Exclusive Bretheren Move on Jill (Deadwood) Redwood

It would seem that Karma is knocking at Jill's door and she does not like the treatment of her own medicine. This radical chainsaw wielding - anti-logging greenie campaigner has destroyed families of the timber industry with her greenie driven agenda under their false and contrived science and double standards.

This information was received by a Gippsland voter who is campaigning for survival of this nation, a nation getting back on track and has no room for this person in anyway.

"Voters need to know that material will be letter-boxed and published in the media with the intention of deliberately deceiving voters about the Greens," said Jill Redwood, Greens Candidate for the Eastern Victoria Upper House Region. "The Exclusive Bretheren have done this sort of thing before and have been caught out."

"With the Greens running strongly in this election, it looks like the Exclusive Brethren will turn its attention to the Upper House," said Jill Redwood. "This secretive religious sect is now courting The Nationals who are desperate to avoid being sidelined by the voters in November's poll."

"The Exclusive Brethren does not allow its members to vote," said Jill Redwood. "However, at election time it meets with leaders of conservative parties and then puts together a well funded campaign. We can expect to see glowing support for The Nationals and vicious, hysterical attacks on the Greens."

"Voters can expect a dirty tricks campaign from this sect," said Jill Redwood. "If Tasmanian and New Zealand experience is anything to go on, the Exclusive Bretheren will avoid putting it's name to the material it produces."

"During an election campaign I think it's important that everyone has the opportunity to present their views," said Jill Redwood. "However, what's also important is that voters know the true source of any campaign advertising, leaflets or brochures."

"The Exclusive Brethren must be open about any involvement in politics and clearly identify its campaign material," said Jill Redwood. "It's disturbing that Peter Ryan is welcoming the attention of this extreme sect. The Nationals must be open about where their support is coming from."

Contact Jill Redwood (03) 5154 0145

Farmers to Supply Contraceptives for Rabbits Foxes & Dingoes

THE Greens want a more humane approach to pest control in Victoria that doesn't include 1080 poison for baiting rabbits and foxes.

At a forum hosted by the Victorian Farmers Federation yesterday, the Greens' upper house candidate for Northern Victoria Region Jennifer Alden said her party's policy was to phase out 1080.

"It's in the light of finding a better and more humane alternative," she said.

"We think it is possible."

Ms Alden put a contraceptive vaccine developed by the CSIRO forward as an alternative for controlling feral animals, especially foxes.

"A contraceptive vaccine is one possibility," she said.

"It's an exciting possibility and it seems to have a lot of credibility.

"It just requires some support in research dollars to get it up and running.

"Some things are not overnight solutions but we want to support good science."

In regard to aerial baiting of wild dogs, Ms Alden disregarded trials in NSW, South Australia and Gippsland in favour of more evidence of its effectiveness and an examination of other options.

"We really need to be broadening our discussions," she said.

Ms Alden said she would like to see people of differing views around a table looking at solutions.

Her suggestion to harvest roadside weeds for biodiesel did not impress local farmers or candidates from other parties.

BY ELIZA ADAMTHWAITE

SOS-NEWS Editor's remark: WORDS FAIL ME - - Hey it's your vote, ..just remember these Gang Green fools still will not accept proven science with the 1080 poison .. and the livestock being ripped apart by wild dogs this person refuses to exterminate and this irresponsible green agenda crap is sending your farmers to the wall while she remains in her comfortable job collecting a healthy wage.

If you need to know how they intend to carryout this policy and how much it is going to cost you call Jennifer on her mobile 0427 430 233.

Tree hugging Confuses Me

LETTER TO THE EDITOR ...... SOS-NEWS

Dear Editor

I am finding the call of the Greens for a cessation of logging across Victoria very confusing. I have two issues.

First. Their reasoning appears to be that, planting new trees to replace harvested stock reduces the quantity of water available for human consumption. That, I understand and agree with, however, while demand outstrips supply, it is better to use our own timber stock than import timber from countries where forest management is unheard of..

What I cannot get to grips with is their attitude to fuel reduction burning (FRB) across the State for the past twenty five years. On green websites and in literature that comes to my notice, they do not seem to support it and its possible that some of the more influential among them, including the east Gippsland Goongerah Gulag goons, greatly oppose it.

