Water raiders are eyeing the Clarence River - again

In 2007 Clarence Valley communities saw off an Australian prime minister (John Howard) and his water minister (Malcolm Turnbull)  - telling them "Not A Drop".

The issue of inter-basin water transfer became an election issue that year and the National Party lost the seat of Page and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government lost the federal election.

Having learnt nothing from the commitment of local people in the Clarence Valley, including traditional owners, once again the water raiders have raised their heads above the parapet.

The Daily Examiner, letter to the Editor, 19 May 2018, p.14:

Clarence diversion

On April 18, 2018, Toowoomba Regional Council in south-east Queensland resolved to submit a motion to the National General Assembly of Local Government in June this year.

This motion calls for the Assembly to amend Resolution 77 (Griffith City Council) which was carried the previous year.

Resolution 77 called on the “Federal Government to carry out a further feasibility study on David Coffey’s “Scheme to Divert Tributaries of the Clarence River to the Murray Darling Basin” to gather up-to-date information for investigation into this scheme”.

The Toowoomba amendment seeks to incorporate a pipeline from the Clarence River to Toowoomba and the Darling Downs region into that request for federal government investigation.

Hot on the heels of this latest push to dam and divert water from the Clarence River system comes the NSW Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No. 5 “Augmentation of water supply for rural and regional New South Wales” report, released on May 14.

Although informed by Clarence Valley Council that it has resolved six times not to support diversion of the Clarence River, this Upper House report clearly favours damming and diverting water from the Clarence River system.

The wording may have been slightly watered down via a motion by Mick Veitch MLC but it is still of considerable concern: ”Resolution 40 - 6.89 The committee heard evidence from some inquiry participants that there may be potential benefits of diverting the Clarence River to the west.

“These inquiry participants were of the view that there is merit to any strategy that seeks to mitigate floods and flood damage in the Clarence Valley and provide additional water for agriculture in the Barwon region. The committee acknowledges that stakeholders were divided on the issue of water diversion. However, some inquiry participants held strong views against diverting waters from the Clarence River to the west.”

However, the draft version of 6.89 which indicates the extent of support the dam and divert proposal enjoys within this Upper House committee was quite frankly alarming: “The committee notes that there may be potential benefits of diverting the Clarence River to the west.

“There is merit to any strategy that seeks to mitigate floods and flood damage in the Clarence Valley and provide additional water for agriculture in the Barwon region.

“The committee acknowledges that stakeholders were divided on the issue of water diversion. However, the committee believes that further investigation into water diversion schemes is warranted to consider their feasibility as a strategy to mitigate floods.

“The committee therefore recommends that the NSW Government investigate the feasibility of water diversion schemes as a flood mitigation tool.”

If these sentiments are echoed by the Berejiklian Coalition Government down in Sydney then Clarence Valley Council, the people of the Clarence Valley and communities whose local economies depend on a healthy Clarence River will have a fight on their hands.

Because the calls from communities and vested interests who have managed to reduce their region’s rivers to a series of mud puddles will grow louder and more insistent over time.

This time around the call is spearheaded by Griffith, Toowoomba and the shadowy lobby group, Australian Water Exploration Company Ltd, which is apparently looking to benefit from any infrastructure spend on a Clarence Valley dam and pipeline.

At the June National Assembly of Local Government they will be speaking to a sympathetic audience. Hopefully Clarence Valley Council is sending a representative to this gathering that will strongly counter their arguments.

Judith M. Melville, Yamba

The Turnbull Government has the solution to its poll number blues already at hand - but will it act?

lesterlost.com

State and federal governments have known for years that there is a correlation between unoccupied residential housing, negative gearing of investment properties and capital gains by individuals in the higher income percentiles.

According to 2011 census, in Sydney's "emptiest" neighbourhood of the CBD, Haymarket and The Rocks, one in seven dwellings was vacant.

By the time of the 2016 Census there were 200,000 more homes sitting empty across the country than there had been a decade ago.

An est. 11.2 per cent of residential properties were unoccupied, up from 9.8 per cent in 2006.

There is currently an artificial scarcity of residential housing in this country which governments seem intent on ignoring.

Similarly homelessness has increased in Australia and rental accommodation is frequently beyond the financial reach of many people whose sole income is a Centrelink pension, benefit, allowance or payment.

It has been reported in 2018 that 250 people are turned away from crisis centres across the country every day.

Again, governments are not paying enough attention to the social and economic costs to their own budgetary bottom line this growing problem will cause.

The latest Newspoll published on 13 May 2018 was conducted from Thursday 10 May to Sunday 13 May with 1,728 survey respondents.

It shows the Lib-Nat Coalition’s primary vote standing at 39% to Labor’s 38%. However the Coalition trailed Labor 49 to 51 on a two-party preferred basis, with that margin the coalition's best position since September 2016. 

