3 October September 2014 Thought for the Week:
9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open, 11 September, 2014
Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32-year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7. He saw both WTC buildings come down on TV and says at the time building seven was still standing. He was on duty when the third building came down. He said there was an explosion and the building came down in a complete classical controlled demolition; it came down on its own footprint, there is no question about that.

He insists: Never in the history of skyscrapers has a building come down because of fire… what he saw himself was molten lava-like pockets of molten steel. 343 fellow firemen perished that day. He says it is in honour of them, which included his three friends who perished and their families, that he will continue to do everything he can to bring the truth out about 9/11. Wow! This video is so powerful. Very moving. Hats off to Captain Rudy Dent of the NYFD. Bless em all…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

LIB/LABS’ SOVIETISATION BY STEALTH

“Democracy means that power should reside with the electors, and further and much more important, that they should be conscious of that power. The conflict now raging goes much deeper than mere monetary reform; those who talk about monetary reform without showing the electors that they, as individuals, have supreme power, are doomed to be disappointed…”
Eric D. Butler, “The War Behind the War” (WWII)

Letter to the Editor

The Editor,
Wangaratta Chronicle,
Victoria 3676.

Dear Sir,
The truth about the Rural City of Wangaratta Council is being exposed. In 2008 under the influence of CEO Doug Sharp the Council became part of a Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) project to establish Sustainable Communities. Without bothering to explain the project Council began to control use of farming land and building homes in country areas, reducing maintenance of rural roads, developing bike tracks and generally to encourage people to live in designated communities. The years of government support for rural settlement was reversed with small schools and communities to end.

The days have ended when Local Government was served by a small staff directed by elected unpaid Councillors who lived in the communities they represented. Today we have a Victorian Ombudsman reporting on the misdemeanours of public servants, unadvertised appointments to positions and unadvertised contracts. Unfortunately a situation condoned by both Labor and Liberal State Governments. These Governments have transferred community control to a Federal Government Social Inclusion policy introduced by the Rudd Government in 2007.

Using Intergovernmental Agreements on Federal Financial Relations a new Framework of Commonwealth Financial Relations was established on 1st January 2009 using the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Controlled by the Office of the Prime Minister payments are processed centrally by the Commonwealth Treasury and paid directly to each State Treasury.

These cover key service areas - health, education, skills and work force development, disability, housing and indigenous reform. The Hume Regional Growth Plan endorsed by Wangaratta Rural City Council at its meeting on l7th September 2013 is a subsidiary document to achieving a National Partnership. Is it time for our elected governments to accept responsibility to explain their actions?

I believe the members of the Victorian Parliament who “sacked” our elected Council, without even talking to the people we elected, have a lot of explaining to do before the State Government election.
Signed: Alison G Walpole. Rural resident rate payer. Whorouly South 3735 3/9/2014

Comment: Sustainable Development, is an anti-liberty movement with political goals, that is advancing the cause of a UN, socialistic, eco-utopian, New World Order while being largely portrayed as altruistic.

SOCIAL CREDIT PRINCIPLES

The following is a short list of principles that Professor Heydorn believes best encompass Social Credit:

1) The individual is the most important entity in any society.
2) Systems should be made for men, not men for systems.
3) The universe is Trinitarian in structure, and systems which most accurately reflect this structure are in accordance with natural law.
4) Individual and cooperative enterprise should be the basis of economic organisation. Where state-owned enterprises are necessary or desirable they should conform to the same conditions and rules as privately owned concerns.
5) Freedom is the ability to choose or refuse one thing at a time.
6) People sacrifice their individual freedom in order to associate for economic efficiency.
7) The less sacrifice each individual has to make in terms of economic association, the better off they are.
8) Capital and Technology are reducing the need for economic association by individuals.
9) The purpose of production is consumption.
10) The real cost of production is consumption over an equivalent period of time.
11) Capitalized costs represent past consumption.
12) Past costs should not exist in the present, as a consequence a form of purchasing power must be distributed to all consumers in order to defray capitalized costs

ON WATERING DOWN LOCALLY GROWN TERRORISTS

by Peter Ewer
According to an article in The Australian (11 September, 2014, an ironic iconic day) terrorists have terror attacks in place. My god, it’s enough to make one, no not terrified, but pretty tired of the “t” word. It seems that the authorities have stopped local “Muslim extremists” who intended to leave Australia and join the Islamic State. How was this done? By TV-style raids, by big men, with big guns and black helicopters? No, nothing so dramatic. Their passports were cancelled and the would-be terrorists were “grounded”, like naughty boys wanting to get out late at night but who were caught by Mum at the last moment. The great big multicultural Mum called “Australia”.