This is what I find most confusing because, if there is enough cool burning in autumn (such as we used to have 25 years ago), the incidence of huge roaring feral fires is decreased. Where huge, hot fires are reduced there is a reduced loss of flora. Where flora is lost due to fire the new growth will have exactly the same effect that timber harvesting and regrowth gives us.

I very much doubt that our timber industry destroys as much land as the feral fires of recent years.

Second. It is the regulated cool burning of autumn that burns off the dead vegetation after summer and offers new growth for our native fauna to feed on and use as habitat.

When feral fires in summer destroy the native animal habitat and reduce the forest floor to dust, erosion is caused. The detrius is blown or washed into our drinking water reservoirs. Can you imagine the consequences?

Can someone tell the Greens that a forest is a living, breathing entity that has to be managed. It cannot be left to its own devices.

Yours etc. John Cribbes.

Bracks' Secret State revealed by the Age

www.theage.com.auHome Bracks' secret state By Jason Dowling September 24, 2006

'When you're proud of what you're doing, you don't want it hidden; you want people to know about it. You only keep secret the things that you're ashamed of."

Those were the words of Steve Bracks back in 1999 - so what is the Premier so ashamed of now?

Labor's record on open and accountable government has been rocky, to say the least. It seems that everywhere you look in state politics, there are increasing obstacles to the truth - from the Government media unit's reluctance to allow ministers to answer journalists' questions, to the dwindling usefulness of freedom of information laws.

Has Victoria become the secret state?

While Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has made several visits to the parliamentary press gallery offices in his five months in the job, and shadow ministers frequently drop in to brief reporters, the Premier or any of his ministers are never seen in the gallery.

Questions on government spending or policies are referred to the 20-odd media advisers in the Premier's media unit.

There are easily more media advisers in the media unit than there are journalists in the press gallery. And after renovations at Parliament House, the unit will be located right outside the Premier's office - like sandbags barricading the Government against unwanted scrutiny.

When reporters do ask a question, seemingly straightforward answers are often not given.

Recently, The Age requested access to the state's top 200 water users - a request refused for "confidentiality reasons".

In a speech to the Melbourne Press Club in September 1999, Bracks boldly announced three ways in which a Labor government would be different from the Kennett government. The third centred on leadership: "Leadership that believes in openness and accountability, that isn't afraid of scrutiny, that credits the people of this state with the intelligence to make their own judgements."

Well, not on water it seems.

In fairness, the Bracks Government has much to be proud of when it comes to the restoration and strengthening of the state's democratic institutions. Since 1999, Labor has reinstated powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions, narrowed the cabinet exemption in the FoI Act, enshrined the role of the Auditor-General in the constitution, made the Ombudsman and Electoral Commissioner independent officers of Parliament, and ensured that the opposition parties were allowed five questions in parliamentary question time.

Premier Bracks, unlike his predecessor, has agreed to election debates (last election and for November) and appeared at Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings. Yet there are signs that the motto of the Bracks Government when it comes to releasing information is shifting towards "less is best". The Government's approach to the FoI Act would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

While in opposition, Labor chastised the Kennett government for introducing a $20 lodgement fee and the lifting of a $100 ceiling on the processing costs of requests. The Bracks Government has not removed the $20 fee, instead indexing it so it rises each year. Nor did it reinstall the $100 ceiling.

The Government and its public service have been criticised for their handling of FoI requests. In his June 2006 report on the FoI Act, Ombudsman George Brouwer found that "many departments have systemic problems in responding to FoI requests for sensitive information". His report noted instances where "members of the executive or of the minister's staff had suggested changes" to FoI decisions.

"This is not consistent with the purpose of the noting process and could lend support to the allegation of some journalists and politicians that the decision-making process is open to manipulation," the Ombudsman found.

A recent Sunday Age request for documents from the Department of Treasury and Finance on the failed sale of the Snowy Hydro scheme highlights some of the hurdles now in place.

The first response to the request said that the department could not be sure where to start the search because of a lack of clarity around the term "all documents". The next letter agreed to fulfil the request after a deposit of $350 was paid (half the estimated search time fee). Finally, the department warned that it destroyed all documents it considered unimportant. It did not say who determined what documents were "unimportant".

The Bracks Government on occasion will go out of its way to stop the release of information and use taxpayers' money to do it.

When the state Opposition sought access to Government reports on the progress of major projects such as the Spencer Street Station redevelopment, EastLink and the regional fast-rail project, the Government blocked their release. When the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the reports should be handed over, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court. The matter is now unlikely to be decided until after the November state election.