That is the 32^nd Newspoll in a row where the Labor Opposition was ahead of the Turnbull Government on a two-party preferred basis.

If Turnbull & Co really wanted to turn primary and two-party preferred polling numbers around they would announce some substantial new policy measures in the months following the 2018-19 Budget.

The phasing out of negative gearing of investment properties over a ten year period, reforming capital gain provisions and creating more tied grants for social housing would be a good start.

A call to arms in support of Our ABC

The Guardian, 17 May 2018:

The announcement in last week’s budget that the ABC’s funding indexation will be frozen for three years from July 2019 is the latest in a series of extraordinary attacks by a government that displays an unprecedented level of hostility to the national broadcaster. It represents a real cut to the broadcaster’s operating costs of $84m.

Added to the $254m cut over five years announced by then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull in November 2014, and a $28m cut to the enhanced newsgathering service in the 2016 budget, this brings the money taken out of our national broadcaster since the election of the Coalition government to over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Contrast this with the former Labor government’s approach. In 2009, when I worked in the office of communications minister Stephen Conroy, the ABC was awarded the largest funding increase since its incorporation in 1983, with $136.4m in new money to fund the creation of the ABC Kids’ channel and 90 hours of new Australian drama. Four years later, the ABC was given $89.4m to set up the newsgathering service and enhance the digital delivery of ABC programs.

In addition to record funding boosts, Conroy, arguably the best friend in government the ABC has ever had, also ensured the ABC charters were amended to specifically require them to deliver digital services; overhauled the board appointment process to put it at arm’s length from the government of the day; and, in a move that enraged the Murdoch empire, created legislation that specified that any international broadcasting service funded by the government could only be delivered by the ABC. This came after the government’s refusal to award carriage of the Australia Network to News Corp in 2011, a decision that was regarded both at home and internationally as common sense by everyone other than the owners of Sky News.

All this is now under attack. The Turnbull government seems determined not only to undo every measure of financial and legislative support implemented by the last Labor government, but to undermine the ABC’s operations so thoroughly that its ability to provide the services its charter requires will likely be devastated.

The legislation passed in early 2013 prevented the incoming Coalition government from reopening the tender process to award the Australia Network to Sky – so they shut it down entirely instead.

Five years later, the Lowy Institute laments that “[o]nce a significant player in what the British Council calls the Great Game of the Airwaves, the ABC’s purpose-designed, multiplatform international services have suffered near-terminal decline”.

"We must rise up against this concerted campaign of funding cuts and attempts to limit the activities of our national broadcasters"

As far as the board appointment process goes, Turnbull as prime minister and his communications minister Mitch Fifield are doing their best to ignore it: two recent appointees, Minerals Council boss Vanessa Guthrie and Sydney Institute Director Joseph Gersh, were not recommended for appointment by the independent selection panel. Fifield is relying on clauses in the legislation governing the appointment process that allow the minister to appoint from outside the recommended list in exceptional circumstances, but has publicly offered no reason why these candidates were more urgently required on the ABC board than those recommended as more qualified by the selection panel.

It’s also impossible to discover whether the minister has tabled the statement to parliament giving his reasons for ignoring the advice of the selection panel, as required by the legislation. If he has, perhaps those statements explain why Guthrie and Gersh are the most qualified candidates to provide governance of our most trusted source of news.

Despite the selection criteria set out in Conroy’s legislation, the ABC board now includes no one other than the staff-elected director and the managing director, Michelle Guthrie, with media experience and, despite the full board having been appointed by this government, they seem unable to make a case to maintain the ABC’s funding.

But the biggest danger to the ABC is the government’s agenda to reduce its digital services, and it’s here where the ABC – and, in this case, SBS as well – face a truly existential threat. The so-called “competitive neutrality inquiry” into the national broadcasters, currently underway, has ostensibly been launched to satisfy Pauline Hanson’s demands for an inquiry into the ABC in return for her support for last year’s appalling package of media “reforms”, which will reduce diversity and local content across the commercial broadcast media.

Don’t believe it for a second. While Hanson’s hatred of the ABC will assist any future government moves to neuter the broadcaster’s digital activities, this inquiry is yet another gift to News Corp and the commercial media organisations, who have been baying for the ABC’s blood since it arrived on the airwaves more than three-quarters of a century ago.

The $30m of government money given, apparently with few strings attached, to Foxtel last year was really just “compensation” for the fact that the commercial TV operators got a windfall gain with the abolition of their broadcast licence fees and replacement with spectrum fees. This saves the broadcasters around $90m per year (money which is forgone government revenue, by the way) so, of course, Foxtel had to be similarly rewarded for … running a commercial business in a competitive market.

Read the full article here.

