Articles

More Bosses Means More Press Freedom

susie — 2011-06-01T10:39:03Z

Last week’s Canberra media conference when Senator Bob Brown turned the tables on assembled journalists by posing questions and analysing their work not only put the spotlight on coverage of the current climate change negotiations. The Greens leader’s probing also highlighted another important debate about media content and relations between journalists and politicians.

Senator Brown’s key message was that the shift in media content from news to commentary is not providing balanced reporting on the Multi-party Climate Change Committee: "it’s not balanced, it is opinionated, it’s not news in terms of having both sides of a story".

Some of these issues are covered in the Future of Journalism project commissioned by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. One aspect of the research for this project backs up Senator Brown’s observation on "opinionated" comment. Peter Lewis, Director of Essential Research, who worked with the Alliance on this study, reports that they found "people want the news, not the people telling them news".

So where is this debate going? Hopefully Senator Brown’s decision to publicly question how media reporting is being conducted will kickstart a wider review of media operations and ownership.

For the backers of media pluralism, as the Greens are, an inquiry into media ownership would help to sharpen this debate and possibly assist Australian journalism to enhance rather than restrict the democracy of information and ideas.

The need for such an inquiry is underlined by the Press Freedom ranking issued by Reporters Without Borders that has Australia in 18th position behind New Zealand (8th), Estonia (9th) and Finland (1st). Australia’s relatively low ranking is primarily due to the limited diversity in media ownership in this country.

While few of the recommendations from past media inquiries undertaken by both state and federal governments have been implemented, such investigations remain important as they provide the public with a means to engage in the debate about the future of the exclusive media club.

Both the 1994 Senate inquiry into foreign ownership of Australia’s media and the 2000 inquiry into media self-regulation raised concerns about our concentrated media ownership and the damaging impact it is thought to have on the public.

These two inquiries while useful, had limited terms of reference. The two major investigations that had a breadth, which makes much of their work still relevant, were the 1991-2 Print Media Inquiry undertaken by a House of Representatives Select Committee and the 1999-2000 Productivity Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting.

Not surprisingly, there was a sharp divide in the content of the submissions presented to these two inquires, with media owners arguing that existing controls and structure of the industry provided diversity of news and opinion — while their critics from the relevant unions and some independent outlets disagreed raising concerns about media concentration.

Although the media landscape has been transformed since these inquiries, the common finding of the Productivity Commission and the federal parliamentary inquiry that structural diversity serves the public interest by delivering content diversity remains relevant today.

A new media inquiry could build on this work and look at overseas initiatives that are grappling with challenges similar to what Australia is facing.

Press freedom would have to be part of such an inquiry as this issue cannot be divorced from media ownership. Australia could learn from the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative and Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act that formally recognise the rights of journalists and media institutions as having a role in the democratic processes that bring balance to the institutions of authority.

Some of the practical initiatives being considered overseas in response to the impact of new media deserve attention here: England’s Independently Funded News Consortia, which is designed to finance and generate news content for regional television; the Netherlands’ program to foster employment and training of young journalists; and the Korean government’s direct aid package to regional, local and internet newspapers. These and other ideas are set out in the Media Alliance’s Future of Journalism report.

In their book The Death and Life of American Journalism, John Nichols and Robert McChesney have set out an action plan for the US government. Their premise is that their government has a responsibility to foster independent journalism because a free press is central to the US constitution. Their plan includes funding a "News Americorps" to work on regional and community media; US$200 "news vouchers" for citizens to spend on news media of their choice; government buyout of failing newspapers with a transition to low profit bodies with as many journalists kept on as is practical; and a tax on consumer electronics to support public media.

A public inquiry initiated by the Australian federal parliament would provide a means to explore these ideas and initiatives.

Experience of past inquiries shows that reforming media laws is difficult. Labor has shown little courage on this front since 1991, when its National Conference initiated the Print Media Inquiry to take on the media owners. These days Labor and Coalition leaders favour private audiences with powerful media owners such as Rupert Murdoch. Publicly critiquing the state of media coverage and ownership is not on their agenda.

Rather than be indignant that Senator Brown questioned their work, journalists may want to reflect that here is a politician with the courage to be critical of a major institution — the media industry — in ways that other political figures do not dare. Maybe they have more in common with this politician than the media owners, who are the biggest break on press freedom in this country.

As Senator Brown suggested: let’s keep discussing this issue.

Read the article in its original context here.

Who Is Under The Influence?

susie — 2011-06-01T10:27:42Z

Recent amendments to the NSW Election Funding and Disclosures Act contained a number of positive changes, including caps on election expenditure, bans on donations from certain companies such as those in the alcohol and tobacco industries, and strict limits on the amount that can be donated to parties and candidates.

However, the provision that allows large spending by third-party campaigners is a weak link that could mean influential groups are able to bring their money to bear on the election outcome.

