases).

* The destruction of businesses in Inner city Brisbane also due to excessive rental increases. Only the weekend before last week the Baboa Art Gallery, which had operated on Latrobe Terrace Paddington for only two and a half years had to close its doors because its rent had doubled in that time. On Monday last week I walked by to see the interior of the Gallery, carefully constructed by its operator Joan Winter only two an a half years earlier already destroyed by workmen in preparation for the next tenant.

Since early 2008, virtually a whole retail community further down Latrobe Street closer to Given Terrace has been similarly wiped out by rent increases, actively encouraged by local real estate agents.

I could not recognise a single business that had been there when I wrote and talked of it during the Brisbane City Council elections as Lord Mayoral candidate (See "Rent gouging threatens Brisbane inner city retail community" at http://candobetter.org/node/360).

* Population Growth, which is the principle driver of all our social, environmental and economic problems (including housing unaffordability).

* The despoliation of Queensland's natural habitat (see "Coal mine threatens Queensland Nature Refuge" at http://candobetter.org/node/1129) and the rest of the world by Queensland's mining industry. (see "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent").

* etc., etc, etc.

I think if you or other ABC presenters can find the time to interview me about these issues and others I have raised in my article "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent" at:

http://candobetter.org/node/1121
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

... your listeners will be very grateful.

yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
http://candobetter.org/james

#appendix3" id="appendix3">Appendix 3: E-mail of Thu 12 Mar 09 to Premier Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser

Subject: Independent candidate seeks assurance from Government against any further privatisations

CC'd to: Madonna King, Kellie Riordan, Spencer Howson, Annie Guest, Lawrence Springborg and others.

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

In the letter I sent to both of you on 17 February, before the elections were called I asked for "your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any (publicly owned) assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda."

I have still not received that simple assurance.

I ask this because I believe that, in a democracy, the public should be consulted by their elected representatives about all questions that will affect their lives, particularly decisions the (claimed) need for which can be easily foreseen.

However, as you are both surely well aware, the Queensland public has never been consulted about any of the numerous privatisations that have occurred since your Government came to power, starting with the full privatisation of the already partially privatised State Government Insurance Office (SGIO - now called SunCorp) in 1998 against a specific election promise made by former Premier Peter Beattie.

Had the Government retained ownership, or at least partial ownership, then at least one insurance company could have been directed by your government not to have resorted to the unconscionable business practices that have been described on the Madonna King radio show over the last two days.

Other privatisations, which have been imposed on the Queensland public since
then include:

* The remaining government stake in Brisbane airport in 2009

* Cairns Airport in 2009

* Mackay Airport in 2008

* The Qld Government's stake in the Emu Downs wind farm in Western Australia in 2008;

* The Enertex (not be confused with Energex) gas business in 2008;

* The Golden Casket state lottery agency in 2007;

* Ergon Gas in 2006;

* Energex, the retail arm of Queensland's electricity generation utility in 2006;

* the Dalrymple Bay coal loader in 2001

* TAB in 1999

I believe all have been detrimental to the public interest and some, including the privatisations of Energex, Ergon, the Dalrymple Bay coal loader and the SGIO, as discussed above, have been indisputably disastrous.

If the public had been consulted, none of these privatisations would have occurred and the Queensland public would have been spared the harm caused to them.

I therefore ask that you give, to the Queensland public, a categorical assurance that you will not privatise any more assets during the coming Parliamentary term.

If you are not prepared to give such an assurance, then privatisation is an issue at stake in these elections and should be openly discussed.

Accordingly, I would ask that, as a candidate opposed to privatisation, that you justify your stance before the Queensland public in a debate with me.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix4" id="appendix4">Appendix 4: E-mail of Thu 12 Mar 09 requesting air time

Subject: The prospects of air time discuss privatisation, population growth, climate-changing coal exports, etc.

Dear Kellie,

I tried to phone today to find out whether or not I was likely to get air time on ABC 612 in the coming days.

I believe that the issues I want to raise are of immense interest to the Queensland public.

It seems to have been implied that because I was heard once on the radio at Breakfast show I should not be heard again before the elections.

If that is what has been decided, then I think that that would be a mistaken decision, that is, unless you are giving air time to other candidates, who are raising the same issues which I am trying to raise (see below) -- which I would welcome.