No wonder the Opposition Leader is exasperated with FoI in Victoria. Baillieu has said that attempting to obtain documents through FoI laws was characterised by "acts of bastardry" and "deliberate, manifest obfuscation and delay". "Anybody who thinks they can quickly access information using FoI is just kidding themselves . . . It's freedom 'from' information," he said.

And it's not just FoI that has raised eyebrows. Questions are also being asked about how the Bracks Government has treated Parliament.

Late on Tuesday, September 12, Planning Minister Rob Hulls announced plans for amendments to Melbourne's urban growth boundary and its green-wedge zones. The amendments realigned a green-wedge zone to incorporate a $275 million marina in Werribee South.

Hulls described the changes to the green wedges with some neat language: they were altering "the controls over the subdivision of green-wedge land to allow the land to be subdivided into more lots than is currently allowed under the planning scheme".

In other words, houses were to be built in a green-wedge zone.

The Opposition was outraged at the short notice given about the planning amendment.

When responding to the new bill in Parliament, Liberal Murray Thompson told Parliament: "The ability of the Opposition to effectively scrutinise the material and be in a position to constructively respond has been limited.

"Urban growth boundary issues are controversial, as are green wedges that have been developed for Melbourne," he said. And that is precisely why the Government rushed the changes through, hoping for little attention.

Barely three weeks earlier, Hulls had released a media statement saying the Opposition would concrete over green wedges. The Government's late-night changes would allow for 160 houses and 60 apartments in the "green-wedge land subdivided into more lots".

Other decisions that are considered too controversial for the State Government have been neatly delayed until after the election. For example, Victorians will not be told until after they vote the length of time the Government has locked in new pokie machine licences. It is expected to be decades.

Voters will also be in the dark about whether the channel- deepening project for the bay or the toxic waste dump proposal near Mildura will gain final approval.

Once again, some words from Bracks in 1999: "You know it's something I'm passionate about . . . I think state governments should be accountable."

Yet voters have the difficult job of judging this Government's record and intentions with limited information.

The Kennett government's time in office was tarnished by allegations of secrecy and of attacking democracy. It may have been one of the reasons voters turned on it.

An increasingly secretive Bracks Government is learning little from the past.

When you see news happening: SMS/MMS: 0406 THE AGE (0406 843 243), or email us. More

Give me the Population of Victoria & I will Give you Australia

The report in the media that the cells in Victorian police stations are in such a pitiful condition that future use would be not in the best interests of those incarcerated therein, is just another example of the duplicitous manipulation of the public perception. Station cells were never intended for extended stays. The reality of this is that our government is busy colluding with the corporate world, and in this case the private prison industry, to provide sufficient "persons" to ensure this industry makes sufficient profit to uphold the very impressive share price through the significant dividends paid. I am led to believe, by one who has experienced their hospitality, that each customer is worth a basic $1500 a day for the basic service, and further remuneration for other services they are expected to use while incarcerated. e.g. skills programs etc, for which each person has to sign they attended. Another manipulation of the public perception is the statement that police need to be out in society ensuring we are all being good citizens, not caring for those in cells. The duplicity here is a serious move to remove drink related offences from police intervention is now being considered. Hmmm, there must be some serious criminal activities out there that require the attention of this large police force. Could we assume all drug related offences will receive the same non-attention? Just what can we expect should this one go down. No sane person will attend any evening entertainment, so will be confined to their residence. Clever scenario, an easy way to achieve social control through fear. The future does not appear rosy.

John

"Gang-Green" sets in

Friday, 22 September 2006

FALSE CLAIMS BY ELECTRICITY AND GAS SALESPEOPLE

The Nationals Member for Benalla, Bill Sykes, warns of 'dodgy' tactics being used to sign people up to new electricity and gas suppliers.

An elderly Benalla citizen was approached recently by a door-to-door salesman who claimed that the State Government was directing energy consumers to use "green power" and that it was compulsory to allocate part of a consumer's electricity usage to renewable energy production.

Dr Sykes said, "We have been in touch with the supplier and found that the salespeople were not stating the truth.

"I warn those people who are approached to change energy suppliers to insist that the salesperson shows identification and also to show an offer summary which outlines the charges and plans that they may be offering.

