OPPOSITION Leader Brendan Nelson says comments made by Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) boss Glenn Stevens, defending major banks lifting home loan interest rates above the official cash rate, are borderline “insensitive”. Herald Sun: Brendan Nelson criticises Reserve Bank comments on rate rises

Whether or not Glenn Stevens remarks are ‘insensitive’ or not is entirely missing the point Mr Nelson. The statements are outside of the range of what has traditionally been an institution to regulate ‘independently’ the money supply in Australia. It brings into question recent statements by Rudd to legislate the further independence of the RBA. Nelson’s statement as leader of the opposition is as peculiar as repeated statements by Treasurer Wayne Swan, asking the major banks to show constraint. To hear politicians make emotive statements about banking instead of proactive legislation to claw back de-regulation is quite laughable, unless of course you happen to be an Australian suffering from ‘mortgage stress’.

What we can learn from both Glenn Stevens remarks and the charade of compassion from Wayne Swan, is a form of complicity to aid and abet an industry granted a free licence to wreak financial havoc upon ordinary Australians. We are further learning that the Rudd government has no plans to use standard legislative powers to curb banking powers to protect Australian consumers from predatory activities unleashed in the last 30 years by Coalition and Labor governments. Dont forget it was Paul Keating who contributed major collateral damage as treasurer under Hawke by lifting the ceiling on interest rates on advice/pressure from the Australian Banking Association. Interest rates in Australia are amongst the highest in the world and in the country where the alleged ’sub prime’ crisis is occuring money is almost free by comparison. Christopher Zinn of Choice media correctly points out that Mr Stevens’ comments:

…didn’t address the failure of banks to explain their decision-making on rates. We need to know what is the quantum of the added costs that the banks are facing — what was the tipping point for NAB to put up their rate? If we knew that, we could remind them to put rates back down again when the situation changes

Well said Mr Zinn, the problem we face is that the Reserve Bank, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, and the Banks restrict themselves to a limited language of cliches, pre-digested for a dulled down public which has for some time been isolated from basic facts and the truth.

The fact is there is no surprises about banking in Australia or for that matter anywhere else in the world. Howard saw to this back in the seventies when he sowed the seeds of de-regulation, Commonwealth Bank privatisation and the entry of new international players including ABN Amro, Rothschilds, Babcock and Brown…the money masters list goes on – fueling and profiting from the wholesale extraction of mineral, soil and water wealth from this country. For the time being the reins of banking have been set free and its difficult to decipher exactly what the RBA does in relation to the new regulator APRA. The last instalment of the banking changes occured in 2006, when all major banks went on-line with a global ‘risk management’ system, Basel 2, which tracks the customer debt of the major banks globally. The privacy implications for this alone are enormous but when you ask the question why our government has enabled private banking details to cross our national boundaries, without consent, you are getting into the nitty gritty of global banking and what it means to Australians.

The appointment of the RBA board is also contentious and occasionally spills into the papers. The government may refer to the RBA as independent but ask who’s making the appointments and who monitors potential conflicts of interest?: Recent case in point:

On Tuesday, November 29, Wayne Swan, the Shadow Treasurer asked of Costello in the first question of Question Time about an apparent statement that Costello made to Gerard (proposed RBA Board ), namely, “I know there’s an issue with the Tax Office but I don’t have a problem with you on the board”. Costello responded that he had no problem with Gerard, noting that “he brings a great understanding of Australian manufacturing industry to the board”, and that the obligatory declaration of interest was “indeed was signed by Mr Gerard”.

But then it gets a bit messy and we see how bent these RBA appointments can easily become:

Later it was said by Swan in the House of Representatives that Gerard’s company was using “tax havens as tax avoidance schemes to the value of $150 million” and that the declaration of interest mentioned was only in regard to his personal affairs and on asking the Treasurer when he knew this, claimed that him actually knowing the information “would breach the secrecy act”. Later Swan revealed that Gerard “and his corporate vehicles” have been “substantial donors” to the Liberal Party. Costello maintained that the Government “[does] not think that supporting the Liberal Party is a disqualification from holding ministerial office, prime ministerial office, Treasury office or other offices in Australia” Wikinewsflash

As ‘mortgage stress’ tightens across Australia we are likely to see a continuation of the same Swan/Stevens charade. A government that has the power to legislate change but is unlikely to intervene given its active role in finance de-regulation spanning back to the Fraser years. The good cop bad cop sideshow will continue and Treasurer Swan will no doubt offer more ridiculous consumer advice (let your fingers do the talking) instead of taking responsibility to manage banking in Australia, in the interest of people. As for the RBA and its directors they will continue to meet once a month and continue to play the political line but they are very unlikely to give much away about the real drivers controlling interest rates in Australia.