These third parties basically are organisations that spend money in order to push for certain policies during an election. Such organisations include social action groups, unions, business lobby organisations and various religious bodies. Money can be spent on anything from advertising and leaflets to props like the "NSW Deserves Better Bus" currently being driven around the state by the NSW Business Chamber.

Under the new electoral law, if such groups registered with the NSW Election Funding Authority (EFA) before the beginning of this year they are able to spend up to $1.05 million on campaigns during the upcoming NSW election. If they register this year, their spending is capped at the still substantial amount of $525,000.

This means that a third party that registered by 31 December 2010 can spend as much as a political party that is contesting seats in the upper house of Parliament and up to ten seats in the lower house.

There have been election campaigns by third party groups in all past NSW elections. This is the first time in NSW that there has been an attempt to regulate them.

Free expression of ideas and values are crucial in a healthy democracy. The question does arise however whether spending so much money on campaigns by a small number of special interest groups is positive. Many people are concerned about the privileged access by the richer and better organised lobby groups as they can drown out the messages of much smaller community groups and individuals.

As of the end of last week 22 organisations had registered with the EFA. A list of these organisations appears at the end of this article. As can be seen, a total of 16 beat the end of year deadline so they can spend over $1 million during the 2011 election, while six groups registered in January. We expect more third parties to sign up in the coming weeks.

Of the 22 that are currently registered, 15 are unions. There are two business lobby groups, a club, an organisation related to the Liberal Party, the National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA), GetUp and the Australian Christian Lobby.

While the issues on which each of these organisations plan to campaign are only beginning to be seen, we can look at the goals of various types of third party groups and speculate about several campaigns they may pursue.

GetUp campaigns on a wide range of progressive issues ranging from tackling climate change, support for human rights and fighting internet censorship. At the other end of the political spectrum is the Australian Christian Lobby, which campaigns to maintain conservative religious values, including opposition to same sex marriage and voluntary euthanasia while supporting laws that allow private schools to expel gay students.

Business interest groups lobby on behalf of their members in order to influence government policies that typically give economic benefits to them. The two that have registered so far are the Property Council of Australia and the NSW Business Chamber.

Since individual property companies are banned from making donations in NSW to political parties, it seems reasonable to assume that the Property Council will run campaigns to benefit the interests of the entire property sector. The money that the Council uses most likely comes from developers who were banned from donating to political parties in NSW in 2009.

The ability of entities which were banned from making donations to political parties now to run third party campaigns is a major loophole in the new amendments to the NSW Election Funding and Disclosures Act.

The NRMA is currently running a campaign called "Seeing Red on Roads" which highlights the problems motorists face on NSW roads every day. Their advertisements are encouraging people to vote in the upcoming election with NSW roads in mind. The head of the NRMA, Wendy Machin, is a former National Party MP.

Unions typically lobby for better work and economic conditions for their members. Two of the unions that registered early as third party campaigners are the Nurses Association and Police Association of NSW.

Both of these unions, along with the Australian Medical Association (NSW) and the Health Services Union, launched the Last Drinks campaign in NSW last year. It is aimed at lessening the burden that alcohol-related violence places on their services, and the greater community each year.

It is quite possible that these two unions may run a third party campaign during the election to pressure politicians to support Last Drinks.

While free expression of opinion is a critical right in a healthy democracy, it is possible that well funded third party campaigns could drown out other voices in the community. Also, these large campaigns can be run by groups whose members are now banned from making direct political donations. This is because property, alcohol and gaming interests in NSW are no longer able to donate any money to political parties or candidates.

Previously there were no election spending caps on third parties so the new laws are an improvement. However, in order to maintain the right of free expression without the loss of political equality for all groups, we believe that the expenditure caps on third parties should be much lower than they currently are in NSW.

In Canada, third parties have to register with the electoral authorities once they have spent more than $500 on election advertising. They then have to disclose their expenditure and donors and comply with an upper limit on third party expenditure of C$188,250.

Similar expenditure limits should apply in NSW and throughout Australia. The Canadian model gets the balance right: free speech is not limited, but no one group can spend vast amounts of money in order to unduly influence governmental decisions.

Third Party Campaigners Registered NSW EFA for 2011 Election
Registered Prior to 31 December 2010
Public Services Association of NSW
Electrical Trades Union of Australia, NSW Branch
Australian Meat Industry Employees Union Newcastle & Northern Branch
Shop Assistants and Warehouse Employees Federation of Australia Newcastle & Northern NSW
CFMEU Mining & Energy - Northern District
Unions NSW
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union - NSW Branch
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
NSW Nurses Association
Police Association of NSW
National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd
The Australian Workers Union - Greater NSW Branch
CFMEU Mining and Energy
Australian Christian Lobby
Transport Workers Union of NSW
Dame Pattie Menzies Liberal Foundation

Registered in 2011
GetUp Ltd
NSW Teachers Federation
NSW Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union
NSW Business Chamber
Sutherland District Trade Union Club
Property Council of Australia

Read the article in its original context here.