"While consumers are encouraged to determine which supplier can offer the best prices and plans, it is wise to study the differences being presented."

Dr Sykes added, "If a consumer feels that they have been 'conned' into signing an agreement and wish to review or withdraw the agreement, they should contact the energy supplier and ask firstly if they are employing salespeople door-to-door and secondly, ask for a full explanation of the plan that has been offered to you.

SOS-NEWS Voting Poll Open NOW

On the right side of this blogg you will scroll to our voting poll. This is setup to obtain an indication of Victorian peoples feelings to the contending parties, independents and others standing at the November 2006 state election.

The poll has been set to only take one(1) voter per computer so as to stop vote stacking - also monitors from which Australian state the vote is cast from only accepting Victoria. This does restrict a family casting individual votes from the home computer - but will give a fair indication to you the people how the election may run.

The poll will close on midnight Sunday 1st Octotber, results will be published here on the blog and on the website, along with SOS-NEWS, after that time.

We hope our Victorian people will participate and show the watchers how you feel.

Bracks Put Snowy Sale On Hold Until After Elections

Peter Hall MLC Nationals Spokesperson for the Environment

Dear Editor,

Despite all its rhetoric, the Bracks Government is not at all serious about guaranteeing water releases to the Snowy and Murray Rivers and nor is it serious about retaining public ownership of Australia's largest generator of renewable energy.

Under legislation passed this month by the Victorian Parliament, approval of the sale of Victoria's share in the Snowy Hydro Authority requires a simple majority of both houses of the Parliament.

If the Bracks Government retains its majority in both houses after the November election, there will be nothing stopping it from attempting to sell this iconic public asset once again.

In 2003 the Bracks Government amended the Constitution Act to prevent the privatisation of every Victorian water authority with only one exception - Snowy Hydro. Those amendments mean water authorities cannot be sold unless the sale is approved by a 3/5 majority of the Parliament. The Nationals have recently tried to have the same conditions imposed on Victoria's share of Snowy Hydro, but the Bracks Government voted against this proposal.

This decision demonstrates a lack of sincere commitment to do what Victorians expected of the Labor Government - that being to guarantee that Snowy Hydro is retained in the public's ownership.

Again it seems the hopes and aspirations of Victorians have been blatantly ignored by the Bracks Government. Meanwhile the trickle that purports to be the iconic Snowy River flows on.

Yours Sincerely,

Peter Hall Nationals Spokesperson for the Environment

CAMERON SHOULD BE SACKED

The Nationals Spokesman for Water Peter Walsh has called on the Premier to sack Minister for Agriculture Bob Cameron, following his latest media tantrum in which he deliberately misled the people of Bendigo saying there are no efficiency gains to be made in the Goulburn system.

"The Nationals have said any water taken from the Goulburn system for Bendigo and Ballarat should come from genuine water efficiency projects and that to do otherwise would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul," explained Mr Walsh.

"We believe it is only fair and reasonable that water authorities providing supplies to these two important provincial cities should fund water efficiency projects within the Goulburn system to free-up the water they require.

"For the Minister to say these savings are not available shows he has not read his own Government's reports over the past few years and is ill-informed on the issue.

"It is a disgrace that a Cabinet Minister would, with so little dignity, fail to govern for the whole of the State in an effort to cover up the way his Government has failed Victoria on water management.

"The people of country Victoria are tired of being represented by someone who is more interested in cheap political point scoring rather than responsible solutions to the State's water problems," he said.

"Premier Bracks should demote the Member for Bendigo West to the back bench and choose an Agriculture Minister who acts with dignity, fairness and integrity and understands the issues at hand.

"It is the Premier's responsibility to ensure that his Ministers uphold the integrity of high office, particularly in relation to such a critical issue as water in what is looming as the worst drought Victoria has ever known.

"As a Minister for Agriculture, Bob Cameron is no better than a cardboard cut-out, failing to represent the needs of his constituency on countless occasions.

"Following his misleading claims yesterday, I urge Steve Bracks to move him to the back bench and choose a more worthy Minister," said Mr Walsh.

Victorian DSE use %s to hide Errors

Not sure if you guys have/are reporting on the latest DSE stuff up with the Murray-Sunset National Park…. Basically another fuel-reduction burn that has gotten out of control. Here is part of a letter that I have sent to The Age newspaper in Melbourne… not sure if it will be published, but I thought some of the facts were interesting…..

