ICAC investigation into lobbying in New South Wales - have your say on undue influence and corruption

Communities on the NSW North Coast are subject to sustained population pressure and the growing influence of developers both large and small is distorting the democratic process in relation to planning policy and implementation at state and local level.

Here is an opportunity for Northern Rivers residents to have their say on failing processes in formal and informal interactions between government, elected representatives, public servants/local government management and communities.

From the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) website:

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is conducting an investigation into lobbying of public officials and public authorities in NSW and the related procedures and regulatory system.

The Commission is seeking input from individuals and organisations through a call for submissions which must be received at the Commission by 5pm Wednesday 23 June 2010. See the guide for making a submission for more information.

Submissions may respond to the Commission's issues paper on lobbying, the investigation scope and purpose and other relevant issues concerning lobbying in NSW.

Lobbying in NSW - issues paper

Guide for making a submission to the ICAC

Scope and purpose of the investigation

The scope and purpose of the investigation is to examine whether the relationship between lobbyists and public authorities and public officials may allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct or conduct connected with corrupt conduct and to identify whether any laws governing any public authority or public official need to be changed and whether any methods of work, practices or procedures of any public authority or public official could allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct and if so, what changes should be made.

Is your local council using this tool?
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has recently released a Development assessment internal audit tool. The ICAC recommends that councils adapt all or part of this tool to address the potential corruption risks within the development assessment process.

It's conspiracy theories and dubious 'facts' galore over at Agmates, as it falls under the spell of an articulate fantasist

But surely part of Mr Spencer's problem is the land he owns.
It's hilly, rocky marginal land that would be of little use for anything outside a few goats and rampant bushfires.
Bigpond News on 11 January 2010

When members of the Spencer family went public on 8 & 9 JJanuary 2010, with their concerns that the media, certain websites and fora had lost the plot when discussing Peter Spencer's hungerstrike protest, I wondered how one of the principal offenders Agmates Community Site would react.

On January 8 contributors at this site did indeed begin to react - just not to the criticism of the part they are playing in the silly little drama being played out at "Saarhanlee".

At one thread the Spencer family is attacked for going public, but the issue of the accuracy of what Agmates itself was publishing is not addressed.

For good measure one contributor also suggested that the police are monitoring Agmates - though why and what for is never fully revealed.

A call to blockade local government administrative centres across the country brought a smile to my face, as did the claim that the Peter Spencer issue will bring the Rudd Government down.

However, what I enjoyed most was watching the idea form amid the chatter that the somewhat anti-Labor newspaper, The Australian, was either slanting its coverage at the request of the Rudd Government or because it had been threatened by that same government.
I'm sure that the newspaper would be rather puzzled as to why some thought this might actually have happened in this instance and, perhaps even been a mite indignant that it was also thought to have completely ignored reporting on Peter Spencer for 47 days straight until the family spoke out.
It seems that the Agmates family never let facts get in the way of a good story, so casually brushed aside The Australian's articles published on 18 December 2009 and 5 January 2010.

Less amusing was the assertion that Kevin Rudd's "dirt squad put them [Spencer family] up to it" and the very strange X Files-style whisper that there is something extremely valuable on or under Peter Spencer's land which the government seeks to obtain by actively forcing him off it.

There was only one thread which advised caution when it came to some conspiracy theories, however this warning was from a representative of a lobby group/website which freely indulges in these theories itself at times. To its credit, as of 13 January this particular group continues (on another thread) to advise Agmates against going down the weird road.

Yet another Agmates thread has this audio statement by Peter Spencer. If you listen, particularly enjoy the fact that near the end he attempts to draw the Petrov Affair into the 1970 gun incident and, the crew on this particular discussion thread did not bat an eyelid when he implied this 1954 event actually occurred close to the time he threatened to self-harm.

On 12 January 2010 Agmates congratulated itself on the number of visitors to these discussion threads - I of course was one of these and I have to say that, although my jaw dropped on occasion and I laughed aloud at other times, little that was posted on this website was of any real value in looking at the issue of compensation for farmers who may be negatively affected by native vegetation legislation. As a lobbying effort it was going nowhere fast and, following Mr. Spencer's directions meant credibility became hopelessly lost somewhere in the back paddock many days ago.