The hidden millions in political donations

susie — 2011-06-01T10:18:24Z

While the raw data from the Australian Electoral Commission released yesterday provides some insight into the latest batch of big donors to Australian political parties there is also a hidden story tucked away in these disclosures. Comparing the AEC data for NSW with the disclosures to the NSW Election Funding Authority reveals some interesting trends in political donating and underlines the need for far reaching political funding reform.

Many corporations have taken advantage of the changes to the electoral funding laws made under the Howard government in 2006, which lifted the threshold for disclosure for political donations from $1500 to $10,000. With increases in the CPI the threshold for the current round of disclosures is now $11,200.

At the time Liberal Senator Nick Minchin argued that the higher threshold was all about protecting the privacy of donors.

This line of reasoning did not stop the accusations that the influence of money politics would flourish under this heavy veil of secrecy afforded by the higher threshold.

A comparison of the donation data revealed by the AEC with that disclosed to the NSW EFA provides an insight into what the Coalition elders wanted to keep secret.

The former Howard government's rule change certainly worked as the Greens and Labor predicted. Many political donations remain hidden unless you reside in NSW. Donors to the Coalition parties are more likely to give amounts below the federal donation threshold, which provides the “privacy” provision pushed through when the Howard government controlled both houses of the federal parliament.

The total amount of political donations received by the NSW Nationals for 2009-10 as disclosed to the AEC comes in at $532,000. For the same period the NSW EFA was informed that the NSW Nationals received $709,000 in donations. The accuracy of these disclosures is thrown into further doubt when contributions from the National Free Enterprise Foundation are taken into account. This body, a generous fundraising arm of the Nationals, donated $60,500 according to the NSW EFA, while the AEC reveals that $341,000 was received from the same donor over the same period.

An analysis of donations to the Liberals shows even a greater gap in donations reported to the AEC and those reported to the NSW EFA.

Yesterday's AEC data for 2009-10 shows the NSW Liberals received $962,000. Meanwhile the NSW EFA data for this period reveals the total Liberal donations come in at $3.77 million. Clearly many donors to the NSW Liberals have chosen to give amounts under the $11,200 AEC threshold.

For Labor the difference is not nearly as great. The AEC reveals Labor received $3.7 million in donations, while the NSW EFA data puts their donations at $4.4 million.

We are also able to make a direct comparison of the data for 2008-09. While the NSW Liberals reported donations totally $1.50 million to the AEC, the NSW EFA with its tighter disclosure rules reveals a figure of $3.54 million.

For NSW Labor for the same period the AEC recorded $2.73 million in donations compared to $5.2 million under the NSW EFA rules.

While these discrepancies highlight the need for tighter and consistent disclosure rules, reform needs to go much further.

We need national uniform electoral funding laws that require a ban on all donations from corporations and other organisations, strict limits on donations from individuals and caps on election expenditure.

It is not just about knowing who is donating and possibly trying to gain influence, it is about a creating a fair electoral system.

Read the article in its original context here.

Housing crisis or just bad policy? (with James Arvanitakis)

leerhiannon — 2010-08-20T05:58:05Z

It is little wonder that there is so much focus on interest rates, with the RBA telling us that the size of household debt owed to banks in this country is $1.2 trillion.

This issue of interest rates is a political double-edged sword: when they are low, the government talks of the fiscal responsibility that brought them down, while when they rise, the opposition sings the “mismanagement” tune. Both the electorate and media now seem to use interest rates as a kind of proxy to judge the economic management of the government of the day.

In a globalised economy, the direction that interest rates take has as much to do with international factors as domestic management - and as a result, this proxy can be misdirected.

A better way to judge economic credentials and leadership is by looking at the issue of housing: who can afford what; what are the inflationary implications; where is it located; and is it both economically and environmentally sustainable? These questions should not be limited to home ownership, but also need to be applied to the rental market.

If we use these more complex measures, then it is hard to find a government in the last two decades whose management is satisfactory.

Housing is a multifaceted issue and seems to highlight the worse aspects of federal government policy, private sector self-interest and demarcation lines of decision-making that paralyses the ability to act. Yes, all three tiers of government should play a role, but we need a sense of direction rather than accusations of blame.

So how do we understand the current housing crisis in Australia: both in terms of ownership and rentals? The most straightforward way is to look at supply and demand.

On the demand side, we see high levels of immigration that undoubtedly play a role. The real problem, however, is government policy that encourages market exuberance. Among industrialised nations, Australia’s property taxation regime is skewed towards rewarding both investors and owner-occupiers at the expense of renters and potential buyers. If we look at the figures, they are astonishing, with the Senate Committee on Housing Affordability reporting that:

… the combined total of capital gains tax arrangements, land tax exemption and negative gearing arrangements is estimated to be in the order of $50 billion per year.