My family stills lives on the Murray River next to a State Forest… a Forest that the Greens hope one day to become a National Park if the findings of the VEAC Investigation into the Murray River Red Gum Forests are in their favour (and is apparently a foregone conclusion). If it does get turned into a National Park, am I to assume that one day this beautiful piece of bushland will go up in flames like the Murray-Sunset National Park (which has currently burnt out 24000ha) in the name of fuel-reduction burn? The questions must be asked… why did this fuel-reduction burn take place when a temperature of almost 30 degrees was recorded in Mildura… and only a couple of days before Melbourne recorded the earliest day after winter that the mercury topped 30??

On the DSE’s own website (www.dse.vic.gov.au) they have published “Audits of compliance with the code of practice for fire management on public land” for 1999, 2001 and 2002. In the 2002 audit it was shown that out of six fuel reduction burns the average full compliance level was 87.2%, and within that 3 of the 6 burns have only 80-82% full compliance levels! Non-compliance levels for 3 of the burns were 11%!! Now surely, if you are dealing with a volatile entity such as fire you would probably want to make sure that the odds swing a little more in your favour, and that there is no room for “non-compliance”.

When will the DSE ever learn? How many more National Parks have to go up in smoke before they figure out how to do a properly controlled fuel-reduction burn? Someone has to take responsibility for the incompetence of this government department.

Concerned Victorian

Victorians, are your Public Meetings Controlled?

AN OCTOPUS DEVOURS YOU WHILST HE GENTLY STROKES YOUR EGO

How to Stop Being Manipulated! . Control tactics The Nature of Government

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE .

Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions.

The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.

The Delphi Technique is what Aliss encountered in Health Canada (HC) Public Hearing.

The Following two articles are a must read if we are to be able to deal with corporations and other bureaucrats. While the articles are somewhat repetitious they are diverse enough to help better comprehend the technic. As more and more people understand these shenanigans the technique may be modified to counter resistance. Interestingly HC in their public hearing did not knowing allow multiple like minded people to come their hearing....

Chris Gupta

NB: This powerful technic was introduced to me by Peter Helgason - a Guru in these matters and - a lead council member of Friends of Freedom organization worthy of our support.

LET'S STOP BEING MANIPULATED! THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

By: Albert V. Burns

More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to "participate" in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to "help determine" public policy in one field or another.

They are supposedly being included to get "input" from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.

You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or "facilitate" the meeting. Supposedly the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.

The process used to "facilitate" the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a pre-determined end.

How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined. First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likeable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize with.

It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as "bad guys" while the facilitator is perceived as the "good guy."

Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the "friend" of the rest of the audience. The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.

At this point, the audience is generally broken up into "discussion groups" of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.

Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.

Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and "compiled" for general discussion after the general meeting is re-convened.

THIS is the weak link in the chain which you are not supposed to recognize. WHO compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? AHHHH! Well, it is those who are running the meeting. How do you know that the ideas on YOUR notes were included in the final result. You DON'T! You may realize that your idea was NOT included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority.

Recognize that every OTHER citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether THEIR ideas were "compiled" into the final result! You don't even know if ANYONE'S ideas are part of the final "conclusions" presented to the re-assembled group as the "consensus" of public opinion. Rarely, does anyone challenge the process since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others.

So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation. Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.

The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained BEFORE the meeting took place, WHY have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique. It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is THEIRS! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized! If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.

This VERY effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a "participatory democracy."

Now, citizens chosen at large, are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now THEIRS!

The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say "Conspiracy?"

These "Change Agents" or "Facilitators" CAN be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them. Because it is SO important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column.

ONE: Never, NEVER lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.

TWO: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to THEIR agenda look silly or aggressive.

Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is NOT what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.

THREE: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and re-read the previous column.)

FOUR: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.) DON'T go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person "armed" with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. DON'T sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.

When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering YOUR question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours.

They can bring the discussion back to your original point.

They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did NOT really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor.

To quote my informant: "Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I've done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen's throats. And it's so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face."

Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let's show them up for the charlatans which they are.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Albert V. Burns writes from Utah and is a regular columnist for the Spanish Fork Press. He has an extensive knowledge of the conspiracy which has been working so hard to destroy this nation and incorporate it into a one world government. He has developed an extensive personal research library and the knowledge to find what he needs, to write his columns. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Albert V. Burns can be reached at: avburns@mindspring.com

Published in the September 23, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone. ------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus

How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation.

