Singing the heavens, singing the land, singing the lore, singing the people and their history - weaving memory

And those of us whose forebears stumbled off a handful of British boats in 1788 are still trying and often failing to understand this rich, enduring culture.......

The Monthly, September 2017:

Epic of Gilgamesh” is Google’s answer to “what is the oldest known literature”. Unknown scribes in the city of Ur picked the poem out in cuneiform letters some 4500 years ago. These clay tablets preserved an older oral tradition, but that part of the story is usually left out. Instead, the Mesopotamian epic fits easily into that cartoonish diagram of the Ascent of Man, where civilisation means writing, a sequence of metals and a procession of capitals: Memphis, Babylon, Athens, Rome.

Compare this lineage to the ceremonial songs of Aboriginal Australia. Their absolute vintage is unknowable, but the best estimates run to at least 12,000 years old. At this distance in time, the study of literature needs not just linguists but geologists. There are songlines that accurately describe landscape features (like now-disappeared islands) from the end of the Pleistocene epoch. Their provenance may stretch even further back, all the way into the last ice age. They are also alive. The last person to hear Epic of Gilgamesh declaimed in her native culture died millennia ago. Songlines that may have been born 30,000 years ago are being sung right now.

Read the full article here.

"You're an absolute disgrace" Coalition and One Nation senators

In a wild 2min speech, @JacquiLambie attacks One Nation & the govt ("disgusting") and defends the ABC ("our public broadcaster"). #auspol pic.twitter.com/mCBHjN8Juk

— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) September 13, 2017

Independent Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie on the floor of the Australian Senate, 14 September 2017.

Senate Hansard,  12 September 2017:

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:56): The government wants One Nation support for this package so badly that it has agreed to invite a razor gang into the books of the ABC. And it wants Nick Xenophon's support for the package so badly that it has agreed not to embarrass him into being forced to vote in support of One Nation's proposal. But make no mistake, voting for this bill means voting for One Nation's deal. I know that, One Nation knows that and you can bet your last dollar that Nick Xenophon and his team know that, too. As for what the details are, we still don't know. The government won't tell us and they won't tell us. All we know is that it commits the government to review the ABC and ask if it is reducing the profitability of its commercial rivals. Guess what? The job of the ABC isn't to make money for its commercial rivals. Its job is to guarantee all Australians have access to news, programming and information that affects their lives, no matter where they live or how wealthy they are. The deal the government has made isn't designed to improve the ABC; it is designed to defund it. It's a deal to set up a rigged kangaroo court that is determined to find the ABC guilty and lay the groundwork for slashing the budget of the most trusted news source in the country—or, as I like to refer to it, the eighth great wonder of the world. That is the deal that is before us. That is the vote we are taking—to defend the ABC or to defund it. No amount of tax breaks or inquiries into tech giants can change that. As the old saying goes, if you don't know all the details of the deal, don't vote for it. If you knew all the details of the deal, you probably wouldn't vote for it anyway. A vote in favour of this package is a vote in favour of all the strings that come attached to it. The government could have opted to put the full details of the deal in the legislation, but it decided not to because it is embarrassed by what it has agreed to. And if something is so embarrassing that not even this government would be willing to put its name to it, then it says something about all those who are voting to support it. No matter what else is said, no matter who says it, there's only one thing you need to remember: if you are proud of something, you don't hide it. The deal that has been made between One Nation and the Turnbull government doesn't go ahead unless this vote passes. What we're doing by voting for this media reform package is actually voting for a dirty deal, because the government decided to link the two. We are voting for something on paper and another thing altogether in practice. We're choosing whether to defend the ABC or to defund it. I will not endorse this deal. I am willing to vote to help the commercial players by doing away with outdated media ownership regulations but I refuse to vote for a package that hurts journalism in rural and regional Australia. The bill before us is only half the deal. The other half will not be put to the vote. This is the vote—for the visible half and for the invisible other. It is the only opportunity we will have to oppose the dirty deal the government has made to let loose the razor gangs on the budget of the ABC for the crime of doing exactly what the public needs a public broadcaster to do. I won't be supporting this bill and I am disappointed that I can't. I'm disappointed that I can't support this bill, because I support what it's trying to achieve in principle. The media landscape is changing fast and— The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lambie. You are in continuation. It being 2pm, we move to question without notice.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (18:27): The media landscape is changing fast. The industry is changing and the industry's regulation needs changing too. It's ridiculous to say that the only way to defend a struggling industry is to defend the regulation that's preventing it from defending itself against new and enormous threats. But concerns around the potential loss of media diversity as a result of the changes posed are real and valid. It is important that any deal to change regulation also protects media diversity in the process. Nobody wants any one media baron to have excessive power over the political landscape, and the best way to address concerns about private media ownership is to invest in publicly owned media. The government, with courage, would put whatever it's proposing to a vote. That's not what it has agreed to. Instead, reports suggest that the government has made some sneaky handshake deal in a back room somewhere to undermine the operations of the ABC, and it has gone behind the back of the Senate to do it. I won't be supporting this bill, and I'm disappointed that I can't. I'm disappointed that I can't support this bill because I support in principle what it's trying to achieve, but I will not be a part of taking a pitchfork to the ABC.