So, although no one appears to be slapping together a bomb, right now, “the authorities” who protect us from said bad guys think that an attack is likely, so the terror alert meter has been raised from medium to high. Raids have already been conducted across Brisbane. One needs to ask: how did it all come to this? And, unless something is done about immigration, what will the future bring?

RAMPING UP THE ALERT: THE TERROR THREAT IN AUSTRALIA

By Binoy Kampmark, Source: Global Research, September 11, 2014

How Freudian of the smaller, vassalised country to attempt outshining the larger, fraternal (and maternal) counterpart. Even as the IS threat is being expanded as the curse of the Middle East, distant legislatures are getting busy finding hypothetical standards in examining terror threats. Even worse, they remain hypotheses, untested and hostile to evidence. The Australian Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has never been troubled by the incursions of the empirical world into his scantily governed portfolio. On Wednesday, he decided to tell Australia that there had been “specific threats to Australia which he was “not at liberty to go beyond”. With broad strokes of presumption, he suggested that those “radicalised” by their period as combatants overseas, some “two-thirds of them [had] got up to things when they come back.”

Some at the country’s National Press Club at Canberra should have been falling off their seats at the remarks. “We know there is a very real threat by the death cult that is operating over in Iraq and Syria and we know that that threat is not just over the Middle East.” The dangers of the half-educated remark should be obvious. The specific is absorbed into the general. Hypotheses become factual assertions. There is no need to actually explain what the mischief might have entailed, or give figures about the dimension of this threat. Truth be told, Morrison’s bag of tricks on that score is light.

The occasion for getting the Australian electorate into such a state was the arrests of two Muslim men in the suburb of Logan in Brisbane. The iQraa Islamic Centre in Underwood saw an operation mounted by 180 personnel of the Australian Federal Police and Queensland Police, netting 21-year-old Agim Kruezi and 31-year-old Omar Succarieh. Succarieh’s brother, Ahmed, has been investigated in connection with a suicide bomber incident which took place in Syria in September last year. Succarieh has been charged with providing funds to Jabhat al-Nusra, one of the designated nasties who so happens to be fighting the West’s own war against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He was also charged with plans for an incursion into Syria “to engage in hostile activity”, while Kreuzi was similarly charged under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978.

A perverse outcome of the act’s application might well be that fighting for the pro-government forces in Syria might not fall within the realms of illegality. Some Australian academics have even gone so far as to suggest that the market for civil war should be open slather, at least when it comes to ideological commitment – don’t restrain fighters going to a foreign conflict, especially for a cause against a brutal regime.

As Ben Saul, professor of international law at the University of Sydney has argued, “while our government opposes Assad’s terror, Australian law paradoxically criminalises anyone who fights for the rebels – yet allows Australians to fight for President Bashar al-Assad.”[1] (Saul may be wrong on this – Australians fighting for Assad are bound to be netted in any case, though a conviction is quite another story.)

Caution too rapidly transforms into indiscretion – individuals like Morrison, should have little role in dabbling in matters of state security, but immigration and security are the nasty twins of his tenure. His ministerial stewardship is public policy’s latrine. “The fact that there are Australians involved... and there is ambitions that go well beyond just the establishment of the [Islamic] State and, as I said, there are many other terrorist organisations that fit under this umbrella of what is occurring in the Middle East.”

Call back radio has been flooded by an otherwise vegetative public, worried that the society was awash with “sleepers” waiting to strike. “How did they get there?” lamented one caller to the Brisbane radio station 4BC.

Morrison’s statement is not decoupled from various assumptions. The first is the establishment of IS, which presupposes global caliphate ambitions that will see an enthusiastic radical blow himself up at a sporting event in Australia. Why people go and fight in such conflicts varies, but they are never simplistic codes of general definition. One Muslim’s disagreement with another need not imply carting constitution and common law to the slaughter house. Complexity and nuance are enemies of the Morrison case. The second is the reading of IS in the manner of the “Red Menace” in the late 1940s, a pathological-biological spread of irresistible woe that would infect its hosts and poison its subjects. Monolithic communism was the mentally weak statement for boosting security budgets and keeping intelligence services in saucepans and scourers. Nationalism, indigenous liberation movements, and particularity, were all ignored.