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis.

The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis.

All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic."

They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform.

A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy.

To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet.

When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is:

"How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.

How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic.

Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose.

The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda.

People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question."

Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance.

If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator.

When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.

Lynn Stuter is an education researcher in Washington state. Her web site address is http://www.learn-usa.com/

The Snowy Hydro Holy Grail Illuminated

Kick out the cattlemen, vilify the rural neighbours, let the dingoes/wild dogs kill the fauna, lock up the mountain's use with park's legislation and let it burn for a clean slate, WHY?

Well the cat is really out of the bag and the answer is mind boggling. The Bracks and Thwaites Victorian Government is complicit in keeping mum about satisfying corporate interests in the energy market. So quiet, that while it was floating around in corporate cyber space, it was never discussed in truth.

This has to be the Holy Grail that the Vic, NSW and Federal governments were working towards. It is clearly apparent by this new Hydro scheme having been left out of the news and press releases pre the prospective sale of our asset, The Snowy Hydro, that it can only be accepted that the reason for the urgency to conduct and complete the sale of the Snowy Hydro, was in fact to have successfully put this into public share holding before this consortium got its way. Remember the sale of Telstra and the Moms and Dads that lost and still have lost their investment values. Well, how do you all think you would have felt by investing in the Snowy Hydro Theft, an entity with no competition, to wake up in a couple of months to find across the border, this Energy Conglomerate.

It is the end result of just how under handed the people we elect to government are.

The hypothesis goes like this:

Use Parks's legislation to remove the cattle from the mountains by vilifying both the animals and the Australians that work them. Use the dingoes/wild dogs to kill off the native fauna to an extent that they only exist in sub-alpine areas and neighbouring rural areas. Set up legislation for water trading rights and usage. Set in place the ability to make massive sums of money by trading in carbon credit fraud. Keep the detractors off balance by globally forcing climate change Keating flags in a manner that has yet to be quantified. Turn whole areas into internationally recognised biospheres and tied up in United Nations gobbledy gook. Use legislative instruments to force the little person out of the areas of design. Allow the Snowy Mountains to burn in a manner that is directly attributable to intentional miss-management to provide the mountains with a clean burnt slate and blame mother nature, seeing as how they couldn't find some poor hapless human sod to blame.

When all of the above is set up, force, with the power of three governments and their deceitful lies and allegiance to their corporate bosses, the theft of the Snowy Hydro Scheme from the Nation into public share holder's hands. Get the small amount of disposable funds we are all left with, if any, and sink it into another Telstra. Then bring on the next phase of the bastardisation of the Snowy Mountains, this time in Victoria with the essential help of Bracks and Thwaites, and bulldoze in another Hydro system, that is entirely in private hands.

And yes the Deutsche Bank and the Macquarie Bank all seem to be involved.

This is absolutely bull#@%^ and if the Victorian public do not rise up and out into the streets over this, then we are doomed to corporate servitude. This Hydro system is reported as only costing $230 million dollars, an amount that this nation's citizenry can afford time-fold from the GST theft alone. We stood up for the Snowy, now demand that no such use of mountains will be permitted unless it is in ours, the people's hands and ownership as citizens. For this conglomerate is to call a vote upon the plan and all it stands for by the shareholders in October.

There is no way that this consortium would not have taken over, merged, or been absorbed by Snowy Hydro once privatisation had been completed by the proposed failed theft that we fought for so vehemently. We are called upon as a Nation once again and Victoria, Bracks and Thwaites are at the top of this pile.

P.S. where the bloody hell are the opposition parliamentarians across the board in Victoria?

Read the press release below and be bloody angry.

Brumbyy with 2Ys

AGL to build $230m hydro plant

NEWS.com.au September 19, 2006
Kevin Andrusiak

September 19, 2006

AUSTRALIAN Gas Light may have overstated the historical significance of its planned Bogong hydroelectric peaking plant to be built in the Victorian Alpine region and slated to be ready for the 2009 summer. AGL claims the $230 million station will be the biggest hydroelectric plant to be built in Australia in the last 25 years, but Hydro Tasmania's 143MW John Butters hydroelectric power station on Lake Burbury could rightly claim that position.

John Butters was commissioned in 1992.