Further Information: 

Who Really Owns the RBA? (Reserve Bank of Australia)

In this extraordinary chapter in Australian politics Prime Minister Kevin Rudd continues to downplay his long standing relations with his “Chinese Controller” recently heard bragging of his success at paving his way into Canberra’s corridors of power. Never before has the planned agenda of an aspiring PM been splashed so colorfully across the Australian and World media. As Rudd dodges the all important questions, evidence builds that we may be facing a constitutional crisis, despite the fact the Australian Constitution says very little, as such, about the role of Prime Minister. Nevertheless when ordinary Australians are ignored in favor of questionable tycoons the future of democracy in Australia faces a serious dilemma.

So where are we at with the ‘AustChina Affair’ and what information needs to come forth from the PM to unravel the mysteries of the ‘Chinese Controller’ and good friend of most Australian political parties? Looking at the facts and the key players that have been dangling from the Beijing strings, the media and the parliament have some way to go. Crikey.com recently makes the intriguing claim that AustChina and its infiltration of Australian politics is not ‘impropriety’…

Impropriety: “the quality or condition of being improper; incorrectness. “

…if Crikey can explain what is correct or proper about Australian politicians secretly peddling influence to gain power within a democracy and then failing to declare the true nature of the connections then Crikey! …what can one say about Crikey’s judgement call that corruption within Australian politics is not incorrect?

Here are some questions for Mr Rudd arising so far from the AustChina Affair are:

• Why so soon after your pledge to curb the improper influence of lobbyists are you failing to come clean on your own lobbyist connections and why did you make such a statement of intent in the first place?
• In meeting so soon with your ‘Chinese Controller’ after your election win, why did you downplay the significance of this individual to the media when the facts reveal the connection is neither ‘personal’ or ‘insignificant’. In relation to the favours provided by AustChina what favours in return have been promised to Ian Tang, AustChina, and associated individuals including Stanley Ho?
• What is the purpose behind the register of pecuniary interests? Is it to justify the receipt of goods and services which seem to be based upon currying favours? Is it right to institutionalise the lobbying business via such a mechanism? Given the perception that politicians are unduly influenced by vested groups and given the current scandal are you prepared to legislate in favour of simply not having pecuniary interests to restore public faith in the political process?
• The use of ‘blind trusts’ is another technique by which politicians can legally maintain conflicts of interests. Are you willing to accept that within ‘blind trusts’ conflicts of interest of a hidden nature reside which contribute the same diminishing effect on honest politics? If the answer is yes, are you now prepared to legislate to prevent the inevitable conflicts of interests within the maintenance of ‘blind trusts’?
• And with regard non-pecuniary interests and a priori pecuniary interests are you prepared to establish a system whereby such influences are made available for public scrutiny?
• The money trail. As Prime Minister you make the admission that you were not ‘fully across what Ian Tang does’ yet you and your colleagues have accepted financial sponsorship, airfares and entertainment from a shadowy $1 shelf company? Why were you accepting of funds and services from an individual you apparently knew little about? Do you recommend this as a modus operandi for ministers within your cabinet, elected officials in general, or members of the opposition?
• The media is now accepting and reporting AustChina is a sham company and the website appears to either be a sham or poor judgement. Were you made aware or did you know that military technology companies were being portrayed as supply partners of AustChina? Do you regard this as a breach of Australia’s domestic security? Now that the perception has been raised and Longreach mentioned what is the exact nature of Australia’s trade of military intelligence with China? Can you elaborate if you helped establish any such links in your embassy duties in China or in trips to China during your time as an elected official of the Australian parliament?
• We now learn that National Party influence (John Anderson) assisted Ian Tang to the tune of $25m! Were you aware that Ian Tang was provided these funds and will you explain the basis upon which these funds were made available to Ian Tang given that he is an unknown in the telecommunications industry and an associate of Stanley Ho. Can you confirm if Ian Tangs generosity was in turn taxpayer funded via the now reported offering from John Anderson. Everybody’s Business – Canberra Times
• How do you justify the receipt of financial benefits from those in close association with a gambling/casino magnate Stanley Ho. You state your abhorrence of gambling and the associated lifestyle yet you are prepared to villify the youth of Australia in your rather expensive ‘binge drinking campaign’? Would you agree or disagree that when a Prime Minister demonstrates double standards it lowers the tone of politics in Australia and raises valid questions about your intent?
• If you were not ‘across’ what Ian Tang was doing how did you justify attending and speaking at the launch of the Beijing Friendship Store? Did you speak to Austrade officials at the event and were they ‘across’ the activities of Ian Tang? And what was the purpose in peddling influence at this time when you were part of the shadow ministry of the ALP?
• With regard the AustChina sponsored trip to the Sudan it seems incredible to believe AustChina’s statement that Maggie Zhen was misquoted in her statement that you were a guest of AustChina on that trip. Now, given Ian Tang’s self proclaimed affiliation with the Chinese Military and given that Longreach has not denied any affiliation with AustChina…why were you there? It would seem a long way to go to give the downtrodden people of Darfur a goat when surely with your proximity to the ‘Chinese Controller’ you could have raised the issue of human rights abuses, given your longstanding affililation with China? Or put in terms of Crikey.com… “were you doing AustChina’s bidding in Darfur?”