Perhaps the final word should go to Geoff Cockfield quoted in The Australian yesterday:

SUPPORTERS of hunger-striking farmer Peter Spencer risk derailing debate on vital issues of property rights with their fringe views, a leading agri-politics expert has warned.
Heated online debate over Mr Spencer's 50-day protest atop a tower is continuing, often lurching into conspiracy theories.
Geoff Cockfield, a specialist in agri-environment policy from the University of Southern Queensland, said it was not helping the NSW farmer's cause that he should be compensated for not being allowed to clear his land near Cooma.
"You always have fringe populists in rural areas thriving around particular issues, whatever they might be," he said.
"They start plausibly enough, just picking on minor irritations people have about governments, but as you get more information we start to get into the worldwide conspiracy.
"There's quite a few mainstream agri-politicians and economists and public policy people who would be sympathetic to the argument that if we are actually preventing full use of property rights in the interests of some sort of supra-national agreement on carbon sequestration, then what's the case for everyone bearing the cost of that?
"I think it's a strong case," he said, "but it creates a problem for the various farm organisations who have been working away on the issue.
"Who do you associate with?"

UPDATE:
Peter Spencer reportedly ended his hungerstrike on 13 January 2010.

The Not Evil Just Wrong! team are at it again

The anti-global warming Not Evil Just Wrong team are presently at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen busily trying to live up to their brag You helped us make history! Now help us redefine it!

According to one Standford University view at Fiat Lux:

Professor Stephen Schneider, leader of the Stanford delegation to COP 15 and co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with the IPCC, was yesterday verbally assaulted by an Irish documentary filmmaker at the UN event in Copenhagen.....
The culprit is one Phelim McAleer, a little-known Irish filmmaker who recently completed "Not Evil, Just Wrong" a feature-length documentary attacking the environmental movement. Judging from the man's tremendously disrespectful behavior, one could easily distinguish that he views environmentalists with disdain, contrary to what his restrained film title might suggest....
With McAleer apparently intent on pursuing his harassment of Schneider, a security guard escorted the irate Irishman away from the professor upon completion of the Q&A.

Alternatively the Not Evil Just Wrong team over at Jennifer Marohasy's blog:
"A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him "inconvenient questions" during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
"Professor Stephen Schneider's assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book…

The Huffington Post reported:

Nobel laureate, renowned climate scientist and good friend of former US vice-president Al Gore, Dr. Stephen Schneider, was verbally attacked today during a press conference at the United Nations Climate Talks in Copenhagen.
Dr. Schneider, an outspoken proponent of climate legislation, was announcing his latest book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate , " when an unidentified man jumped on stage and began to intensely interrogate Schneider. The man became angry after Schneider addressed the leak email controversy from The University of East Anglia's world renowned Climate Research Unit. He repeatedly shouted, "do you approve of deleting data, Dr. Schneider? Do you approve of deleting data?" The man then accused the professor of attempting to censor the press.

As these particular climate change denialists have a recent history of being very loose with the truth, I know who I'm inclined to believe when it comes to what actually happened at this press conference.

The lights weren’t on, but Monsanto was at home

MADGE Australia and friends went to see Monsanto and came away with a story to tell:

Monsanto turned out the lights yesterday after the ladies of MADGE Australia, Cropwatch, and Gene Ethics arrived to deliver bags of GM canola roadside weeds.

Agri-chemical giant Monsanto is the patent holder of the GM Roundup Ready canola crop recently planted in Australia. Bob Phelps of Gene Ethics also attended.

After obligatory photos in the Monsanto lobby, the ladies went to the door. It was locked. Then the Monsanto lights went out.

MADGE Australia's Madeleine Love explained the visit.

"The GM weeds were Monsanto's property, and they were on our roadsides. We'd prefer not to be cleaning up, but we didn't want to leave them there to contaminate GM free crops."

"They were physically removed from beside farmer Gai Marshall's GM free canola crop near Berrigan, NSW. There are many more, further up the road."

"Monsanto was told about their GM weeds, but they didn't come and clean them up.

Monsanto has a record of suing farmers who accidentally have these GM plants on their property [Percy Schmeiser]."

"We don't know anyone in Australia who would want GM weeds, so we were returning them to their owners. Strangely, Monsanto didn't seem to want them either."

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

NSW Register of Lobbyists and media as lobbyists

If you are in the mood to look at a list, here is the NSW Register of Lobbyists and the accompanying NSW Government Lobbyist Code of Conduct.

If you are in the mood to have your jaw drop at how the mainstream media is beginning to morph, have a peek at this; Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar.

