Congratulations, Robert Borsak of the Shooters and Fishers party, for trying to give big business ‘a voice’ in Sydney.
Because if there’s one thing missing from Australia’s social landscape, it’s the voice of extremely rich middle-aged wealthy white people.
The idea of forcing tens of thousands of businesses to vote in Sydney City Council elections came without warning and is ‘outrageous’, says Local Government NSW (LGNSW).
But with help from extremely rich wealthy white people Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch, this debacle has been given a special oxygenated bubble in which to exist.
Indeed no-one except govcorp – ie this government, the corporations and local Nationals MP Don Page – thinks this is a good idea. So much for supporting small businesses, which is the backbone of our economy.
The core argument appears to be comparing Sydney to Melbourne’s existing model, but as shareholder activist and Melbourne councillor Stephen Mayne told The Newcastle Herald, the Melbourne model was ‘exclusive’ to Melbourne and was intended as a counterbalance to the city’s largely left-wing residential population. ‘The result [in Sydney] will be a pro-business, pro-growth council,’ he said.
But there are smelly fumes belching from this secret deal with the coalition: Fairfax reports that the ICAC had been asked to look into links between former Liberal state energy minister Chris Hartcher and his former adviser, ‘who had worked on a “local government strategy” for the City of Sydney.’
The NSW Coalition celebrates its third year in office this week, but as usual there is a muddled message emanating from govcorp’s Macquarie Street HQ.
Predictably both the coalition and Labor claim opposite results with essential services, education and health. It’s either being reduced or restored, just like the environment and business.
But we do know that with three coalition MPs facing ICAC probes, neither side can claim much integrity. Former Liberal energy minister Chris Hartcher, along with fellow central coast MPs Chris Spence and Darren Webber, are now swimming with Labor’s Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and Tony Kelly in the same festering soup.
Banning lobbyists and corporate funding has always been the simple solution for turning around a toxic system that rewards greed over public service. But who’s game to make that change? Of course the (mostly) boys’ club won’t allow it; it’s the only way they know how to generate prosperity.
However, the nuanced art of politics is about bending the truth for personal gain, not snapping it in two. At a local level, political discourse continued at sub-sonic depths this week with three north coast Nationals MPs claiming that federal Labor MP Justine Elliot and the Greens voted against road funding in the lower house.
What? Voted against spending on roads?
Coalition MPs Geoff Provest (Tweed), Don Page (Ballina) and Thomas George (Lismore) were ‘alarmed’ the Roads to Recovery program could be scrapped. Mr Page said it would represent ‘a $2.9 million cut which local councils had no way of making up,’ and that part of the amendment was a key element of ‘continuing the road to recovery program post 30 June 2014.’
Interestingly, Mr Page was the only MP who made a comment with figures attached; the other MPs just frothed rhetoric.
But the amendment in question, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, clearly says ‘There is no net impact to the Australian government budget from this bill.’
When handballed back to Labor, federal Labor MP Anthony Albanese told The Echo that the press release was ‘bullshit,’ and that it was sent as a bulk press release by regional Nationals MPs.
He vigorously defended Labor’s roads budget and blasted the inaction of the coalition over infrastructure. As for any financial implications from the bill, Mr Albanese said that the Roads to Recovery funding is covered by the forward estimates and, as it was not an appropriations bill, there were no financial implications. (There are two types of bills, and non appropriation bills have no financial consequence.)
Do such vague and complicated shenanigans do the community any favours? I think I’ve just been bored to tears by Geoff, Don and Thomas.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
I understand you represent one of the most powerful lobby groups in Australia which influence our so-called elected leaders.
Firstly, congratulations on becoming the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) chief back in February.
This is an important job where many positive changes could occur.
For instance, are you lobbying to curb the duopoly of our food supply? Currently Coles and Woolworths control 70 to 80 per cent of the nation’s food supply, 1 and farmers say this duopoly is eroding their viability to produce 2. Surely more competition will ensure better outcomes to farmers and consumers?
Anyway, the reason I write to you is not that, but the three paragraphs on your website www.afgc.org.au rejecting the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS).
I put it to you that it’s lazy and disingenuous to say ‘numerous reports confirm that a mandatory scheme such as CDS generates environmental outcomes at a very high cost relative to other options.’ Where is the proof? These ‘numerous reports’ need to be referenced. And with the senate inquiry into this topic, your lobby group’s figures have been found to be rubbery 3.
Do you dispute this? If you would like to be taken seriously regarding the financial benefits of not recycling, then let’s hear it.
It’s just an idea to think about while you burp up those expensive long lunches with our so-called elected leaders.
Hans Lovejoy, editor
1 Fact checked by theconversation.com.
2 Crunch time for supermarket food suppliers – ABC Drum online.