Smelling a rat - a study that suggested GM food may cause cancer has been retracted.

Smelling a rat

GM maize, health and the Seralini affair

The Economist - December 7, 2013

GENETICALLY modified maize causes cancer: that was the gist of one of the most controversial studies in recent mem­ory, published in September 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology. Well, actually, GM maize doesn't cancer and, on November 28th, the journal re­tracted the paper. This followed criticism that the rats used in the experiment were prone to cancer anyway; that the experimental pro­tocol used could not distinguish between tumours which might have been caused by gm food from those that were spontaneous (the experiment had been set up to investigate a different question and thus included too few ani­mals); and the authors offered no mechanism by which gm food could cause cancer. While it may be too much to say that gm foods have been proven to be safe for human consumption, no other study has found health risks in mammals from eating them.

The article was by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, in France, and his colleagues. It described what happened to rats fed with NK6O3 maize, a variety made by US firm Mon­santo and which was resistant to the herbicide glyphosate thanks to a genetic modification of the maize DNA. Monsanto also discovered glyphosate's herbicidal proper­ties, selling it under the trade name "Roundup". Because the crop is resistant to glyphosate, farmers can spray their fields with it, killing weeds but leaving the maize unscathed.

In Dr Seralini's experiment, rats fed with the modified maize were reckoned more likely to develop tumours than those which had not been. Females were espe­cially badly affected: their death rates were two or three times as high as those of con­trol groups. (Rats fed with diluted glypho­sate also suffered health damage.)

The article was explosive. Jean-Marc Ayrault, France's prime minister, said that if its results were confirmed his govern­ment would press for a Europe-wide ban on NK6O3 maize. Russia suspended im­ports of the crop. Kenya banned all gm crops. The article came out two months be­fore a referendum in California that would have required the labelling of all gm foods. It played a role in the vote, though in the event the proposition was defeated.

The paper had all the more impact be­cause it contradicted previous studies on GM foods. Research published in 2007 by Japan's Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology on genetically modified soyabeans, for example, report­ed "no apparent adverse effect in rats" from the beans (or from glyphosate). That finding was confirmed by a review of all the available evidence by a team at the University of Nottingham, in England, published in 2012.

But Dr Seralini's paper was also explo­sive for reasons unrelated to its content. It stirred up controversy before it was even published because the authors insisted that journalists who were given advance copies could not seek independent com­ment on the paper's contents when writing their articles, and would face a large fine if they did so. This was an unusual and widely criticised requirement, which had the ef­fect of ensuring that third-party criticism of the paper did not appear during the im­portant early days when a huge amount of public attention was focused on the find­ings. That may help explain the panicky re­actions in France, Kenya and Russia.

Though the paper has been retracted, that is unlikely to be end of the matter. The journal's publisher said there was "no evi­dence of fraud or intentional misrepresen­tation of the data", which are the usual jus­tifications for retraction. Scientific opinion runs strongly against the conclusion that GM foods are harmful - but not universally so. A group called the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility backed Dr Seralini. And anti-GM activists are unabashed: in Au­gust, a group in the Philippines destroyed a field study of Golden Riceh had been geneti­cally modified to carry beta-carotene, a chemical precursor of vitamin a. Deficien­cies of this vitamin contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of chil­dren every year and make many more blind. Neither the prospect of public-health benefits in poor countries, nor the absence of scientific evidence of damage to health is dulling the edge of the environ­mental campaign against all gm foods.

Great Coastal Living Opportunity - block for sale at Peppermint Grove Beach

Ever wanted to live in a sea-side subdividision, mid-way between two much larger urban centres? We have a vacant block for sale - Lot 61 Hayfield Drive - where we live at Peppermint Grove Beach roughly equidistant between Bunbury and Busselton. This lot is set high at the back of the primary Peppie Beach sand dune and has excellent views inland over the wetlands and tuart forest - better views than from our home of 31 years!
Peppermint Grove Beach is a wonderful place to live which explains why we've lived here since 1982 and intend to only move out in a box! It enjoys beautify beaches, 10 minutes drive to Capel, a friendly and supportive community, with an active community association that holds social functions and does a great job of representing landowners and residents to local government.
Access to the lot is via a fully-formed battle-axe roadway jointly owned with our next door neighbour. The position of this roadway means that the view from the lot can never be built out.
The lot is 1100sq m in size and the area on which a house can be built is about 850sq m.
We purchased this block just before the GFC and our attempts to build a house on it have been frustrated by the builder we chose.To date, we've brought in 250 tonnes of quality yellow sand for the sand pad, but some more levelling and a small retaining wall are still required.
The lot is an ideal shape for a passive solar designed home as it will readily accommodate a north-facing home.
Purchased for $369,000 in 2008, we will consider offers around $300,000.
Please phone Bernie and Carolina on 9727 2474 or 0408 944 242

Colin Barnett Should Learn The Lessons of Past Premiers

WA’s premier Colin Barnett is being justifiably criticised for a number of poor decisions or practices that have occurred since his re-election in March. But no one would be surprised by his actions and behaviour if they first understood that the premier has not learned the lessons derived from his predecessors' periods in charge of the state.