Given that you have avoided answering these questions in parliament please feel free to answer these questions using the comment feature below.

Another issue arising from the AustChina affair already mentioned is noticeably poor ABC coverage and very light questioning of Kevin Rudd when the opportunity has arisen. The very point was raised with ABC Media Watch in the hope they may have the courage to shine the media spotlight on themselves but surprisingly Media Watch only had this to say:

You’re free to write what you like, of course, but I’m not sure you’d be
justified in claiming that Media Watch is failing in its duty to watch
the ABC by failing (at this point) to prosecute your view that there’s a
gap in the ABC’s coverage of a particular issue. These judgements are
news judgements and are invariably somewhat subjective, different media
outlets adopt a different approach to different stories.

The China issue is a developing and interesting story — as a former
editor of Crikey I’ve been reading it every day with intrest. For the
most part it has been developing incrementally and I’m not convinced
there has been a significant gap in the ABC’s coverage of it. If it
emerged that there is such a problem there is no reason at all why we
woudn’t tackle it. Obviously you’ve formed a view this is indeed the
case, but i’m yet to be convinced.

“Developing and Interesting’ indeed but not worthy of research and reportage by the ABC? Its become apparent that the ABC has become a news follower rather than a news gatherer and a viewing of Media Watch reveals that it now swims in the safe waters of the gutter press rather than tackling any media gaps representing anything of national significance. Its a far cry from the rigorous media examination provided by David Marr and a great shame that Aunty has become so timid when such a role is seriously required of the national broadcaster. Despite the failure of the ABC the AustChina Affair is far from over and the invisible strings of the ‘Chinese Controller’ still dangle dangerously over Australian Democracy.

Further media:

Picture opportunity PM didn’t want with Madam Fu Ying

PM met China’s security chief

Labor suffers from China syndrome

PM Kevin Rudd keeps Lodge talks with Chinese secret

Rudd to lobby (some more) for Beijing – The Australian March 23, 2009

Julie Bishop reminds us with this Hansard record, that Rudd can quickly change his stripes depending upon who is paying the bills:

In a 2005 speech, Mr Rudd said,

“The independent commission of inquiry, established in October 2004 under UN Security Council resolution 1564, concludes that the Sudanese government and its militias have conducted widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population of Darfur. While the report states that the Sudanese government’s abuses do not amount to genocide, it finds that their acts of barbarity include murder, rape and torture and could amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes. The report recommended that the Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. Australia should support this recommendation and begin lobbying Security Council member countries to refer this matter to the ICC.”