This is hardly surprising if we take a closer look at negative gearing. An analysis of figures by Tim Colebatch shows that between 1993 and 2007, the number of landlords reporting profits grew by 36,000 while, in contrast, those reporting losses was 594,000 at a total of $6.4 billion. We cannot estimate how many of these are real, but we can speculate that many are paper losses to minimise tax.

Despite these figures, the housing industry’s contribution to the debate is often limited to complaining about fees and taxes such as land tax and stamp duty: a simple answer to a complex problem that is unlikely to wield any benefits to the broader community.

Then there was the so-called “first home buyers schemes” which helped create a false sense of affordability with an all too predictable outcome: house price inflation. The scheme simply means everyone ups their willingness to pay by the equivalent of the handout and does nothing to make housing more affordable.

The increase in housing prices that follows these policies creates a false sense of satisfaction and the net result is neutral because most of us buy and sell in the same market. Despite this, at most dinner parties you find someone talking up how much their house is worth often forgetting that rising house prices can not make us all wealthy.

The other side of the equation is supply. Despite the massive asset price increases in housing, Australians have not actually built many houses in the last 10 years. Again the property lobby offers a simplified answer to housing shortages: release more land on the urban fringe.

This is a ludicrous solution because most people do not want to live in areas that are under serviced and require very long commuting times. Further, with cheap fuel becoming a thing of the past, most who can barely afford a house will find the commute financially crippling.

Despite the obvious problems with extending cities, this has been the solution for far too long. Both the shape and structure of Australian cities bear witness to the fact that urban planning in this country is basically non-existent: our cities are among the least dense in the world, are under-serviced and have huge environmental impacts.

So what is the solution to an over-valued market in terms of both average wages and the yields on rental properties?

The first thing to state is that we do not need more houses. Despite what developers tell us, property analyst Hometrack believes that housing may even be in excess in Australia. Their argument is that ABS data significantly under-estimates the housing supply by only counting "occupied dwellings". On the 2006 census night, for example, the ABS reported 8.3 million dwellings while Hometrack believes that there are at least 10 million dwellings in Australia. This difference, according to Hometrack, is made up “of a mixture of housing awaiting sale or development, vacant dwellings, second homes, and abandoned homes".

The second is to revisit the issue of density and planning. We need to get better at planning liveable cities that do not simply expand out. Medium density housing needs to be encouraged through better amenities and taxation.

Third, we must revisit the recommendations in the Henry Review associated with negative gearing and capital gains taxes. These were sensible recommendations that had the support of many economists as they remove distortions to different types of savings.

Finally, we need to look at long-term leases that allow renters to live with a sense of security: particularly for families looking for stability. Five to seven-year leases would encourage long-term investors and discourage speculators - and have a significant impact on housing prices.

For too long housing policy has been limited to quick fix solutions that continually benefit developers and those already comfortably set in the market. The next federal government needs to show leadership and not shy away from confronting established interests - or we will simply get more of the same. It does not take a genius to tell us that more of the same is likely to lead to … more of the same.

Green New World? (with Antony Loewenstein)

leerhiannon — 2010-08-20T05:07:55Z

Take the mining industry's reaction to the recently neutered resources super tax (RST). The Minerals Council of Australia released advertisements claiming that the new tax would result in catastrophic job losses and a crippled Australian minerals sector - emphasising that their main concern was the loss of jobs. Yet the very same industry, during a time of record profits from November 2009 to March 2010, made 10,500 forced redundancies. It's clear that this talk of "community concern" is only used when it suits the needs or image of big business.

The outcome of the RST served to highlight the government's closeness to the mining companies. It was a reminder of the powerful influence major corporations maintain over our political processes. Transparency simply doesn't exist and public cynicism inevitably grows.

The problem isn't isolated to the mining industry. Even the most common aspects of our day-to-day of life, such as the water we drink, are affected. In 2008 Mount Franklin (a subsidiary of Coca-Cola Amatil) ran a trio of "earth-conscious" promotions. Prizes included a hybrid car and a trip to an eco-resort in the Daintree rainforest. This ethical posturing as "environmentally friendly" only served to obscure the environmental consequences of producing bottled water.

Coca-Cola paid just $181 for a water-extraction licence that allowed them to take 66 million litres of water from the Mangrove Mountain aquifer in NSW and yet bottled water is still more expensive than petrol. Even though PET bottles are completely recyclable, only 35 per cent of the bottles actually get recycled. The remaining 65 per cent of bottles end up in landfill, taking over 20 years to break down.

Because they have no reason to behave ethically, other than fear of a negative public image, some industries will use all means at their disposal to generate profits. This includes hypocritical marketing campaigns. For example in 2004 BP launched a nationwide ad campaign in the US framing itself as the "global leader" in clean energy production. Since becoming the "global leader", BP has been involved in the dubious manipulation of the US propane market (in 2004); a devastating explosion at a BP refinery in Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring 170 (in 2005); and a spill of 260,000 gallons into the Arctic tundra from a BP pipeline in Alaska (in 2006). Throughout that period, BP's sales rose from $192 billion in 2004, $240 billion in 2005 and $266 billion in 2006.