I don’t want this article to be a boring history lesson but, bear with me, I hope it will be instructive.

I first got involved in the political process in the mid-1980s when I joined the Liberal Party. At that time, Brian Burke was WA’s premier and the corruption of the WA Inc years was still well hidden. The opposition leader was Barry MacKinnon, someone who I developed much respect for as he attempted in the face of a media largely under Burke’s influence to expose the millions of dollars lost in the state government’s business dealings (and worse!). Barry achieved a 6.5% swing against the ALP at the 1989 election and the Liberal Party received a majority of votes – 52.38% - but lost the election thanks to the ALP gerrymander orchestrated by my former friend…… well, I’ll leave that story to another time.

In spite of MacKinnon’s hard work and majority vote at the 1989 election, he was replaced by Richard Court as leader of the opposition in 1992, a year before he won the 1993 election and became premier. I was really upset at MacKinnon’s dumping s leader. Even the media nicknamed Court ‘the wimp’ in the belief that he wasn’t a strong enough character to lead the state as premier.

I’m pleased to say that I subsequently found Court to be an excellent premier, making tough but sensible decisions to rid the state of the WA Inc legacy. Many of his first term decisions were potentially unpopular with electors: increased taxes, for example, to cover debt left behind by Burke. In recent years, my opinion of Court has gone higher, thanks to his personal interest in MPs like myself who lost their seats in less than honorable ways, but that’s also another story.

In 1996, Court was re-elected with an absolute majority in the lower house of Parliament. As yet another demonstration of his positive, constructive way of doing business as premier, he included the National Party as a member of the coalition government, even though their support wasn’t needed to give him government for a second term. As an aside, Hendy Cowan’s valedictory speech in 2002 showed a complete lack of respect and common courtesy for the former premier, but that’s another story too…!

This is where my story really starts. For the first six years of Richard Court’s eight years as premier, my personal view is that he governed well. No serious controversies; no poor decisions; no wastage of public money. But from 1999 onwards, things changed. In the final two years of his reign, Court stood idly by and allowed a series of bad decisions to be made:

·         * No action was taken against Doug Shave who was the minister responsible for fixing the mortgage brokers’ scandal which saw thousands of Perth investors (mainly retirees) lose most or all of their money in dodgy financial dealings

·         * He displayed poor leadership in the face of the Liberals for Forest campaign to stop logging of old growth forests

·         * There was no community consultation on the design of the Bell Tower, a building that made Court something of a laughing stock when the design ended up being copied from an existing building in Dubai

·         * The community consultation on the design of the Convention Centre, variously described as looking like a squashed cockroach or a thong (a flip-flop to overseas readers), was inadequate.

·         * He rejected the advice of a committee Court had himself set up on deregulation of the dairy industry, whose chair Barry House made sensible and reasonable findings and recommendations.

After two years of poor decisions such as these, Court lost the 2001 election to the ALP, handing Geoff Gallop the premiership.

Why was Court such a good premier for his first six years and such a bad one for the remaining two years? The answer, I believe, lies in the quality of the advice he received from his principal policy advisors. From 1993 to 1999, Ian Fletcher was Court’s chief sounding board. Most people including myself had never heard of Fletcher nor met him, yet it was clear that Fletcher told Court what he needed to hear. When Fletcher retired in 1999 to take a well–earned break, his replacements – nice people though they were – gave Court information which they believe he wanted to hear. Deidre Willmott and Dean Smith – both were and are competent, capable individuals who also happen to be nice people but, as history shows, both had political ambitions and my guess is they were not prepared to strenuously stand up to Richard Court to tell him what he needed to know in case it affected their future political careers.