Those involved in the security business want a slice of the publicity. The Queensland premier, Campbell Newman, is effusive in declaring that his state can nip the terrorist plan in bud and operation. Morrison has been happy to soften the ground.

Hyperbole is the order of the day, all the more so, given the upcoming G20 summit in November. Seventeen items will be prohibited without “lawful excuse”, be they eggs, glass jars, reptiles or insects. (Ah, that old Australian killer animal trick.) The occasion has induced the Queensland police minister, Jack Dempsey, to have a special leave of mental lucidness. Convicted criminals, he has suggested, will be moved away from restricted zones. The result? A possible holiday for felons on the tax payer’s already extended purse.[2] This may all be some scrappy reflex to the September 11 commemorations, a date which has seen a tradition of declaring “high” terror alerts in anticipation of some celebrating act of Islamic violence. On Tuesday, the outgoing domestic intelligence spy chief David Irvine seemed left out from the fun his counterparts were having in other countries connected with the Five Eyes arrangement. After all, if the UK Prime Minister David Cameron can increase a “terror alert”, why can’t we?

The entire spectacle is suspect – treating terror alerts like a cookery class; turning the level from medium to high if the dish of poor policy options requires it. In Irvine’s own kitchen language, the current threat was “a very elevated level of medium”.[3] Not likely to be sufficient, he was “certainly contemplating very seriously the notion of lifting it higher because of the numbers of people that we are having to be concerned about here in Australia.” If Irvine is not careful, such heat is bound to dry out the contents of his dish.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/ramping-up-the-alert-the-terror-threat-in-australia/5401109

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University.

Notes
[1] https://www.theage.com.au/comment/australian-law-helps-keep-assad-in-power-20130505-2j11y.html
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-30/qld-parliament-passes-g20-security-laws/5056952
[3] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australia-terror-threat-level-could-go-up-says-asio-head-david-irvine/story-fn59niix-1227053069395

DEFEATING THE ABORIGINAL RECOGNITION REFERENDUM

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
I have collected and ploughed through the latest crop of articles on the Aboriginal recognition Constitution issue. Let us not debate further the theoretical articles detailing their case, for at this point we know their arguments well. The elites have warned, against some true believers, that the Constitutional changes should not create a “bill of rights”.

That is a little silly because that is precisely what this is all about, not just to deliver another politically correct victory and feel-good message, but to embed in the Constitution an eternal affirmative action clause and a non-discrimination clause. Never mind that the lawyers will use the non-discrimination clause to produce an ‘open borders’ Australia, incapable of halting any asylum seekers. That will ultimately lead to a changed “Australia” where Aboriginal issues will not be of importance. One hundred more years of immigration “business-as-usual” and there will be no trace of anything that we now identify as “Australia”.

Some articles are suggesting that the referendum may take place after the next election, the one which Abbott will lose and which will see an even more politically correct Labor Party champion this cause and others. So be it. My proposal is that this referendum should be used by all of the dispossessed majority to hammer home our dissatisfaction with our oppression. The good folk who want us to “reduce immigration” I hope will see the opportunities here because the same globalist, cosmopolitan philosophy lies beneath the immigration ideology and Aboriginalism. This proposed referendum can be used for Anglo Australia to vote against its dispossession.

The time for our leaders in the Freedom Movement to get together and start organising, is now.

THE PEDIGREE OF IDEAS BEHIND THE ABORIGINAL ISSUE…

One World Government by James Reed. New Times Survey July 2007 https://alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/The%20Pedigree%20of%20Ideas.htm

Let me remind you once more of James Reed’s words written in 2007:

That great writer Geoffrey Dobbs penned in the Home Journal of Spring 1989 :
"Although it is necessary to look backwards to maintain continuity with the past, this becomes urgent only with a view to carrying a living policy into the future."

It is in this context which we shall examine more deeply the Howard government's "discovery" and now "war" on Aboriginal sexual abuse.