Whatever, I want to see all the candidates are properly scrutinised by ABC journalists on all the questions I have raised so that at least ABC audience will properly informed of the choices before them at these elections.

I trust that you will do what you can to bring this about.

So, could you phone me on [...] to discuss this?

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix5" id="appendix5">Appendix 5: E-mail of Fri 13 Mar 09 to Kellie Riordan

Subject:Re: The prospects of air time discuss privatisation, population growth, climate-changing coal exports, etc

Date: 13/03/09 02:02 pm
CC'd to: Madonna King

Dear Kellie,

Further to yesterday's e-mail, I would still like to know whether or not it will be possible to have air time on Brisbane local radio in the coming days.

I appreciate that Madonna King put my question to Andrew Fraser this morning, but it seems to me that she left him off the hook far too easily.

His response that he had no plans to privatise electricity and that he was ideologically against privatisation should have been easily anticipated by anyone familiar with this issue.

Points I had made in my correspondences which could have been used but were not put. Even a text message I sent to Madonna King could have been easily use to follow up but was not. That text message was:

"James Sinnamon, Independent for Mount Coot-tha asks: Why weren't Qld public consulted about Brisbane, Mackay Cairns airports, Energex, etc?"

Consequently, our politicians, who should be being held properly to account in this period are getting off far too lightly making the current elections a pale imitation of true democracy.

I suggest once again, you give time to candidates like myself to candidates who are raising the issues of real concern.

Another candidate you should get in contact with is Robert Huston, Greens candidate for Mount Ommaney who wrote a short article which I posted on my web site.

"Qld Greens: 'competitive' market a calamity for electricity consumers" at http://candobetter.org/node/1139

He can be reached at mount.ommaney[AT]qld.greens.org.au 0428 XXX XXX

I am sure he would be happy to speak to you.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

#appendix6" id="appendix6">Appendix 6: E-mail of Fri 13 Mar 09 to Andrew Fraser

Subject: Categorical assurance against privatisation has not been given by Andrew Fraser

Date: 13/03/09 04:45 pm

CC'd to: Madonna King, Kellie Riordan and others

(Subject was: Response)

Dear Andrew Fraser,

The letter I have received from you is not the categorical assurance against privatisation that I was seeking from you.

Furthermore, it significantly contradicts what I recall that you told Brisbane listeners on Madonna King's Breakfast show this morning.

This morning, according to my recollection, you said that there were no plans to privatise any more of Queensland's assets and that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation.

In contrast, your letter states:

"The Queensland Government's record on the Sale of Government. We will only ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the Queensland community."

Further along, in marked contrast to my recollection of your statement that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation, the letter merely states, "We have not and will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation."

So can you please make clear to me whether you are ideologically opposed to privatisation or just merely not ideologically in favour of privatisation?

Either way this doesn't provide the categorical assurance I was seeking.

I therefore repeat my challenge to you, and to other candidates, who appear to favour privatisation during the next term of Parliament, including, it would seem, the opposition leader Lawrence Springborg, that you publicly debate the issue of privatisation with a candidate opposed to privatisation, such as myself.

I will also be asking all candidates for categorical assurances that they will oppose privatisation during the course of the next Parliament. I trust that the ABC, the Courier Mail and other newsmedia will make the responses known to electors so that they can be fully informed when they cast their votes.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix7" id="appendix7">Appendix 7: E-mail of Mon 16 Mar 09 to Kellie Riordan advising that anti-privatisation Greens candidate Robert Huston would like air time

Subject: Robert Huston, Greens Candidate for Mount Ommaney confirms that he would like air time

Date: 16/03/09 12:21 am

CC'd to Madonna King.

Hi James,

I would be happy to talk to local radio about the disaster of electricity supply management.

Regards

Robert Huston BVSc. BEnv.Sc. MPhil.
Greens candidate for Mt Ommaney
...

#appendix8" id="appendix8">Appendix 8: E-mail of Mon 16 Mar 09 to Madonna King requesting air time to counter Andrew Fraser's misleading statements of Friday

Subject: URGENT: request air time to correct misleading statements by Andrew Fraser broadcast on Friday

Date: 16/03/09 08:51 am

CC'd to: Kellie Riordan and others

Dear Madonna King,

Further to my e-mail on Friday, I request that I be given air time on your program to correct the misleading and incomplete response, given by Andrew Fraser, the sitting member for Mount Coot-tha in response to my question.