Now let’s examine the ALP government from 2001 to 2008. Dr Geoff Gallop was an effective premier who went on to win the 2005 election before handing over to Alan Carpenter. While Gallop was premier, he had a strong team of advisors around him – Ross Field, Keiran Murphy, for example – and I’m sure they gave him the advice he needed to know. When Carpenter took over in 2006, one of the first decisions he took was to appoint Norm Marlborough, a close friend of now disgraced former premier Brian Burke, as a minister while also allowing ministers to interact with Burke, something that had been banned by Gallop. Very quickly, the manure hit the fan, with the Corruption and Crime Commission's subsequent inquiry into the Smith’s Beach land development proposal highlighting Carpenter’s poor judgment and costing several people their power, prestige or credibility.

Largely as a result of Carpenter’s poor decision to allow Burke back into the fold, the 2008 election was won by an about-to-retire but newly reappointed opposition leader in the form of Colin Barnett.  It wasn’t a clear-cut win, with Barnett having to form government with the support Nationals MPs, a couple of whom had wanted to form a coalition with the ALP. As well, Barnett needed the support of independent MP Liz Constable and soon he also enjoyed the support of other independents such as John Bowler and Adele Carles. Barnett’s dependence on people such as these and the narrow tightrope he had to walk as premier in a hung parliament forced him to listen to advice that he needed to hear. The end result was four years of what was generally considered to be good government.

All this changed in 2013 immediately after the state election. Barnett was returned with a strong majority. No more hung parliament; no need to rely on independents; no kowtowing to the Nationals who really didn’t do well at the election.

Suddenly, the weight was lifted and Barnett could do things he’d been prevented from doing in the previous term as premier. Foremost among these newly found freedoms was his desire to leave a legacy that people would remember him by – Elizabeth Quay, a new football stadium, a new light rail link to Perth airport, a new light rail line from Girrawheen. Spend, spend, spend! It wouldn’t matter what the bill came to because, as I believe, Barnett will retire before the next election, hand over to his treasurer Troy Buswell (lots of potential stories there for another day!), retire to a life of leisure on his Toodyay hobby farm and watch from afar as the ALP win the 2017 election and spend the next one or two terms of government grappling with a large state debt, reduced GST income and a subdued mining-based state economy.

So, with Barnett’s power almost beyond challenge, he does not need to listen to what his advisors say. Instead, knowing that this is his chance to leave a legacy that will be remembered fondly in decades to come, he simply puts up with the political damage arising from proposed reductions in solar feed-in tariffs (now reversed), additional school fees for the children of 457 visa holders (now watered down), the sacking of 500 teaching and support staff from the Education Department (he’ll probably get away with this policy decision) and forced local government amalgamations (but let’s see what the Liberal Party back bench MPs have to say about this decision).

Barnett’s not a fool of course. The reason why he’s backed down on a couple of decisions made as part of the August 2013 budget is because even he recognises there are more important issues to take account of. The September Federal election was one such issue which caused the solar feed-in tariff to be changed; genuine hardship that would be felt by people who couldn’t afford large increases in state government charges will be another strong influence on his thinking.

But the bottom line is that, like Richard Court in 1999 and Alan Carpenter in 2006, Colin Barnett appears to have decided to ignore his advisors and make decisions on the basis of his personal understanding of issues or his desire to push "the grand scheme" that he wants put in place before he retires. Clearly, in spite of many positive personal characteristics, Barnett does not have the wisdom of Solomon. Without being willing to have strong and unafraid policy advisors around him and with no desire to act upon fearless advice even if it's given to him, Barnett is consigning the Liberal Party to an election loss in 2017. By then, of course, he’ll be gone from WA’s political scene so he won’t mind if the Liberals become Her Majesty’s opposition for one or two terms. He’ll have achieved his goals and will retire happy.

Scientific Dishonesty on Climate Change by the Australian Antarctic Division

The Australian Antarctic Division of the federal government's Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has engaged in what I can only describe as scientific dishonesty on the anthropogenic climate change issue. In a media statement headed "Key Antarctic species under threat from ocean acidification", lead Division researcher Dr So Kawaguchi claims that his new research 'indicates serious challenges facing Antarctic krill - the primary food source for whales, seals and penguins - due to acidification in the Southern Ocean.' He states that 'A substantial decline in krill numbers would have disastrous implications not only for the health of the ocean environment but also on the future survival of the mammals and sea birds that rely on them.'

Fortunately for the world at large and for the Antarctic in particular, these claims are so grossly excessive as to be misleadingly dishonest. There are two reasons for saying this.