Following the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Mexican Gulf, the consequences of which are still immeasurable, new information is emerging every day on the many ways in which BP cut corners when it came to safeguards on the rig, some which have been implicated in the current disaster. Yet BP's outgoing CEO, Tony Hayward, received a 40 per cent pay increase in 2009 based on BP's "improved performance." On leaving BP, Hayward said that his company had been the "model of corporate social responsibility" in addressing the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

The simple fact is that the majority of large corporations will do whatever it takes to generate increased profits. We shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking otherwise. And governments are often helping. In the US, both Republican and Democrat members of congress have received large contributions from BP. The top 10 recipients, including Barack Obama and his opposition in the 2008 presidential election John McCain, netted combined contributions from BP in excess of $388,000. The transformation to a low-carbon economy, inevitable through climate change and a scarcity of non-renewable resources, fills some people with the hope that this type of business culture will change. But this is not certain.

For instance, links have been discovered between the transnational electric car company Better Place and the Israeli army's illegal behaviour in occupied Palestinian territory. According to the Sydney Morning Herald in July, Ben Keneally, husband of the NSW Premier, runs the Australian arm's marketing and strategy and the firm is currently lobbying for NSW government support. The company has built charging stations along Highway 443, a road that runs 30km through Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Part of the highway remains inaccessible to indigenous Palestinians despite an Israeli High Court ruling demanding equal access for both Palestinians and Israelis. Just because a company makes electric cars doesn't mean they are ethically or environmentally sound.

The idea that industry should be left to make its own ethical decisions is both dangerous and misguided. Unless Australians take the time to listen carefully to what they're told is "good" or "green", some big business will continue to get away with unethical behaviour. But the fact that industry feels the need to engage in ethical and environmentally friendly marketing is a positive sign. It suggests that community pressure does have an influence on how corporations behave.

Read the article in its original context here.

All hope, no real action on filthy campaign lucre

leerhiannon — 2010-08-20T04:58:58Z

Australian democracy has been diminished by more than a decade of political donations bankrolling Labor and the Coalition parties. While there are few cases in which a direct link has been established between donations to a party and favours delivered for the donor, the public perception is that the system is corrupt.

These parties have raised well over $300 million in the past decade, so it is understandable the link between donations and deals has become so damaging for the older parties.

The Greens' Democracy4Sale research project - which tracks many of these donations - is frequently asked for examples of the dirty deeds. Instances of direct favours are few, the Wollongong developers' scandal being a notable exception.

But in the past decade significant changes were made to laws and regulations for industries that gave significant sums. Those changes brought considerable benefits to donating industries.

Representatives of property, pharmaceutical, hotel and resource companies are among the most generous donors. They attend party fund-raisers and hand over cheques.

An insight into this world of money politics was provided by John Thorpe, a former NSW president of the Australian Hotels Association. On Stateline in 2004 he famously said: ''Democracy isn't cheap.''

''Everybody's involved with assisting political parties because at this stage we need to keep these people in place to have the democracy we have today,'' he said.

''Look, what helps is this - you attend as an observer, as I did at the ALP national conference. Yes, it costs money. But we did get interviews with ministers, we did get interviews with staffers, and that does help us in our policies and our regulations.''

The trends in political generosity suggest the money often follows the party in power. Under the Howard government, the resource and pharmaceutical industries favoured the Coalition federally, while in the life of the NSW government, developers favoured the Labor Party.

These arrangements have come at a cost to Labor and the Coalition. In recent years some key figures within those parties have responded to the growing public disquiet about the corrupting influence of political donations by backing electoral funding reform.

Malcolm Turnbull, before he became leader of the opposition, called for political donations to be limited to those from individuals. Senator John Faulkner, when special minister of state, became one of the key voices for change. He championed the federal government's green paper on electoral funding, an initiative seen as providing the road map for reform.

In NSW, scene of many political donation scandals, the state Labor and Coalition parties appeared to recognise it was time to overhaul funding laws. Two parliamentary inquiries gave some hope for an end to the corrupting influence of corporate political donations as their recommendations were, in the main, agreed to by all.

NSW Labor, in the latest parliamentary inquiry, agreed to limit donations from unions and restrict the role of union affiliation funds. Union donations and fees had been a stumbling block for the Coalition so, with this commitment from Labor, it looked like the last obstacle had been removed.

But reform has gone off the boil, in NSW and federally. No legislation has come before either parliament. What went wrong? How did we get so close to reform only to revert to another round of money politics? Why will companies and rich individuals again be able to buy access and political influence in this election? Is it really too hard to find the right public funding model for political parties and candidates? Or is the problem the lack of a leader with the necessary courage to hold out for far-reaching reform?