I have written over and over again that the plight of Aboriginal children and women in these communities is shocking. But this situation has been known of for well over ten years. It has been ignored until now. One article which I received summed it all up by saying that Howard is doing a parting favour for the mining industry, having been their faithful servant. His aim is to roll back Aboriginal ownership of tribal lands, an aim hidden under the multi-coloured cloak of humanitarianism. Although the article which I received has a left-wing orientation, I cannot but agree. But one must join the dots and go further, following the trail of the one-worlders.

In this process of discovery, there are many illuminating League books to help us. Geoff McDonald's "Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights" is a true classic. If you do not have a copy of this book, you should purchase one.

In clear prose Geoff McDonald explains how multiculturalism and Aboriginal land rights were used as political weapons by hard-line communists to attack traditional Australia. McDonald was a former member of the Communist Party, joining in 1948. He learned first hand that at the time the White Australia Policy was one of their main targets. Their goal, McDonald said was to change "Australia from an Anglo-Saxon country into one that would be predominately Asian." Today, that goal, once unthinkable, is almost realised. The strategy of gradualism, of incremental change and deception, is also described by Tony McGillick in his book, "Comrade No More: The Autobiography of a Former Communist Party Leader" another important book.

Communism IS Globalism
The essence of communism is centralised control over the economy, politics and the individual. It is a mistake to see communism as primarily an economic system - what is more important are questions of power and control. To simplify this somewhat : in both systems, despite cosmetic differences in the sphere of production, a group of technocratic elite control the fate and freedom of the individual. Just like "two prongs on the one fork"…”

Joseph Stalin’s “National and Colonial Question”

WATCH GEOFF McDONALD IN ‘RED OVER BLACK’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCfmLI0QadE Early 1980s documentary by ex-communist Geoff McDonald's warning to Australia. The documentary covers communist Joseph Stalin's theories, which use the Indigenous people of each nation to dispossess the white people of their land. It focuses on communist movements in Australia which use the Aboriginal land rights movement to become a threat to Australia's national sovereignty. He focuses on Stalin’s/Lenin’s “National and Colonial Question” in relation to Australia. If you want, you can obtain a copy of the DVD “Red Over Black” from Doug and Jean Holmes. Ring 08 8396 1245 and place your order.

LETTER TO THE PRESS

To the Editor of The Australian, 16th September 2014
Ken Wyatt says that he thinks constitutional recognition of Aboriginals is 'without question' ('Mundine savages plan for dedicated indigenous seats', 16/9). He means that there is no case against it. He is wrong. Cogent arguments have been advanced against the project by a significant number of thoughtful Australians, and supporters of the 'Recognise' campaign need to address these, if they can, rather than ignoring them or brushing them aside as 'scare campaigns'. The fact that Wyatt talks about 'other debates' if Australians vote 'Yes' shows that this is not just a matter of feel-good symbolism or an expression of regret with no strings attached. As for the idea of negotiating a treaty (Letters, 16/9), it is historically far too late for such a move to be either feasible or just.
Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

ON CRIMES OF WORDS

by Mrs. Vera West
The multicultural madness continues. Over in the United States, once the Land of the Free, a young female soccer player, Hanna Strong, had a brief argument with a black male. In the course of the argument, she used the ‘n’ word as well as the anti-homosexual ‘f’ word. Miss Strong has been suspended from her team and will face disciplinary action from her university.

The slurs arose in the context of a confrontation. It is not clear why the male upset Miss Strong enough to get angry enough to insult him as such. We don’t know what he called her, perhaps to provoke her. Perhaps, given Miss Strong’s beauty he was seeking sex, or maybe just a good intellectual discussion about the physics of soccer! I don’t know. In a sane society both parties should be made, once they calm down, to apologise and then get on with life. But we don’t live in a sane society.

Oh, and when are apologies going to come in from black rappers who have produced thousands of songs openly calling for the torture and murder of whites? Just asking.