First, as stated near the bottom of the media release, the research is a prediction of what the world will be like in 'the year 2300 if CO₂ emissions continue to be released at the current rate'. That's 287 years from now and Dr Kawaguchi would have to be the greatest fortune teller or crystal ball gazer the world has ever known to be confident in stating what the world will be like three centuries from now.

Second, and this is a far more serious accusation, the basis of Dr Kawaguchi's research is deeply flawed. To understand why, you must click on the 'Data Centre website' and, once there, you must click on the link under the 'Experimental set-up' heading to find out what levels of CO2 the researchers used to assess the impact on krill. Only then do you discover that 'For eight batches of eggs, the embryos were incubated at: 380 μatm (control), 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, and 2000 micro-atm pCO2.'

What this means is as follows:
* the researchers bubbled air through jars containing krill eggs and
* the level of CO2 in the air was increased from today's CO2 levels of 380 parts per million or milligrams per litre to a maximum of 2000 ppm - five times today's level of CO2.

The actual results are not yet publicly available so we have to accept Dr Kawaguchi's claim that the krill eggs did not develop well at these elevated levels of CO2. But how realistic are these projected levels of 1000 to 2000 ppm of CO2 in a future global atmosphere? Well, in my view, not realistic at all. They represent the extreme worst case scenario and the researchers make no attempt to estimate the most likely or the best case scenarios - just the worst possible case.

In 1955, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 315 ppm. Today, 60 years later, they stand at about 390 ppm. This gives a per century increase of about 130 ppm. So let's assume no changes to the rate of increase of global CO2 emissions so that CO2 levels by 2100 will be 520 ppm; by 2200 they will be 650 ppm; and by 2300 they will reach 780 ppm. But at what CO2 level has Dr Kawaguchi started his experiment? At 1000 ppm, a level not likely to occur based on current CO2 increases until after 2400. And his 2000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 levels won't occur until the year 3100 or thereabouts - over 1000 years from now! To not state these exaggerated CO2 levels in the media release is poor science and, in my view, dishonest.

In my discussions with anthropogenic climate change skeptics (most of whom are geologists, by the way), I have been repeatedly told that the federal government's funding of climate change alarmists is so overwhelming that to be even a mild skeptic is to place funding for your research and hence your job at risk. Dr Kawaguchi appears to have acknowledged this threat to his research future and has grossly exaggerated the level of CO2 likely in the atmosphere 300 years from now, presumably in order to curry favour with his employers and their funding sources, thereby encouraging further research dollars into the future.

Of course, Dr Kawaguchi's defense may well be that there are positive feedback loops within the atmosphere and biosphere that may cause global CO2 levels to spiral upwards much faster than the present rate of about 130 ppm per century - by the release of CO2 currently trapped as carbon-rich organic matter within the northern hemisphere's tunda, for example. While such a scenario is possible, the media release makes no attempt to explain the science on which he based his 1000 to 2000 ppm CO2 levels in this  experiment nor did it explain the likelihood of these CO2 levels being reached by the year 2300.

This research is based on poor science and the results have been used for alarmist political purposes. The media release should be withdrawn, the results of the experiment should be made publicly available and the justification for using such high global CO2 levels needs to be explained.

Voluntary Euthanasia

For 20 years, I was a member of the Liberal Party, attempting to suggest new policy ideas or change existing policies. One issue that was always close to my heart was (and still is) voluntary euthanasia and, in the lead-up to the September 14 federal election, I can advise that I have joined a new political party - the VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA PARTY. With Australians living longer, many of us will face difficult times in our old age, not through a lack of finances - we baby boomers are the wealthiest cohort of Australians ever - but through the pain and suffering that we may experience as modern medicine keeps us alive while we battle diseases that would have killed us quickly a couple of generations ago.

If you believe in Australians being given a choice as to how and when they end their lives, please consider joining the Voluntary Euthanasia Party or at least voting for their candidates in the Senate.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Party was created to provide the choice and dignity that current legislation is denying the most vulnerable Australians. The party hopes to provide a clear political outlet for the overwhelming public support for voluntary euthanasia. Over four in five Australians are in favour of new legislation and we wish to allow that sentiment to be clearly demonstrated at the ballot box. The Voluntary Euthanasia Party aims to ensure dignity in the final years of life, by raising the profile of this issue in order to engender the necessary political will for change. 

 Party Policy

Like 85% of all Australians, we support the provision of medical procedures for the painless, assisted death of patients of a terminal or incurable illness, who are enduring unbearable suffering and who have expressed a desire for the procedures within appropriate legal safeguards. We believe that these patients deserve the right to make informed choices about the time and manner of their death through appropriate and humane medical assistance.