An AGL spokeswoman later confirmed that the company meant to say Bogong would be the biggest to be built on mainland Australia.

At capacity, AGL's Bogong plant will produce 140MW of power for the Victorian grid, the second-biggest in terms of demand in Australia.

The plan was originally part of Southern Hydro's ambitions, but were put on hold after AGL bought the utility from New Zealand's Meridian Energy for $1.425 billion late last year.

AGL said the plant would be ready in October 2009 and would boost the hydro proportion of AGL's wholesale generation portfolio by 5 per cent.

The vast majority of Australia's hydro capacity comes from the Snowy Hydro scheme, with Hydro Tasmania, a state government enterprise, owning about one-third of all national hydro infrastructure.

AGL is Australia's biggest energy retailer and is currently the subject of a scheme of arrangement with West Australian gas supplier Alinta to swap key assets.

AGL managing director Paul Anthony said in a statement that Bogong was one of the last opportunities in the nation to construct a "large-scale, fast-start" hydroelectric plant.

"This development will deliver important strategic benefits to AGL's wholesale energy portfolio and through its fast start-up capabilities, will also help meet Victoria's electricity demand during peak periods," Mr Anthony said.

Bogong will be owned by AGL Energy, which will be created if shareholders of both AGL and Alinta approve the scheme of arrangement at respective meetings on October 6.

Deutsche Bank energy analyst John Hirjee said the cost of the project should be "easily digestible" in AGL's new balance sheet once the scheme of arrangement was approved.

"AGL's new chief financial officer, Stephen Mikkelsen, was previously the CFO for Snowy Hydro and will give added knowledge of the project," Mr Hirjee said.

AGL shares closed 32c higher at $21.07.

Alinta Board

Alinta has grown to become one of Australia's leading energy infrastructure Companies

Chairman and Non-Executive Director J H (John) Poynton AM, CitWA, B Comm, FSIA, FAICD, FAIM John Poynton, 53, is a founding Director and Executive Chairman of Azure Capital, a boutique merchant bank. John is a non-executive Director of Austal Ltd, Burswood Ltd and Multiplex Ltd. He is also a member of the Payments Systems Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia and is Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Western Australian Museum Foundation. John is a member of the Board of the University of Western Australia Business School, where he also serves as an Adjunct Professor in Finance Management. John joined the Board of Alinta Limited in October 2000.

John is a member of the Remuneration and Nomination Committee.

John became Chairman of Alinta on 3 May 2006.

Chief Executive Officer R B (Bob) Browning B Sc, MBA, M Sc Bob Browning, 50, commenced as Chief Executive Officer at Alinta in March 2001. Prior to his appointment, Bob had eight years experience at UtiliCorp United Inc. where, over the course of his career, he was responsible for change management, strategic planning and business operations. Prior to that, Bob worked with Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. in consumer retail sales and distribution.

Bob is a member of the Board of the West Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and is a Director of Austal Ltd.

Non-Executive Director J (John) Akehurst MA Eng Sc (Oxon) FIMechE FAICD John Akehurst became a non-executive Director of Alinta Limited on 24 July 2006. John studied engineering at Oxford University and has 30 years operational and management experience in the oil and gas industry. Most recently John was Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Woodside Petroleum, a position he held for seven years.

John is a non-executive Director of CSL Limited and Coogee Resources, a privately held oil and gas company. John is a consultant to RSA Consulting Pty Ltd and is also a Senior Adviser to McKinsey and Company.

John is a Director of the UWA Business School and of Youth Focus, a charitable organisation devoted to the prevention of youth suicide.

Non-Executive Director F E (Fiona) Harris, B Comm, FCA, FAICD Fiona Harris, 44, is a professional non-executive Director. Previously, she spent 14 years with a major chartered accounting firm in Perth, San Francisco and Sydney. She was an Audit and Assurance partner in the New South Wales practice of that firm when she retired in 1994. She is a Director of HBF Health Funds Inc and West Australian Symphony Orchestra Holdings Pty Ltd. Fiona is Vice President of the State Council of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. She has been a Director of Alinta Limited since its incorporation in January 2000.

Fiona is Chairman of the Board's Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Non-Executive Director T C (Tim) Healey, BEc, BLitt (Hons), FAICD Tim Healey, 60, was previously a Director of United Energy Ltd. Tim has a background in finance, economic policy and development banking. He has been a Director of a number of companies and government corporations and was appointed to the Alinta Limited Board in February 2002.

