Blog Archives for February 2009

Public transport - why was it forgotten in the stimulus package?

Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Thursday 5th February 2009, 4:50pm

What can be done to seize this opportunity to support Australians during this economic crisis?

Including public transport in the stimulus package would assist Australians in real need of an essential service during a time of petrol price volatility and peak oil looming. It would also increase the transit manufacturing sector and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Public transport benefits community health as pollution levels are reduced and individuals' activity is increased.

The fact is that people on lower incomes live further from city centres and therefore pay greater prices to travel. Those in living in inner eastern Sydney use a car for only 48.7% of all trips and travel on average 10.1 kilometres per day. In contrast those living in outer west suburbs of Sydney use private transport for 79.1% of all trips and while travelling on average 33.1 kilometres each day (DIPNR, 2003).

How much does it cost us to keep forgetting about public transport?

The Bureau of Transport and Regional economics estimates the cost of the health effects of motor vehicle pollution as $2.6b per year (Australia's Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels, 2007). The cost of traffic congestion in Australian cities has been estimated by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics as $12.8 billion per year (Australia's Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels). The cost of road traffic injury and death is $1billion per year.

Investment in roads - which we haven't seen in the stimulus package - but is nevertheless a disproportionate focus of the current government's funding.

At present (2004-2009) the Federal Government is spending $15.8 billion of AusLink Funding of which only around 9% is allocated to rail infrastructure (Australian Greens Policy Initiative, Road to Rails, 2007). This is certainly not reflecting the ‘enormous changes' that the 2007 Senate Committee Report Australia's Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels acknowledged as being required to establish a less oil dependant economy.

The higher demand for public transport investment over road investment was reflected in a recent Age/Neilson poll in Victoria. 62% of respondents wanted the government to give public transport priority over roads.

Support in Melbourne was stronger again with 68% of respondents wanting more funding directed to public transport than roads (The Age, Fix Public Transport Before Roads, 2008).
There is an increased demand for public transport, which is not being met
- The rapid increase in fuel prices since 2004 has resulted in a greater demand for public transport.
- In Brisbane in the three years since 2004 there was on an increase in patronage on average of 9.7% per year.
- Melbourne has also experienced a great increase in rail users since 2004 with around a 10% increase annually (Unsettling Surburbia- The New Landscape of Oil and Mortgage Vulnerability in Australian Cities, 2008).
- In March 2007 in Brisbane 1,749 buses were forced to turn away passengers because they were too full.

To encourage more people to use public transport we must provide them with an incentive to do so and this means providing a reliable and efficient service. Forcing people to wait for another bus or train will increase the appeal in simply using private transport.

Building housing without including fast, efficient and safe public transport is not doing anyone any favours. It is doing no favours to lower income people to build housing that strands them on the outer fringes of cities where they are acutely vulnerable to rising transport costs and falling land values.

Not only is an efficient mass transit system an essential component of any carbon reduction strategy, but improving mass transit means Australians will spend less on petrol, waste less time in traffic jams, reduce congestion and be able to access the services that they need. Other benefits of course include clean air, the increased safety of our communities, more open spaces and so on.

Orizuru: Peace Ambassadors & Spinifex Hills

Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Tuesday 10th February 2009, 8:25am
Leaving Sydney Harbour onboard the Peace Boat

27th December 2008

The sky is white today. The sea has turned slate grey, and the deep swells rocking the Mona Lisa slowly from side to side are ripped with white foam. We have been out of sight of land for only two days since leaving behind the lonely outflung arms of Aotearoa, and our world has contracted to the swaying confines of this long white liner. Some time around sunrise tomorrow the coastline of New South Wales will come into view and my brief sojourn with the Peace Boat will be over.

The unique Peace Boat project has been running for more than 20 years. It began as an outreach mission by the Japanese peace movement to acknowledge and reconcile Japanese wartime atrocities through direct engagement with the communities of the Asia-Pacific region hit hard by Imperial Japan.

The success of the early voyages has seen the trips grow longer and more ambitious each year; this ship has is now a floating laboratory for cross-cultural exchange and peace education. I've joined them at the tail end of a four month odyssey that began in Yokohama in early September and has touched every continent save Antarctica. The 700 guests include one hundred Hibakusha - survivors of the atomic blasts that devastated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

In every port the ship has visited, the Hibakusha have given testimony: their first hand accounts of the day the sky erupted with the light of a thousand suns. This is the ‘Orizuru Project' - first-generation witnesses of the white flash; the sudden, incomprehensible devastation; tens of thousands of people instantly blasted out of existence or incinerated in the firestorm that followed; then the invisible curse of radiation sickness that still haunts the survivors.

It's one thing to read this in a history book or glance unknowingly at faded photographs of shattered, irradiated cityscapes. It is quite another to hear it first hand from someone who was underneath it when it happened. All they care about is that, no matter what, this never, ever happens again.

10th February 2009

On dry land, six weeks later, things are moving at a pace that has caught even the optimists flat footed. President Obama wasted no time putting the obscenity of nuclear weapons back onto the front page where they belong. Diplomatic moves are now underway to revive an ambitious plan to put this most lethal piece of unfinished cold war business to rest.

The new President wants the United States and Russia to move rapidly to 1000 nuclear weapons apiece; a tenfold reduction of US stockpiles and a fifteen-fold reduction of the Russian arsenal. This is not the endgame, just the opening move, a long overdue demonstration of good faith. It may well be sufficient to bring the next tier of nuclear weapons states to the table to talk about the ultimate goal: total abolition, on a verifiable timetable, of all nuclear weapons in existence.