  Join The Party

This election we need to raise our voices and place voluntary euthanasia firmly on the election agenda. To achieve this, we are forming a political party to show politicians that Australians support voluntary euthanasia and we are willing to demonstrate this fact at the polls. Voluntary euthanasia has been off the radar at past elections as the major parties ignore the wishes of the vast majority of Australians. However, if enough of us raise our voices, tell our stories and show why this is important, we can change that. This is what our party stands to achieve. We will fight for these issues.

The Party's website address is  http://vep.org.au/ where you can join or make donations.

Government corruption and the local government referendum

The following article appeared in the June 11 edition of ON LINE opinion - see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=15103 . It makes a good case for voting against the referendum to recognise local government in the Australian constitution.

 

Government corruption and the local government referendum

David Galloway
Posted Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Australians love to knock back a referendum. But if you're looking for a good reason to vote "no" in the September 14 referendum, you might want to consider this.

We're being asked to approve a change to section 96 of the Constitution, so the Commonwealth can provide direct financial assistance to local government authorities.

That sounds harmless enough, until you sit the amendment next to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997and realise that, together, they create the perfectpork barrel.
To understand why, it's helpful to know a little about the High Court's judgement in Williams v The Commonwealth. This judgement gave us a refresher in good governance by pointing out what every parliamentarian should know. There are three arms of government, and democracy depends on each doing its job properly. The Executive (in practice the PM, Ministers and senior bureaucrats) manages the business of government. Parliament makes laws and stops the Executive becoming too authoritarian, while Courts interpret and apply laws.

As part of this separation of powers, the High Court ruled that the constitution prevents the Executive from spending public money on whatever it likes. Instead, spending must be authorised by a constitutional head of power and approved by Parliament through law.

The Court had to think about this because Williams objected to the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments paying taxpayer's money to Scripture Union Queensland. And it turned out there was no law approving the payments, making them unlawful. As a journalist might put it; Howard, Rudd and Gillard had been caught illegally funnelling money to religious fundamentalists.

On closer examination, it emerged that successive Executives had been spending quite a lot of our money improperly for a very long time. What's more, the Coalition and Labor were equally culpable. This was a big problem, and fixing it would be difficult. So the Executive decided to do the irresponsible thing, it asked Parliament to pass the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No3) (The final Act can be found here) .

In a truly Orwellian twist, this amended the Financial Management and Accountability Act to ensure the Executive was not accountable for its financial management by giving it authority to:
(1) make, vary or administer any arrangement by which public money is paid out by the Commonwealth;
(2) grant financial assistance to any person whatsoever; and
(3) enter into whatever future programs it wished.
So long as expenditure falls under one of a broad range of existing descriptions or a new regulation, the Executive could pay out vast amounts of our money without Parliamentary supervision.

This was legislation no democratically elected Parliament should pass, but ours did. What's more, politicians of all colours; red, blue, green and independent share responsibility. If ever there was a time to run from the House, complain loudly about mismanagement or make a stand on principle this was it. But, despite some ineffectual protests from the opposition, there was just no one left to keep the bastards honest.

Normally reserved legal scholars have roundly condemned Parliament for agreeing to the Bill, so I won't revisit that issue. Suffice to say that, if actions speak louder than words, our elected representatives have told us they're not fit to wield the powers they already have. So why would we give them more?
Which brings us to the perfect pork barrel.

The risk of corruption, mismanagement and waste in government has increased sharply now the Executive can decide how to spend vast amounts of public money without effective Parliamentary scrutiny. But some restrictions do remain. One of these is section 96 of the Constitution, the same section we're being asked to change. S 96 prevents the Commonwealth from directly funding local authorities by requiring it to provide funding to the States. That doesn't mean Commonwealth money can't go to local authorities. Only that States generally administer and negotiate grants, which limits the ability of both to misuse funds. But even that control would vanish if the referendum succeeded, allowing the Executive to direct funding to local authorities on whatever terms it desired.

Should we believe that future Executives will all wield this power in the best interest of the nation? Or should we suspect it might be misused by self interested politicians to target marginal electorates and keep themselves in power? A financial gerrymander if you will.

Amending section 96 to "recognise local authorities" is an invitation to corruption and mismanagement because it will allow the Executive to determine on a street by street basis, if it wishes, what local authorities can and can't do. It will allow taxpayer's money to be misused to shore up marginal electorates, pay off political favours and generally pork barrel on a scale never before possible.