(Hansard 14.2.05)

So why in the following year is Rudd accepting expensive champagne from a Chinese company with extensive military arms connections in said country (Sudan) and why did he accepted sponsored travel from said company to said country?

Casino billionaire bankrolls Labor -  Brendan Nicholson – The Age – February 3, 2009

“It beggars belief that Mr Rudd didn’t know about a donation of this size and clearly it was a back-door way of getting money into the federal campaign after they’d had to knock back the donation made directly,” Senator Ronaldson said.  “The whole deal simply doesn’t pass the sniff test.”

What favours does the ALP now owe to Stanley Ho and China? Is it time yet for a Senate enquiry?

Tang’s largesse leaves a bitter taste – SMH – March 2008

Lu Kewen friend Beijing AustChina -More links to the state? (and…Ian Tang is Tang Yui) :

According to an ABR company search ,AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd is a company whose shareholders are Phil Smith (4 shares @ $1 each) , and Tang Yui (6 shares @ $ 1 each).There are no charges recorded, and hence the company does not appear to have any borrowings.Hence, the company appears to be a corporate shell without the resources to conduct any form of business.

Tang Yui appears to be Ian Tang’s Chinese name. It is a matter of public record that Phil Smith is a shareholder in Beijing AustChina, fully aware of its political contributions(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23406496-421,00.html?from=public_rss). Phil Smith’s address in Warriewood is also the address of a fibre optic cable business, in which he is infrastrcuture manager(http://www.thehalogengroup.biz/memberdetails.php?id=32.

CONTRARY to what has been reported , Beijing AustChina or at least AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd’s principal place of business is not a suburban home in Warriewood (see Andrew Robb quoted at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2194621.htm). According to the ABR company search, AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd’s registered office and principal place of business is Level 7, 68 Dixon St, Haymarket NSW 2000.

……..

Given the fact that AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd is a corporate shell, it does appear as if the company was merely a conduit for the financial contributions made to political parties and politicians in Australia, including the current Prime Minister and Treasurer.
Given state ownership if not control over AustChina Information Technology Pty Ltd and related entities it is reasonable to conclude that the funds were provided by the Chinese Government, if not payed under its direction. This was common practise in Malaysia where the ruling UMNO owned and controlled a number of large and small corporate entities.

Recent Media:

Labor’s China Inc is starting to smell fishy – Glenn Milne | July 27, 2009 – The Australian

They don’t like the questions, of course. When I recently asked had the PM ever met Grant in China, I was initially told there would be no answer: “If you have a specific allegation, put it.” To which I politely pointed out that asking if Rudd had ever meet his Brisbane neighbour, fellow club member and political benefactor in China seemed reasonably specific to me.

How long Rudd and his ministers can maintain their stonewall on China Inc remains to be seen. But the depth of involvement and layers of contact run deep…….

“In terms of detail,” Rudd once said of Tang. “I’m not really across what he does.” Tang is a wholly owned subsidiary of Macau gaming figure Stanley Ho. Ho and his associated entities donated $900,000 to the Labor Party in the run-up to the previous election. A US Senate committee hearing named Ho as having “associates” who are “involved in organised crime”. And the US Library of Congress has cited Ho as having links to several illegal activities and the triad group Kong Lok.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25838637-7583,00.html

( A fresh dose of quality journalism in what has been somewhat of a quality news drought, but as this hinges upon Australian Sovereignty, the implications are obviously immense for Australia’s autonomous future, so with such a mountain of evidence, when are the PM and related MP’s  going to step down?)

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is appearing to be one of the most compromised publicly elected officials in the history of Australia. How such a person can offer impartial decision making in a democracy is an important question. Does he plan to represent the interests of ‘Australia’ or is he beholden to promises and obligations extending from his ever expanding folio of global business connections? As recent media reports show there is certainly a need for a parliamentary enquiry to establish whether Kevin Rudd is a fit person to hold office. May be time to check those ministerial guidelines that you rolled out last November Mr Rudd.

A CHINESE company that paid for Kevin Rudd to visit war-torn Sudan 18 months ago has denied it was doing business in the African country at the time.