The coal and oil lobby get serious about blocking moves to limit greenhouse gases

The American Institute for Energy Research has created an off-shoot, the erroneously named Energy Freedom Center.

Reportedly partly funded by Exxon-Mobile, with the help of former US Republican senator George Allen it launched the new entity in early June 2009 and, is busy attempting to dismantle any concerted effort to have the US Congress seriously consider a national scheme to address the causes and effects of climate change.

Meanwhile R&R Partners - Advertising continues to push the interests of the coal industry.

To demonstrate just how far 'dirty' energy will go to maintain the status quo here is an excerpt from the R&R brag sheet:

The Challenge:
To develop a new issue-advocacy and message branding campaign focused on changing public perceptions and influencing congressional action. Included in this effort was a well-funded advertising and earned media strategy designed to position ACCCE as a responsible, positive player in seeking workable solutions to the climate-change challenge facing our nation and in developing a diversified energy policy that includes coal as a critical component.
The Strategy:
R&R and ACCCE created a fully integrated marketing, branding and issue-advocacy campaign to educate our audiences on the importance of coal in their daily lives. Our strategy was to convince our audiences that through the use of modern technology, coal is cleaner than ever and getting cleaner still, and present coal as a vital component in our march toward energy independence.
The ACCCE campaign focused primarily around a fully integrated marketing approach that used the presidential campaign as a platform for our messaging, resulting in highly visible and well-publicized campaign tactics throughout the year. Outreach consisted of grassroots, earned media, paid media and advocacy tactics that created a "surround-sound" effect targeting each of our audiences through all mediums and communications. Grassroots efforts included street teams, walking billboards, mobile billboards and recruitment and mobilization of an ACCCE Army (supporters of ACCCE and its mission) at presidential primaries, debates, conventions and other key campaign events. Earned media efforts included maintaining ongoing media relations and generating consistent press coverage of ACCCE-related issues and successes. A national television campaign focusing on the ACCCE core-message strategy – along with state and issue-specific campaigns that included news and magazine print, outdoor billboards, and radio and online components – comprised the paid media efforts that supported the overall campaign strategy.
The Result:
Coal is now an active voice in the ongoing energy policy debate and is seen as one of our country's chief sources of energy – both now and in the future.
A recent ACCCE poll conducted in October 2008 showed that nearly 70 percent of opinion elites believe that coal is a fuel for America's energy future. This number compares with just 52 percent expressing the same opinion in May 2008. Furthermore, 47 percent of opinion elites believe the successful development of clean-coal technology will promote energy security by allowing the use of American coal, while at the same time reducing emissions. Additionally, 46 percent feel that developments in clean-coal technology will drive down the cost of electricity.
In addition, our subsequent advocacy efforts inside the Beltway have led to the acceptance and support of coal by both political parties, along with President Barack Obama, as an essential component of the energy discussion that will continue during this administration.

All in all this scenario makes Australia's Bolt, Blair, Marohasy, Plimer and Carter look rather like a disorganised rabble.

One has to wonder how effective the Obama Administration's release of the Global Climate Change Impacts Across America report this week will be in countering the push by polluting industries to maintain what they see as a right to continue producing high greenhouse gas levels.

20 page overview of this report here, US regional fact sheets here and full report here.

Climate change deniers still singing the same old song with Marohasy in the chorus

Header for Cato Institute advertisement

There may be a new president in Washington but lobbyists for industries opposed to climate change mitigation measures are still singing the same old song.

According to CBC News at the end of March the Cato Institute ran full-page ads in:

the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The ads cite evidence, referenced in four scientific papers, that the climate is not changing significantly.

These very expensive ads were signed by 100 'scientists' and George Monbiot has fun with this list, while DeSmog Blog links to an interesting set of API memos.

The advertising campaign appears to be timed to disturb public perception ahead any passage of US climate change legislation and the Obama hosted April climate change summit and, a surprising number of the advertisement's listed individuals are also reported to have taken money from fossil fuel industries.

Among the list of 'scientists' endorsing the ads is one Colin Barton, CSIRO (Retired), Robert M. Carter, PhD, James Cook University and the blogosphere's favourite Australian global warming denier Jennifer Marohasy, PhD, Australian Environment Foundation.

Ms. Marohasy gives some space to the ad on her blog, Andrew Bolt's blog on 1 April also gives it a mention and thanks Professor Bob Carter for the heads up, but Tim Blair doesn't appear to have noticed these ads.