If that doesn't disturb you, keep in mind that NSW government corruption is largely the product of unchecked Executive power at state level. Do we really want to witness a similar spectacle at federal level?
It's in everyone's interests for the Executive to be held accountable. But if Parliament declines to do its job and if the Executive thinks it can treat the High Court with distain, then who's left? Certainly not the media, it's too busy with big issues like Tony's cycling or Julia's glasses.

All that's left is us, so vote "No".

David Galloway is a lawyer working in the corporate sector. He does pro bono work for a community legal service in Melbourne and has a strong interest in public interest law.

What to Do About The Poor State of Politics in Canberra

In a recent Quarterly Essay article, former federal ALP leader Mark Latham wrote an article titled Not Dead Yet. With federal Labor's electoral support currently running at 30% of the popular first preference vote, the party may well be dead in all but name only. More importantly, however, the quality of political behaviour and dialogue in Canberra seems to me to be at an all-time low and Latham's belief that, in Labor's case, it's largely due to the lack of lay party members reflects my view as well.

In response to Latham's Not Dead Yet article, I offered the following response to Quarterly Essay but they declined to print it. Here it is now in full technicolour but note that it was written a couple of weeks before the failed attempt by the Labor and Liberal parties to give themselves another $58 million of taxpayer money.

For 20 years, I was an active member of the Liberal Party. After holding many lay party positions, working on numerous committees and standing twice for unwinnable federal seats, I was then elected twice to the WA Parliament as the endorsed Liberal candidate for the safe state seat of Vasse in rural WA. In 2003, however, I lost endorsement thanks to the actions of powerbrokers who wanted a candidate more compliant to their wishes, causing me to resign from the party and stand as an independent, losing by 209 votes to Troy Buswell, now the state treasurer.

This history is important as it demonstrates my long involvement in Liberal Party politics at all levels, hopefully making me competent to comment on Mark Latham’s “Not Dead Yet” article on the current illnesses of the federal Labor Party.

Like “The Latham Diaries”, I enjoyed reading the thoughts of a person who is clearly intelligent, articulate and passionate about the future of his preferred political party. Latham’s “Not Dead Yet” comments on climate change were an unfortunate distraction as they show that, on some issues at least, ideology overwhelms rational thought – Latham does not understand that the electorate’s opposition to the carbon tax is as much about its structure as Julia Gillard’s broken promise or the science supporting climate change.

My main comments on his article are directed at his statement that the Labor Party ‘can no longer rely on the politics of mass scale and common membership.’ I agree and the Liberal Party finds itself in exactly the same situation.

In 1984 when I joined the Liberal Party, it had some 15,000 members in WA and over 1,500 in the federal electorate of Forrest where I still live. Today, those numbers have at least halved but more importantly the role of lay party members in the party has been even more drastically reduced. In recent years, branches have closed; policy-making opportunities within remaining branches have diminished; fund-raising functions are being held annually rather than quarterly; and lay members’ major role is to hand out how to vote cards on election day.

This diminution of lay member involvement came about because of the ability of party powerbrokers to do the following:

·         * Concentrate their power to become the dominant influence within the party

·         * Place a large number of their people into Parliament, especially in the upper house where electors have far less ability to remove ineffective or other undesirable party candidates; and

·         * In government, convince the party room and cabinet to pass legislation (see below) strengthening their hold over the party.

Latham’s solution to the ALP’s current malaise “is to embed itself in grassroots politics – the nation’s true middle ground.” It sounds simple enough but Latham fails to outline the actions needed to achieve this embedding. More seriously, the question needs to be asked: why would Liberal or Labor Party powerbrokers willingly choose to give up their power and encourage grassroots politics? If the result was an increase in lay membership, they would have to work harder to maintain their current level of influence over their respective parties. If the result was the public generation of new policy initiatives with which they disagreed, the powerbrokers would need to change their modus operandi and show their faces in public to try and influence public opinion.

So it should be assumed that powerbrokers will not willingly allow changes to occur within their political parties that might weaken their holds or cause them to work harder. So what to do? Well, the federal and state government legislation that has allowed powerbrokers from all major political parties to reduce their dependence on lay members takes two forms.

First, public funding of election campaigns has overcome the need for political parties to encourage their branches to hold regular fund-raising activities. Today, the public purse is effectively substituting taxpayer dollars for community-generated, grassroots sources of income. Political parties no longer have as great a need to go cap in hand to business, unions, wealthy individuals or other similar sources of political donations, even though such visits are still needed to supplement taxpayer funds.