That question which attempted to establish whether or not Queenslanders can expect even more of their assets to be privatised in the next term of Parliament. How Andrew Fraser's answer misled your audience was explained in an e-mail, sent to Andrew Fraser (included also below), which was cc'd to you:

"Furthermore, (the letter) significantly contradicts what I recall that you told Brisbane listeners on Madonna King's Breakfast show this morning.

"This morning, according to my recollection, you said that there were no plans to privatise any more of Queensland's assets and that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation.

In contrast, your letter states:

"'The Queensland Government's record on the Sale of Government. We will only ever agree to such sales where there are demonstrable benefits to the Queensland community.'

"Further along, in marked contrast to my recollection of your statement that you were ideologically opposed to privatisation, the letter merely states, 'We have not and will not pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation.'"

I believe that your audience is entitled to have this misinformation corrected.

This is all the more urgent as I am a candidate who represents the overwhelming opposition of electors both in Mount Coot-tha and the rest of Queensland to privatisation. That popular rejection of privatisation has been repeatedly defied, in practice, by both the Labor Government, in particular, the Treasurer Andrew Fraser and the LNP opposition, which, in Government, has conducted its own privatisations and, in Opposition, has voted for all the Government's privatisation bills, should be treated as a serious election issue.

I am the only candidate in Mount Coot-tha, and one of very few across the state, who has attempted to give this critical issue the prominence it deserves.

I am happy to be interviewed on my own or together with Andrew Fraser.

In my view, to not agree to my request for air time in these circumstances would amount to withholding to Brisbane electors, information about a vital issue at stake in these elections.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
...
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

(Subject was: Response)

Dear Andrew Fraser,

The letter I have received from you is not the categorical assurance against privatisation that I was seeking from you.

(See #appendix6">Appendix 6 for the rest of this included e-mail.)

#appendix9" id="appendix9">Appendix 9: E-mail of Mon 16 Mar 09 to Kellie Riordan in response to voice message

Subject: Robert Huston, Greens Candidate for Mount Ommaney confirms that he would like air time

CC'd to: Madonna King

Dear Kellie,

Sorry I missed your call just now. I will try to keep the phone closer to me from now on, but a return number would also be helpful.

I don't think your response addressed my concerns, so my request for air time still stands. I have shown that Andrew Fraser misled your program's listeners and did not fully answered my question, so on that grounds alone I believe I am entitled to air time.

If there is insufficient time to allow such misinformation to be corrected and to force candidates to adequately answer questions of electors and other candidates, let alone for views, which enjoy overwhelming public support such as opposition to privatisation to be put, then this election is a farce and the ABC should be telling that to its listeners.

However, as I wrote before, the ABC programmers could help by focusing more on substantive issues rather than pondering whether or not it would be a good idea for Campbell Newman to help Lawrence Springborg.

I would also suggest that whilst the story about Anna Bligh's husband Greg Withers was not altogether without interest, given the time constraints, of which you complain, that should have been left until after the election.

I will, as you suggest, send news items, but you must appreciate that it is more difficult with few resources and not enough time.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
...
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix10" id="appendix10">Appendix 10: Media release on privatisation sent to Kellie Riordan and others

Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation
Media release of 17 Mar 09

Queensland voters, who overwhelmingly oppose privatisation, have a right to know which candidates can be relied upon to block any further sell-offs of public assets, said James Sinnamon, independent candidate for the Brisbane inner-north-west seat of Mount Coot-tha.

"The privatisation of the Cairns, Mackay and Brisbane airports, the Golden Casket, Energex and Ergon during the last term of Parliament, demonstrate that privatisation was an issue at stake in the 2006 state elections," said the independent candidate, "yet where were the electors told of this?"

(For the rest of the media release, see "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" of 17 Mar 09.)

#appendix11" id="appendix11">Appendix 11: E-mail of Wed 18 Mar 09 to Madonna King asking for air time in response to listeners' dissatisfaction with major party candidates

Subject: If listeners are dissatsifed with major parties, why aren't others given air time on your program?

Date: 18/03/09 11:39 am

CC'd to: Kellie Riordan, Richard Fidler

Dear Madonna King,

As you have just heard from your own listeners, a lot of electors are extremely dissatisfied with what both major parties have to offer.