Australia has taken a place at this table with the initiation of the Prime Minister's International Commission on Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), intended to help defrost this cryogenically frozen debate despite Australia's utterly compromised position as the willing vendor of uranium to the world's nuclear weapon states.

On the edge of an isolated and beautiful dry lake bed in the north-east goldfields of Western Australia, the intractable calculus of nuclear geopolitics touches down along a series of drill transects criss-crossing the spinifex hills. They have yielded a marketable three dimensional picture of the silent geology beneath. Out there at Lake Maitland, Mega Uranium are scoping WA's first uranium mine, pitching to throw a thousand tonnes of uranium oxide a year into the world's nuclear fuel market.

On paper, the geologists and the engineers believe they can get the mine to pay for itself. A million tonnes of precious water freely used and discarded; two million tonnes of radioactive ore crushed, leached and discarded to produce enough uranium to power five substantial nuclear power stations for a year. Goldfielders are only just now waking up to the idea of hundreds of yellowcake transports through communities already jittery in the aftermath of the Esperance lead disaster.

I'd give a lot to have the good people of Kalgoorlie and Wiluna spend one quiet hour with the Hibakusha, just to stop in and listen to a modest personal description of the day hell opened up on earth. Then trace the path of that yellowcake stripped from Lake Maitland, shipped out under humid Darwin skies and fed into enrichment plants in Russia, Europe, North America and China.

Uranium is bomb fuel. It was on that bright day in 1945, and it still is today. Around the world, powerful undercurrents are turning against the very existence of the unspeakable weapons industry that Australia helps to feed. Australia is on the wrong side of this debate, and with persistence and goodwill we will shortly put these mining companies on the wrong side of history.

It's all hands on deck now to shove a spanner into the works at Lake Maitland; just know that in so doing, you're bringing the vision of those patient, determined Hibakusha one step closer. Hiroshima, Nagasaki; Never Again.

Pine Gap, Democracy Gap

Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Friday 27th February 2009, 5:16pm

On 26 February during a Senate Estimates hearing I asked the Department of Defence about a review reported to be underway between the US and Australian governments on the Pine Gap Agreement. The senior Department of Defence personnel had never heard of a review, but assured me that he and his department would know if such a review was underway.

Signed in 1967, the agreement about Pine Gap between Australia and the USA was sealed when the token payment of a single peppercorn passed hands. In November 2008 the last 10-year extension of that treaty expired. US Consul General Michael Thurston said in the ABC piece online on Monday 23 February, "It's under review and that's what you do periodically with agreements, you take a look at them and both sides agree that this is what you want - you either upgrade or update the agreement, you make changes or you don't make changes and then you send it around for review and that's probably more the timely process is actually getting everybody who's got an interest taking a look and actually signing off on it," he said.

It most would certainly be good to take a look at this agreement, but citizens or parliamentarians are not allowed to see it. In 1999 the government refused to provide information about Pine Gap to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties - information that is made freely available to members of the US Congress. Nothing has changed since then. Although US Congress officials have visited Pine Gap and received classified briefings about its functions, elected representatives and Senators are entrusted with less information than can be found in a public library.

The history of disinformation and misinformation about Pine Gap is long. In 1966, Australians were told the facility was to be a weather station. Later the official cover was a "Space Research Centre". Australians have the right to know what is happening on Australian soil at one of largest and most sophisticated satellite ground stations in the world. Information is still not forthcoming about who is being spied upon, and who is being targeted through this facility? Was it used to coordinate air strikes against Iraqi citizens in a war accurately described by the UN Secretary General and other leaders as an illegal war? How is it used to support US nuclear war fighting capabilities, and how is that consistent with our government's efforts towards nuclear disarmament?

Last week the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee issued a report on a government bill to clamp down on peaceful protest at Pine Gap, which the Australian Greens opposed, issuing a dissenting report.

Under the Defence Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Government has strengthened provisions defining Pine Gap as a "prohibited area" required for the defence of Australia. Those who enter or photograph the site face imprisonment for up to seven years.

Why did this legislation come about?

The Howard Government's Attorney General Phillip Ruddock tried unsuccessfully to prosecute four Christian pacifists for entering Pine Gap, using the Defence Special Undertakings act for the first time in its long history. These people entered Pine Gap after informing the Defence Minister and the media of their intention to conduct a peaceful and nonviolent "citizens inspection" of the facility.

Despite engaging an army of QCs, at taxpayer's expense, to inflict the maximum punishment and to place maximum limitation on the court hearing the defence's justification and legal argument, the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the convictions of the Christian pacifists. The court found that citizens had the right to challenge whether the 'prohibited area' was necessary for the purpose of the defence of Australia.

Adequate legislation already exists to protect Pine Gap from trespass or acts of aggression, in particular, the Crimes Act of 1914. It is very unfortunate that the Attorney General Robert McLelland is following his predecessor's lead, finishing what Ruddock started by amending the law to further crack down on peaceful protest.

If Pine Gap is indeed a 'core element' of Australia's national security, Australians have a right to know how and why. Rather than making the case for the proposed amendments, the government has described citizens exercising their democratic right to protest as "mischief makers" and have furnished the Committee with statements such as, "Pine Gap makes an important contribution to the security interests of both Australia and the United States of America...The methods used for collecting intelligence at the facility are sensitive..." with absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind. These are not convincing arguments and neither are those made in the Committee's report.

Rather than being convinced that Pine Gap does protect Australians, the Senate is being asked to enact legislation that would further shield Pine Gap from Australians. Such efforts to erode democratic rights are unsupportable and run directly counter to the kind of "security" we need.