Whatever the reason, the public wants reform.

It will be a sorry state of affairs if reform comes only after more Wollongong-style developer donation scandals. If that's the only way our political leaders find the courage to follow through on their promised reforms that will be a poor reflection on our democratic process.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is keen to paint a fresh face for her government, and she is in the box seat to announce changes to electoral funding laws. She would be wise to ensure electoral funding reform does not fall away in the manoeuvring of this campaign.

She could increase her popularity before the federal election by committing to a major clean-up of how parties and elections are funded.

This is one promise she could easily keep because after the election the Greens and Labor may well have the numbers in the Senate to ensure such legislation passes.

Read the article in its original context here

A casual relationship with the facts

susie — 2011-06-01T09:20:56Z

He told ABC journalist Leigh Sales that "The Labor Party received far more from the mining industry [in political donations], I understand, at the last election than we did".

A closer look at the official figures belies his statement.

Analysis by the Greens www.democracy4sale.org project of donations disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission show that in the two annual disclosure periods leading up to the 2007 federal election, resource companies directed nearly $2 million worth of donations to Labor and the Coalition.

The Coalition accepted $1,097,500 in donations from resource companies, significantly higher than Labor's $869,200 in donations.

The Queensland Liberal National party alone accepted $622,500 in donations from Mr Clive Palmer's Mineralogy company during the lead up period.

Following the 2007 federal election, in the 2008/09 financial year, the Coalition took $824,405 from resource companies compared to Labor's $194,500.

The fact is, over the past decade, the Coalition has received more than double the donations from the resources industry than Labor.

For the decade from 1998 to 2008 the Federal Coalition received $1.8 million from the resources industry. Federal Labor received just over $800,000.

Mr Hockey's casual relationship with facts reveals a sloppiness that reflects poorly on the shadow treasurer.

It is widely known that, as well as making donations, resource companies made generous payments to the Howard government to sit on energy and mining advisory boards.

Has the Liberal Caucus now formally adopted Tony Abbott's 'the truth is on paper, say whatever the hell you want' mantra?

If the Coalition wants to hold the hand of the mining industry and start spinning heat on the Rudd government over the Resources Super Profits Tax, Mr Hockey should do a bit more research into the reality of political donations.

Over the past decade, comparison of overall political donations shows the Coalition leading Labor. The Liberals and Nationals over the last decade have received $77.9 million while Labor has pocketed $68.7 million.

In the Lateline interview Mr Hockey expressed 'complete outrage' over the suggestion that we politicians are 'political representatives for hire'.

If Mr Hockey had the conviction to turn that public blustering into reality, he would be advocating for electoral funding reform.

Since Mr Abbott became opposition leader, the Liberals have clearly backed off from working with the Greens to end the distasteful political donations regime.

Read the article in its original context here.

Golden goose has eggs enough for all

leerhiannon — 2010-05-05T06:29:40Z

(view the article in its original context here)

There is nothing like a tax debate to simultaneously make our eyes glaze over and excite us: it all depends if we are directly affected or not.

It is for this reason that governments tread a careful path on where to increase taxes while trying to spread any decrease, no matter how small, as widely as possible.

Despite the fear mongering of the mining lobby, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's new resource tax should be welcomed, even though there is room for significant improvement.

Mining is a golden goose. While some of its eggs bring benefits many are tainted, causing negative effects from pollution to driving up the exchange rate and making other Australian industries less competitive on the international stage.

The resource super profits tax is one step towards ensuring the benefits of the goose are shared and the negative impacts minimised.

Over the last three decades the task of tax reform has been made difficult by the mistaken belief that the lower the taxes we pay, the better off we are. As much as we may hate paying them, the thing about taxes is that they fund our society: from roads to schools, hospitals to police, pensions to lifeguards.

Successive Australian governments have ignored infrastructure investment. Even during the mining boom, we have seen politically expedient tax cuts prioritised ahead of long term planning. This was highlighted by Saul Eslake, former ANZ Chief Economist and now with the Grattan Institute, who criticised the Howard government's instigated tax cuts which squandered the $283 billion in windfall gains from the mining boom.

At the same time, we have seen some of our most valuable resources sold-off cheaply. From water rights to minerals, our governments have all too often succumbed to special interests and under-charged for access to resources that have made a few very wealthy.

In other words, we are giving away money we can ill-afford while at the same time flogging off the family silver at bargain basement prices.

It is for this reason that the Henry Tax Review is an important addition to Australia's contemporary political landscape. It attempts to answer two broad questions: what is the fair rate of tax we should pay and what is the best way for us to value our finite resources?

The resource super profits tax is an example of a resource rent tax, which is a tax on the 'excess' profits from selling mineral resources.

The petroleum resource rent tax was developed in the 1980s to tax the North West Shelf oil and gas developments and extended to Bass Strait in the 1990s. It is a progressive tax in that it applies to 'excess' profit - and the greater the profit the higher the tax paid.