So, why are candidates, who stand for something different and, on many issues,such as privatisation and population growth, actually represent the majority view, getting so little air time on your program, and on the ABC in general?

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
...
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix12" id="appendix12">Appendix 12: E-mail of Thu 19 Mar 09 to Brisbane ABC local radio staff asking that survey be publicised in response to listeners requests for more information

Subject: Please advise listeners of my online survey sent to all candidates

Dear Madonna King, Richard Fidler, Kellie Riordan, Annie Guest et al,

I have heard a number of listeners saying to Madonna King on her program that they are dissatisfied with the major parties and that they want more information about policies.

Could you please advise your listeners that they can find answers to much of the information they seek printed in results to a survey on my web site.

Late last night and this morning I sent out survey questions concerning privatisation, population growth, the environment and full employment to every candidate I was able to e-mail. That survey is included below.

As I write, I am receiving responses. I am publishing the results at:

http://candobetter.org/QldElections/survey

I am also publishing any more detailed comments I have received.

Could you please advise your listeners of this survey and do you think you could use your good influence to prevail upon candidates from the major parties to respond to my survey?

So far, none have responded.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
...
http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix13" id="appendix13">Appendix 13: E-mail of Thu 19 Mar 09 challenging Lawrence Springborg to debate privatisation

Subject: URGENT: Please justify your pro-privatisation stance in a public debate

Date: 19/03/09 02:37 pm

CC'd to: Madonna King, Kellie Riordan, Richard Fidler, Annie Guest and others.

Dear Lawrence Springborg,

If you intend to privatise any more of public assets I believe you have an obligation to satisfy Queensland voters that this is justified.

To date this has never happened and all privatisations have been overwhelmingly opposed by public opinion.

All privatisations, without exception, have been public policy disasters and any further privatisations undertaken by a further LNP Government or a future Labor Government are almost certain to be no different.

I therefore challenge you or any other LNP candidate to justify in a public debate before the election your refusal to rule out any more privatisations, or, else commit yourself to not doing so until you have obtained the specific consent of the Queensland public.

My past challenge to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser (or any other Labor candidate) to publicly debate their pro-privatisation stances also still stands.

yours sincerely

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
...http://candobetter.org/james
http://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

#appendix14" id="appendix14">Appendix 14: Media release of 19 Mar 09 challenging Lawrence Springborg to debate privatisation

Subject: Media Release: Lawrence Springborg out of step with the public on privatisation

Date: 19/03/09 06:44 pm

CC'd to Madonna King, Richard Fidler, Kellie Riordan, Annie Guest and others

Lawrence Springborg out of step with the public on privatisation

James Sinnamon, independent for Mount Coot-tha
Media Release, Thur 19 Mar 09

During an interview on Brisbane ABC local radio's Madonna King show, today, Lawrence Springborg told listeners that he has 'no objection' to the further sell-off of publicly-owned assets.

However, Mr Sinnamon pointed out that only the day before, Mr Springborg's Liberal National Party had rightly taken Premier Anna Bligh to task for misleading electricity consumers by promising that no electricity consumer would be worse off as a consequence of the privatisation of Energex.

(For the rest of the media release, see "Media release: Lawrence Springborg out of step with the public on privatisation" of 20 Mar 09)

#footnotes" id="footnotes">Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ "AM's Tony Eastley live from Brisbane on polling day" in ABC radio's AM archive of 21 Mar 09.

#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ In "Have your say" in the Village Green section of the Courier Mail of 21 March, Lavinia Wood also commented on Premier Anna Bligh's deliberate encouragement of population growth when she commented on the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031:

"No one but the developers thinks that bringing an additional 1.3 million people into a region that is already under stress is a good idea. Yet the South East Queensland Regional Plan is driving this agenda, touting a target of 4.4 million by 2031."

See, also "Exposing Queensland Government population growth duplicity" of 1 Apr 09.

#main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑ See, also, my letter to Lawrence Springborg within the article "Lawrence Springborg responds to Brisbane Save The Mary River Questionnaire" of 10 Mar 09.

#main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ During the 2007 Federal elections, Greens Queensland Senate candidate Larissa Waters, who also stood in 2009, as a Greens candidate in Mount Coot-tha, in which I stood, advised me that the Greens had judged that raising the issue of population growth could make the difference that could cost her the Senate seat. As it turned out, Larissa Waters did not win a Senate seat anyway. This raises two questions:

1. Why is opposition to population growth judged by the Greens to be an electoral liability? and
2. Even, if it is, then when is a good time for the Greens to begin educating the public in order that opposition to population growth eventually does not become an electoral liability?