For example, the current payment to federal candidates who attract more than 4% of the vote at elections will receive 247.316 cents per eligible vote. For a seat with 80,000 voters where the winning candidate attracts 40,000 votes, this would result in a payment of $98,926.40. In WA, candidates who attract more than 4% of the vote at an election are entitled to claim a taxpayer-paid refund of $1.73302 per vote, worth around $20,000 to most winning candidates. At the recent elections here in WA, the Liberal Party will receive well in excess of $2 million from the state treasury. Federally, my guess is that the figure would exceed $20 million.

Second, members of Parliament receive extremely generous printing and similar allowances, purportedly to allow them to communicate non-party political messages to their electorates but in effect to sell whatever messages they believe will help them retain their seat at the next election.

The current printing allowance for Members of the House of Representatives is $75,000 per year plus $0.60 per constituent (potentially worth up to another $50,000), with an additional electorate allowance of at least $32,000. West Australian MPs receive an electoral allowance of $61,985 which can be spent on postage and communications.

Public funding of campaigns may only return a modest portion of a candidate’s or party’s total election campaign expenditure but every dollar raised in this way reduces the number of dollars needing to be raised from supporters, including lay party members.

Conversely, allowances and entitlements paid to sitting MPs are so large that, while they cannot be spent on electioneering, the line between ‘informing my electorate of news’ and ‘political campaigning’ is extremely fine (deliberately so, in my view). In fact, it’s so fine a line that a smart MP can use his or her allowances to pay for the majority of their campaign expenditures prior to the declaration of polls for an election.

Because of the generous allowances that MPs have been able to contrive for themselves over the years, their need to raise funds through lay party members and branches is now comparatively minor. Cursory, tokenistic lip service paid to lay party branches and members is all that is necessary these days for most MPs to retain party and lay member support.

If Latham is looking for a way of forcing existing MPs to embed themselves in grassroots politics, the most obvious and effective solution would be to abolish or drastically reduce (by at least 75%) the above-listed allowances and entitlements. MPs would have no choice but to go back to their electorates (and to their party branches), encouraging people to join up as lay party members. In turn, to retain those lay members and make them believe their membership of the party is valued for reasons more important than just raising money, MPs would have to attend branch meetings and respond to policy initiatives put forward by party members if those policy ideas were also supported by branches and by the party as a whole.

While there is a risk that the abolition of obscenely generous allowances and entitlements may increase  MPs’ and political parties’ dependence on their traditional donors, this is happening regardless of the amount of taxpayer support parties and candidates are receiving. It is certainly not a reason to delay worthwhile efforts to encourage greater lay member involvement in political parties.

Energy reality: in Greece, books and trees are a cheaper fuel than coal to heat your home over winter.

To Eat or Heat? That’s the EU’s Question

Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald, May 15, 2013

For a growing number of Europeans, their continent’s global warming policies have forced them to decide whether to heat their homes or buy food. In short they must choose whether to “Heat or Eat,” which was the title of a talk by a British climate policy expert delivered in Calgary Tuesday.

Benny Peiser, director of the non-partisan, not for profit Global Warming Policy Foundation, laid out in graphic terms how Europe’s climate policies have “failed.” Peiser, a social anthropologist and a visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham, started his talk by showing a slide of the policy statement that came out of the Lisbon Agenda in 2000: “To make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010.”

Anyone who follows the news knows that the exact opposite has happened. Europe is divided, Europeans struggle to survive, and their countries face bankruptcy. About 27 million Europeans are unemployed, and in Greece, for instance, 65 per cent of youth cannot find work. Part of the reason for this, says Peiser is the European Union’s 20-20-20 green energy policy that with 20-20 hindsight has proven to be an economic and social disaster.

The EU intends to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, increase renewable energy use by 20 per cent and improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent. The green lobby in Europe is so strong that it has pushed EU politicians to oppose virtually every kind of reliable non-renewable energy. The greens oppose nuclear, natural gas and shale gas and only seem to approve of wind and solar power — both of which are not reliable, since the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine — and it certainly isn’t “free.”

The German environment minister warned that Germany’s plan to shut down all of its nuclear plants to shift to renewables will cost citizens one trillion euros. “This is the biggest wealth transfer in the history of modern Europe — from the poor to the rich,” explained Peiser, who spoke to a crowd of 200 at the 10th annual Friends of Science luncheon.