This is important because it does not act as a disincentive to investments: the tax only kicks in after ordinary earnings are achieved. So how can this new resource tax be better managed?

The Australian Greens have a detailed proposal for a new National Resources Fund that is not simply about infrastructure but about the future of the Australian community. Despite the announcement that $700 million raised will be directed towards infrastructure, there is little evidence that the resource super profits tax will be directed towards ongoing, long-term investment into Australia's future.

A National Resources Fund could be managed by the Future Fund to ensure that the funds from resources are invested in community services including health and aged care, education and public transport and new low-carbon technologies for both now and into the future.

This could be modelled on Norway's Petroleum Fund that is charged to manage the large (and often variable income) from the oil boom to ensure its use for future generations. While somewhere between 4 to 5 per cent of the income from this fund is used for budgetary purposes, most of the money is held overseas to ensure the economy does not overheat nor the exchange rate become overvalued.

This over-valuing of the local currency currently confronts Australia. The mining boom has pushed up the price of the Australian dollar causing other exports, from education to manufacturing, to decline. The result is that all our economic eggs are placed in one basket, threatening our long-term economic security.

It is also important that some of the money from this new tax flows to providing appropriate compensation for particular regions and local communities that now carry the risks and burdens from mining. We need to acknowledge the health and environmental consequences of mining for these communities, and ensure that they are appropriately compensated. To ignore the real impacts of mining on particular communities and simply treat parts of Australia as a quarry is both unethical and unjust.

With some finessing of Rudd's super resource tax proposal the golden eggs from mining could better nourish local mining communities and the nation's infrastructure, by enabling the windfalls from mining to be more equitably and evenly spread.

The devil is in the details

leerhiannon — 2010-02-26T05:52:49Z

To view this article in its original context and see the comments readers have made, click here.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described Bernie Banton as a great Australian hero for his tireless campaigning for justice for asbestos victims. But despite expert scientists and leading risk assessors warning that some products of nanotechnology could pose similar risks to asbestos, state and federal Labour governments have so far been reluctant to close legal loopholes that leave most nano-products effectively unregulated.

The failure to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that nano-products face both safety testing and appropriate labelling is a bad look for an industry trying to promote itself as clean, clever and innovative. It leaves the public, workers and the environment exposed to poorly understood risks, and the industry vulnerable to future compensation claims.

Nanotechnology, the science of the small, is touted for use across many Australian industry sectors. The sector receives generous government funding, and nanotechnology research is identified as a priority area for Australian Research Council grants.

Manufactured nanoparticles are already used in hundreds of Australian products, including sunscreens, cosmetics, paints, clothing, furniture varnishes, food packaging, health supplements, building equipment, sports goods, cleaning products and household appliances. Yet regulatory gaps mean that most of these nanoparticles face neither safety testing nor product labelling before they can be legally used commercially.

Extremely tiny nanoparticles are used for their novel properties. In nano-form, nanoparticles of familiar substances behave in unexpected ways, changing colour, strength, solubility or conductivity. Yet in the rush to take commercial advantage of their novel behaviour, the new risks associated with nanoparticles have been largely overlooked.

In a parallel with asbestos, carbon nanotubes are widely touted as a modern day miracle material. 100 times stronger than steel and 6 times lighter, carbon nanotubes are also incredibly good conductors of electricity. They are used in reinforced plastics, specialty building materials, electronics and sports goods manufactured internationally. They are touted for future use in capacitators, pharmaceuticals, solar cells and defence applications.

The failure to ensure regulation and labelling of high risk nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes has attracted criticism from unions, nanotoxicologists, risk assessors and leading workplace safety lawyers. At least two studies have shown that mice exposed to carbon nanotubes develop mesothelioma - the deadly cancer previously associated only with asbestos.

Global re-insurer Swiss Re put it bluntly: "…some nanotubes are similar in size and form to asbestos fibres. The supposition that the potential for harm could be similar would appear to be obvious."

The ACTU has previously called for a mandatory register and labelling of all commercially used nanomaterials. To its credit, the previous Australian Nano Business Forum backed this call. Yet governments have yet to take any action to ensure that Australian workers are protected from unsafe nano-risks, and that the asbestos tragedy is not repeated.

Risky nanoparticles used in high exposure personal care products such as sunscreens and cosmetics also remain effectively unregulated. Studies showing that Australian nano-sunscreens contain ingredients that act as extreme photocatalysts have undermined public confidence in nano-product safety.

The Cancer Councils Professor Ian Olver recently told a Sydney newspaper that if nano-sunscreen ingredients penetrate skin, they could damage DNA, possibly even increasing the risk of skin cancer. Concern about nano-sunscreens has been made worse by the Therapeutic Goods Administrations refusal to regulate or label them.

My freedom of information request last year to obtain information from this government body about what sunscreens on the market used nanotechnology was met with a $4,000 invoice for information it said was incomplete or out of date.