Mr Rudd was opposition foreign affairs spokesman when Beijing AustChina Technology, a Chinese importer of Australian telecommunications products, paid for him to visit the African nation of Sudan in June and July 2006. AustChina also sponsored trips to Hong Kong and China by Treasurer Wayne Swan, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke and Labor backbencher Bernie Ripoll before last year’s election. But the company denied reports that its executives had travelled with the future prime minister in 2006, describing the claim as “completely false”.

Someones telling ‘porkies’ so one would imagine the Greens and the Democrats would at this point be frothing at the mouth to find out more about the Rudd China connections, where they go, and the implications for Australian Foreign Policy and Domestic Security.

Starting with Beijing AustChina, News Corporation are not exactly correct in describing the entity as a ‘Chinese Importer’. Checking the companies website we find out its in fact a foreign company not Chinese.

Beijing AustChina Technology Ltd is a Beijing-registered, foreign-owned company that is dedicated to providing value-added telecommunication and information technology solutions to the Chinese market place. We specialise in the supply and support of the latest, internationally recognised and successful ICT-related technologies through partnerships with leading Australasian companies. Beijing AustChina facilitates the localisation of these specialised products to meet the specific needs of the Chinese marketplace.

So whats the value add and what are these specific needs of the Chinese marketplace that Kevin Rudd has been so helpful in procuring? The Beijing AustChina site reveals that as well, take for example one of the key partners Longreach:

LongReach Group Limited (ASX Code: LRG) is a leading ASX-listed provider of integrated information and communications technology based products and services to the defence, security and intelligence sectors, as well as to government, telecommunications and corporate customers, both locally and internationally. (AustChina/Longreach/C4i – opposition still dithering in parliament)

Ouch! Might be time to lay your cards on the table Mr Rudd your position as Prime Minister may well be compromised by inadvertently trading military intelligence expertise with a major world power that Australia does not have an official treaty relationship with.

What does Crikey have to say about all this? No elaboration on the military connections but some messy business back home and further indications that this company was set up in Australia contrary to the popular belief of the mainstream media:

Lets start with exactly what is Beijing AustChina Technology, this mysterious company which Christian Kerr revealed in The Australian last week paid for Rudd, Wayne Swan and the hypocritical Tony Burke to take seven business class trips, mostly to China, over the past four years.

Veteran telecom industry players claim never to have heard of Beijing AustChina Technology. The company’s website trumpets that it acts as an agent for a few telco equipment companies but this press report suggests annual turnover is a rather meager $6 million.

The business address appears to lead to a residential address in Warriewood, North Sydney, and they are a $1 company.

However, company founder Ian Tang, who personally chaperoned Rudd and Swan on one China trip in 2004, now turns out to be pushing a $1.3 billion property development backed by Stanley Ho. Ho, of course, is the colourful entrepreneur who controlled Macau’s casinos for decades and handed control to his son Lawrence a couple of years back rather than face probity tests in Australia when the family joined forces with the Packers to create Melco.

NSW Labor has long been up close and personal with gambling, developer and Packer interests, so it should come as no surprise that Morris Iemma lauded Ian Tang when appointing him an honorary Sydney ambassador.

Such an honour followed the rather generous $258,000 in donations to the NSW ALP by Beijing Austchina Technology, payments which coincided with this period of sponsored travel.

Enough already, order in the house! So, when is a Prime Minister not a Prime Minister? Simple: When he’s not a Prime Minister!

Top photo: Rudds ‘Chinese Controller’ Mr Tang works on Whitlam.
Bottom: Australian registered headquarters of Beijing AustChina (note the absence of Chinese flag and the gum trees)

Further reading:

• Aunty (Your ABC) is almost silent on this story? A google search of ‘AustChina’ reveals that our national broadcaster is either asleep on the job or Rudd has censored the ABC for the moment. When ABC does report it gets it wrong as well…AustChina is not a Chinese Company. ABC’s once credible watchdog Media Watch is not sure if I have a case…my analysis of their scant report and innane questioning of key players suggests otherwise – more on this later!
• Crikey.com exclusive
• An unlikely ally points to the truth…. Andrew Bolt and Crikey suddenly see eye to eye?
• Drilling down into the Rudd AustChina connections…C4 yourself!
• Rudd Defends AustChina-sponsored trips…but is not sounding convincing: “It was in November, December, something like that, in Brissie, 10 or 15 minutes, cup of coffee, hello how are you,” Mr Rudd told reporters.
• Chinese businessman’s Canberra links defended “The nature of the conversation was: ‘Hello, how are you? I haven’t seen you for a bit.’ Mr Rudd has jokingly described Mr Tang, who is linked to Macau property and gambling tycoon Stanley Ho, as his “Chinese controller” — although the Prime Minister played down this sobriquet yesterday.
• Techsploder: “Going to Sudan on any business is sensitive enough for the leader of a democratic country, due to the bloody conflict in Darfur. Heading to Sudan sponsored by a Chinese company would seem unwise in the extreme for Rudd, and not a little cynical. A US human rights group says China is the main arms supplier to the Sudanese, with the weapons allegedly used to further the carnage in Darfur. “
• Australia Chinese Connections: Yang said he and Smith discussed increasing trade in “advanced equipment,” and increased exchanges in science and technology, cultural education and health, adding: “I’m proud to say that 90,000 Chinese students are studying in this country. And last year, about 300,000 Chinese came to tour. So in future, there will be more Chinese coming this way.” What “advanced equipment”? and is’nt Simon Crean Trade Minister?
• The Australian: KEVIN Rudd was directly involved in the public launch of a $1.3 billion Beijing retail development backed by Chinese gambling tycoon Stanley Ho and businessman Ian Tang, despite his attempts to play down links with the two men…Over the past week, the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to distance himself from links to both Mr Tang and Mr Ho, insisting he had travelled only in his capacity as Labor’s former foreign affairs spokesman. Mr Rudd has pledged to campaign on problem gambling and professed his “hatred” of poker machines, while being vague about his past links to Mr Ho.
• PM’s ‘bad judgement’ over China trip: “I, together with, I think, others from Austrade and the Australian embassy attended,” he told ABC Radio. Asked if he spoke at the event, he replied: “I believe so. But I speak at many Chinese functions when I am in Beijing, Shanghai or elsewhere in the country.
  
• While Rudd gave the Sudanese a goat the Chinese were giving them bullets and still no explanation from Rudd about confused reports over his actual purpose in Sudan and conflicting remarks from AustChina manager Maggie Zhen? Some straight answers about Sudan and what AustChina was doing there would be helpful. AustChina deputy general manager Maggie Zhen was quoted in a communications industry newsletter as saying that the company was doing business in Sudan in 2006 and Mr Rudd went with them – this was later stated by AustChina to be a misquote by Ms Zhen….
• Business Spectator: Garrett goofs yet again adding to Rudds nightmare: One MP, Peter Garrett, is still director of several private companies. The listing of MP’s interests shows dealings with Chinese entrepreneur, Ian Tang, and his company Beijing AustChina Technology.
• Rudd’s long march to Asia’s heart (SMH) reveals Ian Tang is good friend with Chinese Military: ‘Tang mentioned that to assist his real estate business, he was helping place the children of some officials in Australian colleges, and boasted that thanks to his contacts, he could place a Chinese military helicopter at his guests’ disposal for flights around Beijing.’ – He might want to call on that helicopter to rescue his drowning aussie mates.
• Macau Times – Australian ambassador lends Stanley Ho and Tang a hand: The Age reported that an Australian embassy official in Beijing also tried to smooth the way for Tang and Ho’s development, contacting the city’s Mayor, Wang Qishan, asking for his assistance “so the project can move forward in line with project timelines”.
  “I understand that the project may be experiencing some delays,” said Peter Osborne, Minister (commercial), Australian embassy, Beijing, The Age reported. “The Australian Government has maintained an ongoing interest in this high profile project in the centre of Beijing (and) as you may be aware, the Australian deputy prime minister, the honourable Mark Vaile, MP, visited the project during his December 2006 visit to Beijing.”
• MYSTERY Chinese entrepreneur Ian Tang boasted of his close friendship with Kevin Rudd and applauded Labor’s election victory at a recent function in Beijing. Brisbane Liberal MP Michael Johnson claims Mr Tang – whose firm, Beijing AustChina Technology, has been at the centre of a political storm – also spoke of having good “guanxi” with Mr Rudd.The Chinese term refers to a personal connection in which a person is able to prevail upon another to perform a favour.
• Everybody’s business – Canberra Times – Tang receives big boon from Canberra (PowerTong Network Technology Ltd) : “John Anderson helped our company,” Tang said in a conversation picked up by a television microphone. “We’ve been given $25 million.” So, multi-million dollar assistance from the Australian government to a Chinese company and then, five years later when it was in diabolical trouble on the eve of an election, it donates to the party of the man who facilitated it. Coincidence, surely.
• Rudd loses cool in the house: “Honourable member for Goldstein, the government of which you were a part knew a flaming lot about this company!” he declared, raising his voice at least 10 decibels above the normal speaking range of 60-ish. “The National Party-Liberal Party got 155 grand on the kick. I would suggest that we have here a modest case of double standards!”