SHORTENING SHORTEN’S SUBMARINE “NATIONALISM”

by James Reed
Oh Bill, you really put you fool foot in it! According to Shorten “Under Labor”, [we] will build ships and submarines in Australia because we love this country”, Bill Shorten said addressing a union rally at the gates of the Australian Submarine Corp in Adelaide, 9 September 2014. The issue was Abbott’s decision to buy off-the-rack subs from Japan. Shorten’s sin, was “racism” and “protectionism”. He said: “This is a government with a short memory – in the Second World War, 366 merchant ships were sunk off Australia”. (The Australian 11 September 2014, p.4)

That was too much for the Asianists writing for our daily rags, to dare to remind us that Asian nations could be a threat, and could be something other than warm and cuddly multicultural love bears. But Shorten’s sentiment, no doubt opportunist (much like Julia Gillard’s claim to reduce immigration if she was elected prime minister), is reasonable. It is a sentiment that should have been reached after the conclusion of World War II, instead of following the multicultural path which led directly to Asianisation.

As for the Japanese subs, the Defence Teaming Centre believes that buying off the shelf subs is false economy because there are likely to be cost overruns as has happened with the Spanish designed destroyers. Things may be even worse because Japan has never exported submarines before. Imagine the number of bugs that will need to be ironed out. (The Advertiser 11 September 2014, p.11) I believe that it is possible that a bug or two (computer back doors) might even find their way into the subs. Tony, another bad idea. What next?

THE DISPOSSESSED US WHITE MAJORITY – NOW MINORITY

by Chris Knight
Those of us here in Australia preoccupied about finance and economic problems need to reflect for a moment about the United States because we are about five years behind them in most ‘trends’ and our fate is reflected in their fate.

White students are now a minority in American schools. Put slightly different, ethnic students – primarily Hispanics and Asians born in the US – now outnumber whites. And “white” is broadly defined and is much wider than what most of us would take to be “white” including Middle Eastern people. White students are now 49.7 percent of the 50 million US state student population, but were 63.4 percent in 1997. (The Australian 27 August 2014, p.10)

Changing demographics means a changing culture. Australia faces the same fate as the United States if nothing is done about our insane mass immigration programme. Think of all those institutions which our movement seeks to preserve: the Constitution, flag, our cultural heritage shared with Britain and the United States. Now imagine no “Britain”, “United States” or “Australia” as we know it (or knew it). Think of contemporary South Africa. The race/immigration issue has the potential to undermine any perceived advances which we think are occurring in other areas. Should our goal really be to create social credit for a non-white world? This is not my goal. It is time for us to get our heads out of the sand and treat the immigration/race issue as the emergency which it really is. If you think that we need to completely transform the economy to deal with the ultimate source of this problem, then right you are – but, that approach is going to lead to demographic replacement. The ethno-racial transformation is occurring at light speed compared to any conjectured social credit awakening in the general population.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A TERRIBLE PROBLEM…HUH?

“Climate Change is a Terrible Problem”…. Bill Gates. Oh Yeh?...

CLIMATE SCIENCE MISTAKES BETRAY THE POOR by Tom Harris and Tim Ball Tim Ball explains on his website thus: 15 September 2014 “This website is committed to helping people understand the world and the way it works. Lack of understanding allows those with a political agenda to exploit people. This was the case with the necessary new paradigm of environmentalism as Gould’s comment anticipated. Without understanding natural processes you can’t identify human induced changes. You are vulnerable to the claim that all natural changes are unnatural, which is occurring daily in the mainstream media.

Education was always about indoctrinating children to think the way the powerful in society wanted. This was done openly and primarily centred on a religious belief. Now the indoctrination is denied because they claim education is not about religion. In fact, it is about the new religion of environmentalism that is being used to create equally, if not more indoctrinated, young minds. Few parents have any idea what their children are learning in the schools. It is not the wide ranging, free thinking, investigative experience they think. One way this is apparent is in the movement of young people through the education system. Historically they entered university and challenged the prevailing wisdoms. Now they come fully indoctrinated with environmentalism that ignores facts, manufactures false information and blames humans for everything. It is significant that challenges come from much older people who know and understand the fallacies. Everyone knows that information is power, but it’s exploitation of power that has allowed a few to control and manipulate people…” Read on….

“Mega-droughts and deadly heatwaves. A year’s rainfall in a month. Coastal cities under water. Destruction of ocean life. Invasive pests.” This is how the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) describes “weather reports from the future”, a series of films depicting what they claim are realistic scenarios for the year 2050.