Australian society in 2017: national gaol population hits record high

The Guardian,

Australia’s jail population has hit a record high of more than 41,200 prisoners, as a 20-year surge in incarceration rates shows no sign of waning.

The daily average of full-time prisoners in custody rose 7% to 41,204 over the year to the June quarter, according to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Monday.

That represented a 133% leap in prisoner numbers since the June quarter of 1997, meaning the national jail population grew at more than four times the rate of the overall population over the last two decades.

The cost of running prisons in Australia is likely to have hit around $3bn a year, based on Productivity Commission figures.

Inmates on remand awaiting court sentences (11%) and women (10%) were the fastest-growing groups of prisoners over the last year.

Indigenous prisoner numbers rose 7% in line with the overall increase but they remain grossly overrepresented in jail, making up 2% of the general population but 28% of the prison population.

According to the ABS Recorded Crime - Offenders, 2015-16 :

Since the beginning of the time series in 2008–09 the number of offenders has increased by 12% (or 46,474 offenders). Over the same period the offender rate increased by less than 1% (from 2,006 to 2,023 offenders per 100,000 persons aged 10 years and over).

The number of female offenders increased by 5% nationally to total 97,304 between 2014–15 and 2015–16.

The number of male offenders remained relatively stable (increasing by 49 offenders to 323,949) between 2014–15 and 2015–16.

In 2015–16, median age was younger for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders, as compared to non-Indigenous offenders, in all of the selected states and territories. 

Do it for the right reasons - fairness & equality

The time is now. #VoteYES pic.twitter.com/3quRceLks0

— Dean Smith (@DeanSmithWA) September 7, 2017

Independent Investigation into NSW Water Management and Compliance - interim report concerning theft and corruption allegations published 8 September 2017

It took a public airing of the issues by ABC TV “Four Corners” in its Pumped: Who is benefitting from the billions spent on the Murray-Darling? program on 24 July 2017 to force the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption and the NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government into investigative action.

The NSW Government has now published its initial 78-page report into allegations of theft and corruption in the management of water resources in the Murray–Darling Basin.

NSW Dept. of Industry:

On 11 September 2017, Ken Matthews issued a statement regarding the delivery of his Independent Investigation into NSW Water Management and Compliance. The focus of his interim report was to assess whether the department's policies, procedures and actions were appropriate, to recommend whether further actions should be undertaken, and to identify opportunities to improve the department’s future compliance and enforcement performance.

Download the Independent investigation into NSW water management and compliance – Interim report (2 MB PDF).

ABC News, 12 September 2017:

Yesterday, Mr Hanlon was stood down from the Department of Primary Industries pending a misconduct investigation: Four Corners had also revealed he had offered to share with them — via DropBox — internal departmental documents that had been "debadged".

His removal was announced as the Government released a wide-ranging report by Ken Matthews into the allegations raised in the program.

The Matthews report has turned out to be nothing of the whitewash many expected. What he has delivered instead is a grenade.

Among his recommendations is that the Government enforce a regime of "no metering, no pumping" which is sobering for no other reason than it is so obvious: the vast majority of people who pay water rates in this country will be aghast that this has not always been the case for water users who deal in billions of litres of water.

Most alarming for some government employees and businesspeople is the revelation contained in his report that the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has taken up an interest in the matter: including into whether the department has properly and fully pursued cases of alleged illegal water extraction.