North Coast Voices, 12 May 2018,"Time to show support for the ABC"

The ABC provides vital local news services, as well as things like emergency and bushfire warnings. Every time the Liberals cut the ABC’s funding they hurt local communities.

SIGN THE PETITION ⬇️https://t.co/pNIFrLik2q

— Bill Shorten (@billshortenmp) May 18, 2018

Once a banker always a a banker

People need to know why Malcolm's on the side of the cheating banks.

Here are the ads we're running on TV. It's not good enough that Turnbull spends all his time defending and supporting the big end of town and treats working people like trash. #auspol #banksrc pic.twitter.com/lHDatAo27Y

— ETU⚡️VIC (@ETUVIC) May 13, 2018

via @ETUVIC

There are currently fifteen [15] members of the Turnbull Government who formerly worked in the banking, finance, insurance, and/or for-profit superannuation industries and three [3] who worked for large accountancy firmss or lobbying groups.

Meme of the Week

Found on Twitter

Tweets of the Week

Today DHS told the senate, that so far:

Robodebt has cost $276 million to administer.

And... Robodebt has 'recovered' $279 million.

While they can separate forecast savings for newspaper headlines, apparently it's not possible to do that with actual savings.#notmydebt pic.twitter.com/Q6M6NaY09p

— NotMyDebt (@not_my_debt) May 8, 2018

DHS was asked how many robodebts are awaiting reassessment. They failed to answer. We've heard from people waiting months.

So far 652,898 reassessments have been initiated.

30,953 debts have changed in value or been wiped. That's 30,953 debt notices that were wrong.#notmydebt pic.twitter.com/LJd3WxDJV4

— NotMyDebt (@not_my_debt) May 9, 2018

DHS are including 'prevented debts' in their savings from robodebt.

What happens if a company in the private sector banks a possibly avoided future liability as a cash asset?

See: Blue Sky Alternative Investments - majority of board resigned

Time for robodebt resignations? pic.twitter.com/jsdQVM4NAa

— Sarah Masting (@sarah_masting) May 8, 2018

The people attracted to a career in Tzar Peter’s federal super ministry.....

Brisbane Times, 16 May 2018:

The information chief at Peter Dutton’s new Home Affairs super ministry allegedly ordered the deletion of a government record relevant to a request under freedom of information laws when he was a senior executive at NSW’s transport agency.

Tim Catley, who began his high-ranking role at Home Affairs in February, is accused of directing staff at Transport for NSW to delete government information in 2016, in witness statements given during an investigation by the state’s Information and Privacy Commission.

Mr Catley vehemently denies he asked anyone to delete government records. “The allegation that I asked anyone to delete an email is not true and it is not technologically possible to do that anyway [at the transport agency]. Professionally and ethically I wouldn’t do anything like that,” he told the Herald.

Following a referral from the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the state’s Information Commission launched an investigation behind closed doors into the deletion of a record at Transport for NSW to avoid public disclosure 18 months ago.

During that investigation, the Information Commission was told of a culture inside Transport for NSW of suppressing bad news, meaning that higher levels within the department were not told of potential cost blowouts on projects.

The investigation also heard that warnings about this culture of suppression were relayed to the then secretary of the department, Tim Reardon, now NSW’s top public servant as head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

A preliminary report on the Information Commission’s investigation, seen by the Herald, found that a Transport for NSW executive issued directions to delete government information relevant to a request under the Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA), the state’s freedom of information legislation.

“The investigation has found that the executive directed the deletion of records that were germane to a GIPA access application and that staff acted on that direction,” the report, by Information and Privacy commissioner Elizabeth Tydd, said.

Ms Tydd’s report did not name Mr Catley as the executive who directed the deletion. But the witness statements to the commission assert that it was Mr Catley who gave the direction.

Despite her finding about the direction, Ms Tydd determined there were no grounds to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General….

According to Ms Tydd’s analysis, if the official who destroys the information is unaware the information is subject to a freedom-of-information request, the person who directed them to delete that information did not commit an offence.

And because other staff at Transport for NSW later ensured the deleted document was retrieved, the commissioner found the government agency had not failed in its duty.

According to evidence given during the investigation, Mr Catley raised concerns at a meeting in July 2016 about emails that detailed a cost blowout in the $425 million “Next Generation Infrastructure Services” project. An application for information about the IT project sought under the GIPA Act was also discussed at the meeting.

That same month, Mr Catley allegedly directed a more junior staff member to delete an email about the exit from Transport for NSW of a manager who had a senior role overseeing the IT project, according to witness statements given to the Information Commission.

At the time, Mr Catley had responsibility for technology at Transport for NSW as its chief information officer, a role he had held since 2012.

Early this year, a “confidential” report by a consulting firm commissioned by Transport for NSW revealed a concerning picture of the state of IT at the state’s transport agencies.......