Working with television weather presenters and national broadcasters from around the world, the WMO is releasing 14 imaginary future weather reports this month designed to influence the UN’s Climate Summit 2014 to be held in New York City on September 23. The films “paint a compelling picture of what life could be like on a warmer planet,” says WMO Secretary- General Michel Jarraud. “Climate change is already leading to more extreme weather such as intense heat and rain... We need to act now.”

But neither the WMO films nor Jarraud’s statement make sense. They are based on the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency that has been wrong on every forecast they have ever made. So like most of the climate debate, the WMO initiative is not science. It is propaganda designed to push political leaders into committing their countries to a binding greenhouse gas reduction treaty at next year’s Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Science tells us that if the world warms due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, an improbable proposition, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker mid-latitude cyclones in a warmer world and so less extremes in weather, not more.

The lack of a global warming/extreme weather connection is one of the few areas of agreement between the IPCC and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The IPCC wrote in their March 28, 2012 Special Report on Extremes, "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [due to extreme weather] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change." In their September 27, 2013 Fifth Assessment Report the IPCC had only “low confidence” that “damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” as a result of global warming.

The NIPCC report released on September 17, 2013 concluded the same, asserting that “In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.” The NIPCC even went so far as to say, “There has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather in the modern era.”

For example, the number of tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines has not changed significantly over the past century. And it has been almost nine years since the last major hurricane struck the US Mainland, the longest drought in the hurricane record since 1900.

Despite predictions that the 2013 hurricane season (Jun 1 – Nov 30) would be more active than usual, it was one of the weakest since record-keeping began about 50 years ago. The 2014 season is also showing less activity than normal. The US National Hurricane Center stated on September 1, “For the North Atlantic, Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, activity in the basin so far in 2014 has been about 45% of the 1981-2010 average.” None of this was supposed to happen according to the computer models on which the climate scare is founded.

The San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative has demonstrated that worldwide spending on climate finance now totals almost $1 billion per day. Tragically, only 6% of this goes to helping people adapt to real climate change today, however caused. The rest is wasted trying to control what might happen in the distant future.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, thanked the television weather presenters “for volunteering their time and their skill to communicate to millions of people the reality we are all facing by 2050 if climate change is left unaddressed. I am sure their films will inspire everyone of the absolute necessity of a meaningful, universal new agreement in Paris in 2015."

The only climate agreement required is one that helps our most vulnerable citizens adapt to climate change, most of which is undoubtedly natural. Allocating more importance to the unpredictable problems of people yet to be born than the serious issues faced by those suffering today is immoral. (emphasis added…ed)

Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition.

Dr. Tim Ball is a Victoria, British Columbia, Canada-based climatologist and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. His Website is www.drtimball.com.

LETTER TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Mr Tony Pasin MHR:

Dear Tony,
I have raised the matter of the Trans Pacific Partnership with you before. In particular I expressed concern over the ISDS Clause permitting corporations to sue national governments for lost income due to changed legislation. You explained that similar clauses were in trade agreements dating back many years and that there was little to worry about.

I wish to draw your attention to the ABC radio “Background Briefings” from Sunday Extra September 14th. The ABC programme claimed that claims against governments around the world are escalating to the hundreds. Since the NAFTA (North America) agreement was signed there has been a broader interpretation of the rules. As an example the Canadian government has been sued for $13m in a single case. Twenty other cases cost it $158m and further cases pending could amount to some $6bn.

The programme claimed that if Australia signs the TPP involving the US, we will experience cases similar to those in Canada. Speakers claimed that there is no need to include the ISDS clause and I believe we should be strong enough to avoid it at all costs. Apparently Australia, when negotiating the Free Trade Agreement with Korea, declared it did not want the ISDS clause included. The Koreans refused to sign unless it was included and Australia agreed to their demand.

The ISDS is established to favour corporations at the expense of nations. As you can imagine most of the winners will be the huge multi-national corporations. Could the reason for both major parties not wishing to ban gas mine ‘fracking’, be that such a move would trigger an ISDS claim against our government?

ISDS claims are not heard by a court, but rather are determined in rooms of the World Bank or Hotel conference rooms. The decisions cannot be challenged and no reporters may attend. It does not smell like roses to me!

I want the Coalition to be up to date on the ISDS and exclude it from any agreements.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Grundy Naracoorte SA 5271
September 15 2014