While it seems that Jennifer Marohasy originally worked as a field biologist and is affiliated with the Institute of Public Affairs (which is believed to receive funding from the oil, coal, tobacco and biotech industries) and marine biologist Professor Robert Carter is also a PIC affiliate, little is known about Colin Barton.

Perhaps Tim can make up for letting down the denialist side by finding out if Colin Barton CSIRO (Retired) is the same man who endorsed the 2008 denialist ISCS Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change as Colin Barton, PhD (Earth Science), former Principal Research Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Australia and/or the person formerly employed by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria as a geologist working in coal also posting on the Internet as Dr. Colin M. Barton.

G20 in London, March 2009: words in pictures

Montage by Stephen Hird

Senator Michael Ronaldson - who?

Michael Ronaldson is a Liberal Party senator from Victoria and Shadow Minister of State.

I would call him the Hon. Michael Ronaldson except that he, along with his Coalition cronies, has acted most dishonourably of late in the Senate.

On Wednesday 11 March 2009 "Ronno" (as he supposedly likes to be called) helped the Coalition and Senator Fielding vote down the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009].

This is a bill which would fulfil the Rudd Labor Government's election promise to bring back a lower limit for the reporting of political donations and, end the farce which saw the former Howard Government allow donors to make donation of up to $9,999 without those donations being publicly disclosed.
Consequently the number of disclosed donations to political parties started to fall away and confusion reigned.

Ronaldson in a remarkable piece of verbal contortion chortles that Labor has only itself to blame for the Coalition blocking this bill.
It won't be long before he adds the bill failure to the list of alleged broken Labor promises he constantly mentions on his own website.

I think that Senator Bob Brown's reply to the nonsense put forward by Ronaldson bears quoting here:

I listened carefully to Senator Ronaldson's plea that the legislation not be supported until we get comprehensive legislation into the parliament, but that is not the example that was set by the Howard government over the previous 12 years. In fact, piecemeal legislation which increased the ability of donors to the political system to be hidden and not identifiable was the order of the day. It is a good thing that we now have legislation that is reversing that order.

We look forward to consequent legislation in this parliament, and I hope that will be this year, to clean up the electoral processes in Australia, and that means quite massive and comprehensive changes to electoral laws.

Grocery Choice staggers on

During the entire time the Rudd Government's Grocery Choice has been operating it has only received 68 comments and some of these were from the good folks at Choice who are taking over this website.

If you want to have your say on what information the new look Grocery Choice should contain you can post a comment here.

The latest grocery price breakdown for north-east NSW.
Click to image enlarge.

Getting the lowdown on PETA and the sheep

The Australian wool industry appears to have suffered a nervous crisis last week when Australian Wool Innovation elected a board which might be perceived to be against the 2010 industry deadline for abandonment of the practice of mulesing sheep.

Now I can sympathise with the graziers frustration at trying to keep to this timetable in the middle of the longest Australian drought in living memory.
However the RSPCA has a point when it speaks of disappointment if the push to end or severely limit this management practice does not go ahead as planned.
Many in this country were quietly thankful that the wool industry was moving away from viewing mulesing as the principal option to prevent fly strike in sheep.

One gets the sense that our farmers are revolting not just because they are faced with significant change or additional financial costs, but because the U.S. based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) successfully led the anti-mulesing charge in the media.

PETA is not always known for taking a balanced position on every issue.
In fact at times this organisation can act like an hysterical pain in the posterior.
Nevertheless, it is a powerful lobby group which has been running for thirty-eight years with a membership of around 1.8 million world-wide and, on the issue of mulesing as it is currently practiced it does have a good point.

Not only does PETA have a large membership; it has a budget that would put many other similar lobby groups to shame:

Income Statement (FYE 07/2007)

Revenue
Primary Revenue	$28,858,103
Other Revenue	$1,753,581
Total Revenue	$30,611,684
Expenses
Program Expenses	$25,417,759
Administrative Expenses	$1,312,701
Fundraising Expenses	$3,680,667
Total Functional Expenses	$30,411,127
Payments to Affiliates	$0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year	$200,557
Net Assets	$16,164,783

Its leadership wage bill appears to make only modest inroads into this budget, with individual annual salaries ranging from about US$34,000 - $79,000, and it is not afraid of commencing litigation in furtherance of its aims.

So perhaps our farmers and graziers should think again about dragging feet on this issue.
It would seem that baulking over mulesing could result in all pain and no gain for the industry during a period when it is bound to be affected to some degree by the global financial crisis.