‘bottler’ – Australian colloquialism – “something exciting admiration or approval”..not sure of origins but may stem from early convict days of Australia, thus someone known to be a bottler of rum or sly grog would “excite admiration and approval” (open to challenge on this one! ) Interesting to note that UK slang is quite the opposite “A person or group, especially a sports team, that doesn’t meet expectations, particularly prone to failure when success is expected.”

Many Australians would have fond memories scavaging bottles for pocket money or to cover a trip to the cinema. It all made graceful environmental sense, kept the neighborhood tidy and provided income for scout clubs and other not for profit associations. I always wondered if the scratched glass green coke bottles had twice or maybe three times returned to quench my thirst. All this dramatically changed when the packaging and bottling industry, like most other things, drifted out of the reach of governance and became a law unto themselves, one use consumption with high embodied energy costs, and litter lining the streets for want of any incentive from bottler or consumer to ‘do the right thing’. It comes then as a pleasant surprise to see Family First Senator Fielding getting down to brass tacks and demonstrating the obvious to Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett who are struggling to win points on greenhouse or the environment. His proposal is for a 5 cents refund scheme but the Greens would like to see this pushed up to 20 cents which from memory was the departure point prior to such schemes terminating in the early eighties.

Dressed appropriately in a bottle the senator proclaimed:

“There is a message in this bottle that we need to clean up, turn trash into cash, and that would get litter off the streets, out of the creeks,” he said.

“There’s nothing worse than seeing it there and [the scheme] also allows community groups to earn some extra cash.

“It’s a great idea. It’s a win-win and I can’t understand today why nationally we don’t have a scheme.

“It is crazy and we’ll get to the bottom of this, the Senate will look into it.”

The senator raised an interesting point concerning why such schemes no longer exist in a country which leads the world in per capita greenhouse gas consumption ( The Australia Institute). It was some time back this year I raised exactly the same point with the self regulating peak body governing packaging recycling outcomes..I never did receive a response suggesting such bodies no doubt represent the vested interests of the wasteful packaging industry so any suggestions to make less packaging would automatically fall on deaf ears.

Congratulations Senator Fielding for putting common sense first!

Unresponded letter to the national packaging convention:

NB. The national packaging convention failed to respond, leaving me and most Australians in the dark as to why these ‘quick wins’ are ignored, while our PM continues to prattle on about his grandiose pie in the sky schemes!

From ABC online : Fielding pushes recycling ‘message in a bottle’

Glass bottle image from: curiouskai blogspot

Inquiry into the management of Australia’s waste streams -submissions received

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had much of the Australian population in tears with the long heralded “Sorry Day” commemoration. Of course, successive Australian governments have so much to apologise for, suggestions are now coming forth to make “Sorry Day” an annual event.

Aside from the historically recent grim days of the stolen generation, indigenous people in Australia have had a rough trot. One of the most extreme crimes against indigenous people and Australian servicemen were the nuclear test detonations at Maralinga and Emu Field in the 1960s. So soon after “Sorry” day we need to ask why the Rudd government is yet again planning more stinky policies, set to divide and conquer aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Cynical observers make note of the recent Howard interventionism in that territory which seems to fly in the face of a ‘fair go’ and also the federal Anti-discrimination Act. And with Rudd picking up Howards old bat and continuing with plans to dump nuclear waste in the now militarised north, what was the actual purpose of saying sorry?