The social implications of this failed policy are enormous, added Peiser. “Ordinary families and small and medium-sized businesses are essentially subsidizing the investments of green do-gooders,” who can afford to install solar panels on their homes and their businesses. But what’s really starting to cause citizens and policy-makers to question their green energy agenda, is that soaring energy costs are driving energy-intensive industries in Europe to move to the United States where the shale gas revolution has caused natural gas prices to remain low — or about one-third to one-fourth of what they are in Europe, exacerbating the EU’s unemployment crisis.

Peiser points out that in April of 2012, U.S. natural gas prices bottomed out at $1.95 to Europe’s $11.42 — the widest gap in recent times. More recently, U.S. natural gas prices hover at around $3 while in Europe they remain at around $12.“European industry is flocking to the U.S. to take advantage of cheaper gas,” said Peiser. “They can’t compete otherwise.”

As industries leave and more people are impoverished, the cap-and-trade scheme, which is the cornerstone of the EU’s green energy strategy — is collapsing. The price of to emit one tonne of carbon has plummeted from about 34.90 euros in 2008 to about three euros now. “The biggest irony is ... that it has now become very, very cheap to burn coal and as a result, there’s a new coal boom in Europe, of all places. Germany alone is building 25 coal fired plants,” said Peiser.

Swiss banking giant UBS says the carbon emissions trading scheme has cost EU consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact”.

The Washington Post editorial board just last month wrote that Europe “has become the green-energy basket case. Instead of a model for the world to emulate, Europe has become a model of what not to do.” The result of these policies on individuals is widespread and grave. Greek citizens are chopping down their forests in search of wood and British pensioners are buying cheap old hardcover books as fuel to heat their homes since coal is more expensive. The Telegraph newspaper reported that half a million pensioners spent Christmas in bed in an effort to keep warm. Worse yet, Peiser says the Office of National Statistics in England and Wales shows that based on past numbers, one million Brits are expected to die from cold in their homes by 2050.Energy poverty is sweeping Europe. As many as nine million British families pay 10 per cent or more of their household income towards heat and electricity.

Meanwhile, all of the climate models that predicted catastrophic warming of the planet were a gross exaggeration. Indeed, for the past 16 years, temperatures have not spiked but remained stable. The Earth’s temperature has only risen 0.8C in 150 years, explained Peiser. This “flatlining of global temperatures” along with skyrocketing energy prices “is why the green agenda is crumbling,” said Peiser. Even in relatively wealthy Germany, 15 per cent of its citizens face energy poverty.

Meanwhile, the British Geological Survey says that Britain may have enough shale gas to heat every home for 1,500 years. Peiser says “Europe’s suicidal shale reluctance must change if Europe’s economy is to be transformed from stagnation to growth.”

Canadians should be very glad that past schemes for green shifts and the like never materialized and we don’t have to choose between eating or heating.

MAY IS BOWELSCAN MONTH: SAVE A LIFE - SAVE YOUR LIFE!

Bowel cancer is an insidious disease, with 9,000 new cases afflicting men and women around Australia each year. 4,500 of these people will die of the disease.

To give an early warning of the possible presence of bowel cancer, Rotary started its Bowelscan program in 1982. Each year, over 150,000 kits are distributed to pharmacists around Australia where they can be purchased for $8.00, this charge reflecting the cost of producing the kit and the subsequent sample analysis.

Kits are now available at several pharmacists in Busselton, Dunsborough and Capel at the following pharmacies:

* Terry White Pharmacy, Busselton
* Discount Drugstores, Busselton
* Dunsborough Pharmacy
* Capel Pharmacy

Members of the public are encouraged to purchase a kit, provide a sample in the privacy of their own home and return it to a participating chemist. The sample will then be sent to a testing laboratory to analyse for the presence of blood, a possible indicator of bowel disease.

To date, more than 1,000 people with cancer have used the Bowelscan kits to give them early advice of their cancers. Another 5,000 people with bowel polyps - a common precursor to cancer - have been diagnosed as a result of submitting a Bowelscan sample.

Bowel cancer is the commonest internal cancer affecting Australian adults.

People with a family history of bowel cancer are at particular risk of contracting the disease and are the group most strongly encouraged to provide a Bowelscan sample.

The Busselton Geographe Bay Rotary Club is coordinating the distribution and collection of Bowelscan kits to pharmacists throughout the City of Busselton and the Shire of Capel.

More information can be gained from Rotarian David Eyres, a now retired local pharmacist - phone 0407 697 717.

Bernie Masters
Publicity Officer
Rotary Club of Busselton Geographe Bay
9727 2474
0408 944 242