As a result of its involvement, the fine details regarding "gaps in the case management record", and why cases were not pursued in the face of "prima facie evidence of substantive breaches", were not published. Instead, Mr Matthews handed these matters to the anti-graft commission.

From what I saw on the ground when we were filming this program, there will be many people sweating on what happens next. The Matthews investigation was clearly thorough, but it was done in a very short time, and with none of the powers of the ICAC.

A critical further point, that might otherwise be lost amid the hue and cry about illegal water take and meter tampering, is the question of so-called "environmental water".

Another of the findings in the Four Corners program was that huge volumes of this water — which had been purchased by taxpayers to help rescue the Murray-Darling Basin from the degradation caused by decades of over-extraction — was being harvested, legally, by some major irrigators.

This was made possible by a bizarre "water sharing plan" enacted in 2012 by which the NSW Government gave major water-users more reliable access to water — including by dumping restrictions on pump sizes and allowing fast, large-scale industrial extraction of water even when the river was running low.

Mr Matthews makes it clear that "this issue applies not only in the Barwon-Darling water system but elsewhere in NSW and the wider Murray-Darling Basin".

"Solving the problem will be critical to the success of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan," Mr Matthews found.

"It is a pre-condition if the anticipated environmental benefits of the plan are to be delivered.

"The issue is not new. Regrettably, it has continued without resolution for years ... there is a strong public expectation that arrangements should be in place already, and to the extent that they are not, a remedy is urgent."

This is a bombshell for the Commonwealth Government and this major economic and agrarian reform.

The South Australian Government has reacted to Mr Matthews' findings already, reiterating calls for a national judicial inquiry.

For Mr Le Lievre, and many others, this is where the significant changes need to be made. Communities like Louth will simply fade away without the water they once had flowing past.

Earlier this year, Mr Le Lievre told me someone in the NSW Government had to be held accountable for what had been done with the water.

The Matthews report goes some way to delivering precisely that, but, as the weathered farmer insisted at the time, "the only way to make them accountable and to stop them from pulling out legs is to do it under oath".

"Simple. They can't get out of it, they've got to tell the truth."

It is a power that was not available to Mr Matthews, or to the various other investigations now underway into the Four Corners revelations. It is, however, readily used in the ICAC's hearing room.

Australian Politics in 2017: Financial Fog Unlimited

Oh dear, it’s the Liberal Party of Australia once again in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

This is a return appearance* by multimillionaire, former merchant banker and life-long silvertail Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull.

BuzzFeed News, 11 September 2017:

….BuzzFeed News can reveal the prime minister never disclosed to parliament that Lucy purchased the $1.55m USD New York apartment in the Century Condominium building more than four years ago.

All you'll see on Malcolm Turnbull's previous and most recent parliamentary disclosure is a reference to a single "New York city apartment" owned by his wife.

Federal politicians are required to declare the interests they and their spouses hold, and gifts they receive. This is an important transparency measure to avoid any potential conflicts of interests.

But did the prime minister need to declare the apartment? Unfortunately, the parliamentary rules on this are all pretty hazy.

Lucy purchased the first condo in January 2012 for $3,275,000 USD. Turnbull, who was then in opposition, declared this first apartment on his parliamentary interest register a few days later.

But in July 2013 Lucy purchased a second condo adjacent to the first condo for $1,550,000 USD. BuzzFeed News understands the properties are now treated as one dwelling, and have only one entry.

When BuzzFeed News searched the New York land title office database, it discovered there were two apartments that Lucy Turnbull purchased.

It appears the prime minister never disclosed this later property interest on his register at the time or in subsequent disclosures. In Turnbull's later interest returns lodged in 2013 and 2016he lists a single entry for a "New York apartment" in his wife's interests.

Both properties were transferred to the ownership of Century Turnbull LLC in June 2014, a New York based company controlled by Lucy. Turnbull did disclose the registration of this company and in October 2014 wrote that the company “holds apartment in NY beneficially for spouse.”

* Malcolm Turnbull's first appearance - Australian Politics 2017: Greed Unlimited

                                                      

Pictures that tell 1,000 words - Part Five

via fan account @therealbanksy

United Nations’s global population projection is 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100.

Australia’s population projected to increase to between 30.9 and 42.5 million people by 2056; and to between 33.7 and 62.2 million people by 2101