In regard to the first point, all opinion polls show that population growth and immigration are unpopular, so why the Greens apparently believe that a stance against population growth would harm them is not obvious. In regard to the second point, the Queensland Greens are noted for doing very little outside election campaign periods, so, if they are reluctant to raise the issue at election time, then when do they ever intend to educate the Queensland public about their opposition to population growth.

#main-fn5" id="main-fn5">5. #main-fn5-txt">↑ I can't recall whether the presenter was Madonna King, the mid-morning presenter or Kellie Higgins-Devine who, for that week, replaced Spencer Howson as the early morning presenter. However, it was definitely one of the two.

#main-fn6" id="main-fn6">6. #main-fn6-txt">↑ Anna Bligh's stated reason, that early election speculation was destabilising our economy, seemed disingenuous. If that had truly been her concern, she needed only to reaffirm her March 2008 promise to serve her full term. Instead, she remained silent whilst early election speculation was fueled by the Courier Mail from at least November of the previous year. (See also "Courier Mail misreports water recycling to demand early election" of 5 Jan 09.) So, by by her own logic, Premier Anna Bligh had allowed needless harm to be caused to Queensland's economy for at least two and a half months.

When she did call the election on the morning of Monday 23 February, water from devastating floods was receding in the north of Queensland, which still faced threats of further cyclones. Both these factors made it harder for many candidates to campaign and harder for some to vote.

The very night on which she called elections, TV stations began broadcasting Labor Party election advertising in slots which had to have been booked well in advance.

#main-fn7" id="main-fn7">7. #main-fn7-txt">↑ The ABC also sought to interview Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg's wife, but she declined.

#main-fn8" id="main-fn8">8. #main-fn8-txt">↑ "Springborg's hope lies with can-do Campbell" by Glen Milne in the Australian of 9 Mar 09.

In any case, Milne's prediction that Newman's intervention would help Lawrence Springborg badly misfired. Newman turned out to be considerably less popular than Milne believed him to be and his association with the LNP's campaign appears to have turned Brisbane voters against the LNP. As one ABC listener pointed out on the morning of Monday 23 March:

"When I saw (Campbell Newman's) photo in an advertisement with Lawrence Springborg, I knew it was 'all over Red Rover.'"

In the 2008 Brisbane City Council elections in which I stood against him for Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman earnestly promised not to increase rates beyond the rate of inflation. He broke that promise only weeks later and imposed savage rate hikes on high rise dwellers. For this and a number of other reasons he now appears to be widely disliked in Brisbane. On the night of the elections he headed towards the Brisbane tally room in order to share the limelight with the Lawrence Springborg, whom he assumed would win. However, before he reached the tally room, he learnt that voters had turned against the LNP and he ordered his driver to turn around.

#main-fn9" id="main-fn9">9. #main-fn9-txt">↑ Forum discussion #comment-231829">"My election night" on johnquiggin.com on 22 Mar 09.

#main-fn10" id="main-fn10">10. #main-fn10-txt">↑ Whilst some may judge a relatively unknown independent candidate to have been audacious in challenging the state's leading politicians to publicly debate privatisation, no other candidate had done so and no journalist, as far as I am aware, had confronted the Government over this issue. So as far as I am aware, this was the only attempt to hold our Government leaders for having sold off publicly owned assets without the consent of the owners of those assets.

#main-fn11" id="main-fn11">11. #main-fn11-txt">↑ This has already been mentioned in my article "What was achieved by my election campaign?" of 22 Mar 09.

#main-fn12" id="main-fn12">12. #main-fn12-txt">↑ See Open letter to Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser asking that any planned privatisations be put to the public at forthcoming elections of 17 Feb 09.

#main-fn13" id="main-fn13">13. #main-fn13-txt">↑ This has been covered in the article "Andrew Fraser's three different responses to a question on privatisation" of 17 Mar 09.

#main-fn14" id="main-fn14">14. #main-fn14-txt">↑ The only substantial coverage that either Dave Zwolenski or I received during the course of the campaign, was from the University of Queensland-based community radio station, 4ZZZ. Dave was interviewed twice by 4ZZZ, whilst I was interviewed once for 5 minutes.