As with the Native Title Act, to fast-trek mining activities across the nation in return for royalty crumbs to the traditional owners, we are seeing the same old formula used again to set community against community, in the inevitable process of site selection for a nuclear waste dump which history will prove to be as large an injustice to indigenous Australia as the un-notified nuclear explosions of the sixties. All this coming from the ALP, a political party that in recent history was totally against uranium mining and only last year conveniently modified its two mines policy to afford more space for the ‘come and get it!’ uranium policy of the South Australian ALP. The consequences of the party trying to run before it can even walk evidenced in the blatant dumping (Marathon Resources) of low level core samples by a uranium consortium granted free licence to run amok in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

Just today we have actor Kirk Douglas (ala The Man from Snowy River) patting Rudd on the back:

“We are in a period of chaos in the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit,” Douglas wrote in the letter.”Your courageous act of an apology for the long history of injustice to the Aborigines will reverberate around the globe.”

Thanks Kirk! Kind words for our PM but nuclear explosions also ‘reverberate around the globe’ and if you you were to do your homework you would find that despite Australia being a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty we are about to contravene it by selling yellow cake to China and India and just about anyone else that puts their hand up. Also, as above, check out the devastation in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary by a bunch of Uranium Rush Cowboys that seem to have escaped prosecution from the EPA and PIRSA, the mining regulator.

The Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) is well aware of the formula and how it will be applied in the NT:

An anti-nuclear group says the Federal Government’s promise of community consultation around a nuclear waste facility location is meaningless.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says he cannot rule out the Northern Territory as a possible site for a facility, but says no community will have a waste dump forced on it.

Dr Tom Kearney from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, says there is a risk that some communities may be easily persuaded. (royalty money being the ‘pursuader’ and ‘divider’, proven most successful with the Native Title Act)

Dr Kearney says the Federal Government’s process of selection and consultation needs to be closely monitored. ( What Dr Kearney means to say is full disclosure of who approaches who and who is handed some nice little cash incentives and softeners)

“You have to look at a federal agenda and you have to look at the desperate state of many Aboriginal communities,” he said. (Correct..divide and conquer has been used successfully for 200 years so why stop now!)

“You have to put it into the context of an interventions and that makes me cynical of the Federal Government’s intent. (Yep, once people have been intimidated and had their social welfare payments threatened we are ripe for a ‘cash for dump’ scenario)

“I think we just have to be rigorous about the processes involved in looking at how and where a waste dump will be decided.” (The problem here is that rigorous is the last thing the federal government is…try to unravel the machinations of a Native Title Settlement for example)

With Uranium Mine exploration approvals exceeding one hundred in South Australia and two fresh mines approved south of Alice Springs, Australia is fast becoming the most nuclear hot spot on the globe. Aboriginal creation stories in South Australia make clear reference to the process by which these uranium deposits came about and the same stories also make a clear statement that the uranium should not be touched. Ignoring this wisdom and demonstrating ongoing disrespect, our government continues to use the same old tactics to take advantage and divide aboriginal communities to further its own high risk agenda…and all this after having just said ‘Sorry’?

Further information:

ABC Story quoted : Anti-Nuclear Group wary of Garrett’s assurancesAustralia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations, reveals John Pilger.

ABC Difference of Opinion : Sus about Govt intervention in NT: nuclear dumping

A recent Rudd perspective on Hiroshima, The Age June 9/08 : Epiphany at Hiroshima for deeply moved Rudd

Recent Media

No change in national day date, says Rudd – The Age January 27, 2009

Just minutes after receiving his honour on Sunday night, Professor Dodson said the day of national celebration should be shifted because many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people regarded January 26 as “Invasion Day”.

To many indigenous Australians, in fact, most indigenous Australians, it really reflects the day in which our world came crashing down, he said.

Prime Minister Rudd was uncompromising to this seemingly reasonable and valid request.

We are a free country and it is natural and right from time to time, that there will be conversations about such important symbols for our nation…..It is equally right as a free country that those of us charged with political leadership provide a straightforward response.