Spivs Inc (NSW) and Developers Unlimited are at it again

The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday.

 

THE State Government plans to give its agencies and councils power to compulsorily acquire private land to re-sell to developers at a profit - or, if they choose, at a reduced price so the developers make even more money.

Legal authorities describe as "quite remarkable" a section of new planning laws flagged by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to acquire land by force to onsell to private developers.

"A man's home may no longer be his castle, but it could well end up being somebody else's castle," said Anthony Whealy, a planning expert with Gadens Lawyers. "It will certainly be welcome news to many in the development game.

"Under the current law, the minister is not able to re-sell land which has been acquired or transfer it to another person. The new scheme expressly allows that, and makes it clear that it may be done as part of a profitable proposal by a private developer."

 

The last time New South Wales was perceived to be so thoroughly in the hands of big business interests (not all of these of spotless corporate character) was in the 1970s and 80s.

Some of the development companies operating in this state right now were unfavourably mentioned during government inquiries, royal commissions and even one coroner's inquest during that period.

Quite a few of the most generous political donors have business interests on the NSW North Coast.

Planning Minister Frank Sartor and the rest of the Iemma Government may protest about media beat ups, but they have done nothing to dispel the idea that NSW Labor is blatantly 'on the take' and just as susceptible to brown paper bag deliveries as that not so long ago Coalition Askin Government.

Indigenous delegation heads for UN to protest Rudd Government policy

ABC News reported on Friday.

 

The National Aboriginal Alliance is taking its concerns about the Northern Territory intervention to the United Nations.

A delegation leaves today for the annual UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.

Delegation Leader Les Malezer says parts of the intervention, like income management, breach United Nations charters on racial discrimination and human rights.

"What we hope to do is at least make people aware internationally of the extent of racial discrimination that occurs only against Aboriginal people in Australia and that continues despite changes of government," he said.

"Despite decades of supposed reforms in Australia, it's still the most discriminatory place in the world."

 

On the same day The Age published an article on Australian National University researchers.

 

A GROUP of academics predict it could take 2000 years to bridge the gap in the median household income of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

Before the 2020 Summit, the Australian National University researchers have warned that the Rudd Government needs a "fundamentally new policy framework" if it is serious about closing gaps in social outcomes for Aborigines.

Jon Altman, Nicholas Biddle and Boyd Hunter, from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, examined census data from 1971 to 2006 to chart trends. They found that most socio-economic outcomes for indigenous people have improved in the past 35 years.

The number of indigenous people getting qualifications after school and employment in the private sector has improved. And if current trends and policy persist, gaps in these areas could be bridged within 35 years.

But gaps are not closing in areas such as the unemployment rate, male and female life expectancy and median incomes. The latter is partly to do with the rise in incomes for non-indigenous workers.

 

Full copy of April 2008 ANU study here.

 

Kevin Rudd's Australia 2020 summit has a big job ahead of it and only two days to come up with a new way to approach the issue of inequality and racism.

This is an impossible task and may only increase general dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's handling of indigenous affairs.

Strewth, anyone would think that government is a chook raffle!

Things the Rudd Government appears to have decided in the last four and a half months.

 

[Huddled somewhere in downtown Canberra]

 

Lets' spin the chocolate wheel and............

• Have a national litter scheme, now that the whole country knows that federal and state governments can't agree about what to do with those nasty plastic bags.
• Talk about Australia-wide one stop child care centres, to cover the fact that the 'best and brightest' going to the 2020 summit are revealing a paucity of new ideas.
• Rabbit on about having signed Kyoto, but make sure that there are strong shoulders against the door keeping the Prof and his climate change report out in the cold and large-scale renewable energy at bay.
• Try not to mention the Murray-Darling water crisis again, for every punter is well aware that federal government will do nothing serious about environmental water flows for the next three to four years.
• Keep supporting that international lawbreaking Coalition of the Willing, now that the PM's plan to take some (not all) troops out of Iraq has been decided on - what the heck, let's increase our troop numbers in Afghanistan for good measure to show that Australia is still a good 'deputy-sheriff'.
• While we're at it, let's stamp on more basic human rights simply because we are back in government and can do so.
• Campaign like it is 2007 and constantly react with moral panic, just in case the voters notice that nobody is actually running the country.
• Next year review the whole concept to see if it would have been better to hold a lucky dip instead.

Environment Minister Garrett puts his foot in it (again)

It seems that Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett is one hapless individual.

Everytime he turns around he puts a very large foot in something.

This time he is backing a government program which is badged Caring for our Country.

 

In designing Caring for our Country, we have built on the strengths of previous natural resource management programs. We also recognise that there is a highly talented, committed and engaged group of people in all sectors of the Australian community who have already been working for many years to achieve similar outcomes. Through Caring for our Country, we look forward to working with all these people to help secure Australia's future.

Caring for our Country will commence on 1 July 2008 and, for the first time, will bring together delivery of a raft of Commonwealth programs into an integrated package with one clear goal, a business approach to investment, clearly articulated outcomes and priorities and improved accountability.

 

Sounds like a good idea, but both Garrett and Natural Resource Management seem to have forgotten that their program badge is suspiciously similar to another badge Caring for Country.

 

Crikey ran an article on this yesterday which contained a copy of an unattributed email.

 

Folks

This is the first email I have received with the Commonwealth flying its new "caring for our country" banner through the text.

Despite its statement that the name has been picked up the Commonwealth "with the greatest respect", a great damage has been done to the indigenous land management movement and the great "caring for country" branding -- a branding that originated absolutely with Aboriginal people, not Government.

Now I have look twice at things to see whether they are "caring for country" or "caring for our country", two distinct brands but now branded with almost indistinguishable names.

Imagine, folks, how an entity like Toyota would feel if DEWHA had decided to call its new program "oh what a wonderfully environmental feeling!".

The Aboriginal land management movement it seems to me now MUST abandon the name Caring for Country because it is too ambiguously linked to the new Government brand.

Well, the choice is fight the feds about it in a serious way or just walk away.

It cannot be left with two brand names that sound so similar. What a bad and sad start to indigenous/AG partnerships under Kevin 07.

 

The fact that Caring for Country was removed from ASIC registered business names on an unspecified date obviously does not remove community sensitivity over the current use of a similar name by government.

Peter Garrett has a clear choice - address this issue before July or risk alienating more people.

Spivs Inc [NSW] and Developers Unlimited

Last week ABC 1 Stateline ran a segment on the recent political donations scandal, which showed footage of the NSW Parliament and Planning Minister Frank Sartor declaiming towards the Opposition benches: You look like a spiv, you talk like a spiv, you act like a spiv and you are a spiv.

 

Last night Stateline confronted the minister with evidence of alleged partial conduct favourable to a large development corporation which happens to also be a donor to the NSW Labor Party.

 

Stateline's host Quentin Dempster demonstrating remarkable restraint did not say to Mr. Sartor: You look like a spiv, you talk like a spiv, you act like a spiv and you are a spiv.

 

In front of my television I was not so restrained.