Beyond being a liability to the industry's public reputation, the failure to regulate nano-products could leave nanotechnology companies exposed to large compensation payouts. A leading Australian occupational health and safety lawyer and partner at the law firm Deacons has warned: "We could be facing another epidemic in our industrial history of people, large groups of people, displaying latent symptoms from current exposures that are taking place at the moment."

Research into nanotechnology's health and environment risks is a growing focus of both international industry conferences and government programs.

At the bi-annual International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, held this week in Sydney, alongside many presentations about the commercial and scientific promise of nanotechnology, there is also a strong focus on emerging research results into the health and environment risks of nanoparticles.

In the Federal Government's new National Enabling Technology Strategy, launched in Canberra on Monday, and in the NSW Government's response to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Nanotechnology, the health and environment risks of nanotechnology were also identified as a key area of concern.

Yet research into the safety of nanoparticles, in the absence of mandatory regulatory measures, and after such nanoparticles are already used commercially, will not guarantee safety.

Without decisive government action to regulate toxicity risks and to ensure nano-ingredient labelling for consumer choice and workplace safety, this burgeoning industry faces a loss of credibility and an uncertain future.

A submarine-led recovery for the Hunter Valley?

leerhiannon — 2010-02-26T05:40:29Z

To view this article in its original context, click here

Communities across New South Wales should be warned. With a federal election due later this year, and a NSW state election early in 2011 locals, would be wise to check out those big announcements that MPs love making, particularly in marginal seats. And when it comes to the NSW election that is about half the state.

The need for locals to be alert, very alert, was seen early this year when Premier Kristina Kenneally announced plans to develop Newcastle Port as a defence industry hub.

After a year of being scarred by the scandals of many of her ministerial colleagues, local member and Minister for the Hunter, Jodi McKay will milk this announcement, made by the Premier at the Pacific 2010 International Maritime Exposition in January at every opportunity in the lead up to the March 2011 state election.

There are however, serious doubts as to whether this is a good news story for the region.

Establishing a Hunter defence hub would involve winning federal government contracts for some of the 12 new submarines set to replace the ageing Collins Class submarines, securing a section of the port land for the facility and building, with state government support, the required infrastructure.

Under the NSW government plan the University of Newcastle and local TAFE would have a role in training and educating the workforce for the hub.

The Greens’ overarching concern is that the government should not develop local economies to become dependent on war industries.

Minister McKay and many of her colleagues in both the Labor and Coalition parties will argue that a Port Newcastle defence hub will bring jobs and skills to the region and an economic boost to the state. This is tunnel vision economics however.

Studies have shown that spending public money on non-military areas creates more jobs. Employment growth in the US occurs at a faster rate for each government dollar injected into health care, public transport and construction compared with the military.

Significantly, education spending reaps the best return on money invested when compared to defence spending. A Massachusetts' report into domestic spending priorities found that $1 billion allocated to education, on average, generates double the number of jobs and higher paying jobs compared with military spending.

Using public money to build defence capabilities is not the best way to serve the public interest.

So before Ms McKay does the re-announcements and poses at the photo opportunities to promote the Hunter defence hub proposal, the Labor government should bring forward an industry policy that sets out their vision for how to use public money wisely to create sustainable jobs.

The lack of a viable industry policy at a regional and national level combined with poor trade policies have led to a flood of job losses. This has hit regional areas hard. Sadly Labor governments have stood back and allowed jobs to go offshore.

As Australia comes out of the global financial crisis now is a critical time to invest in jobs that deliver value for the public dollars invested and can achieve outcomes that meet the requirements of life in the 21st century.

In the Hunter an industry policy needs to deal with the problem that there are structural limits on jobs growth. The dominance of coal mining in the government's planning, at a time when employment in the industry has plateaued, remains a stumbling block to innovative use of public money for new industries.

A more responsible plan for the Hunter's future would promote growth in public education and renewable energy industries. This is the way to deliver sustainable jobs well into the future. And if Labor politicians could take off their pro-coal blinkers they would realise that this path is also a vote winner.

This dual approach can already be seen at Newcastle University. Under Professor Bill Mitchell the Centre for Full Employment and Equity has identified 73,800 jobs that could be created across NSW if the state changed to 100 per cent renewable energy.

But right now the push is on for a Hunter defence hub specialising in submarine construction. As this cannot occur without government intervention, the question the people of the Hunter have a right to ask is whether this is the preferable way forward.

Unfortunately, the chances of the current government re-evaluating the worth of a defence hub and shifting over to education and renewable energy industries are nil. Labor strategists desperate to stop the bleeding of votes in the Hunter will be working for a submarine-led recovery for their sitting MPs.

It would be a safe bet to expect that in the countdown to the state election Ms McKay will regularly line up with Premier Kenneally, hard hats and fluoro jackets at the ready, to tout the defence hub plan as a good news story for the fading Labor star.