Tim is a member of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Non-Executive Director T R (Tina) McMeckan BSc, MBA, FAICD Tina McMeckan, 55, has substantial energy market experience, having served on the Boards of a number of energy corporations including United Energy Ltd and with the Victorian government on energy reform. Tina is Chairman of the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board in Victoria and the Centre for Eye Research Australia Ltd. She is also a Director of Nanotechnology Victoria Ltd, the Vision Co-operative Research Centre and the Deacons law firm. Tina joined the Board of Alinta Limited in October 2003.

Tina is a member of the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Non-Executive Director M J (Michael) Wilkins BCom, MBA, DLI, FCA Michael Wilkins, 49, was appointed Managing Director of Promina Group Limited in August 1999. Previous to this appointment, he was Managing Director of Tyndall Australia Limited. Mr Wilkins is currently a Director and Immediate Past President of the Insurance Council of Australia and is also a past Director of IFSA. He has over 25 years' experience in the insurance and financial services sector and was recently voted as the Outstanding Chartered Accountant in Business in 2004.

Alinta's 20 top Share holders

As at 17 August 2006, name number of shares & % of holding

Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd 15,804,421 5.97%

National Nominees Ltd 14,253,278 5.39%

ANZ Nominees Ltd (Cash Income A/C) 13,198,964 4.99%

J P Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd 12,716,097 4.81%

Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd 7,303,302 2.76%

Queensland Investment Corporation 4,102,181 1.55%

Australian Executor Trustees Ltd 1,417,505 0.54%

AMP Life Ltd 1,237,582 0.47%

ANZ Nominees Ltd (Income Reinvest Plan A/C) 1,194,294 0.45%

RBC Dexia Investor Services Australia Nominees Pty Ltd (MLCI A/C) 1,109,915 0.42%

Questor Financial Services Ltd (TPS RF A/C) 1,091,512 0.41%

UBS Wealth Management Australia Nominees Pty Ltd 1,020,486 0.39%

UBS Nominees Pty Ltd 973,782 0.37%

Pan Australian Nominees Pty Ltd 919,191 0.35%

Argo Investments Limited 877,431 0.33%

Cogent Nominees Pty Ltd 858,602 0.32%

Alinta Employee Share Plans Pty Ltd (ALN Def Control A/C) 750,358 0.28%

Milton Corporation Ltd 565,514 0.21%

Australian Foundation Investment Company Ltd 500,000 0.19%

Australian United Investment Company Limited 500,000 0.19

Blueprint raises cost of water to drive reforms

Misha Schubert = The AGE Melbourne September 18, 2006

HOUSEHOLDS and businesses would be forced to pay more for water in a bid to encourage more efficient usage and curb the need for water restrictions, under a radical blueprint that big business says will boost the economy by $9 billion.

Water infrastructure such as pipes and retail supply would also be split into smaller units and privatised, in a further step towards market efficiencies modelled on the break-up of Victoria's electricity monopoly in the 1990s.

Demanding urgent action from governments to speed water reforms, the Business Council of Australia will today slam 20 years of failure by water utilities and politicians for taking the "easy way out" on the water crisis.

Its plan, Water Under Pressure: Australia's man-made water scarcity and how to fix it, says there is broad understanding of the action required "but what is missing is the political will".

BCA chief executive Katie Lahey warned that water supply problems, caused by bad policy, were "now acting as a major brake on economic growth".

She called for a national plan with ambitious timetables for reform to unleash a new economic boom.

"Unavoidable water scarcity is one of Australia's greatest myths," she said.

"Our water supply problems are man-made due to poor planning and management that is turning a sufficient supply of water at the source to scarcity for end users."

The blueprint urges a new round of incentive payments to the states, similar to competition policy reforms, to drive a national reform push.

It also aims to axe water restrictions by raising the price of water and making it easier to trade water rights, providing an incentive for people to cut back inefficient usage and corralling water into the most efficient industries.

Blasting inaction over the past 12 years in setting up the basic "building blocks" of a national water trading system, such as a standard form of title and registration system, the report urges temporary and permanent water trading between rural and city areas.

Such a push is likely to encounter stiff resistance from farmers and the Nationals in Parliament, who fear the permanent loss of water rights could damage the viability of land for farming in future generations.

Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary for water reform, said city water prices had been too low in the past.

But the price tag was uneven across the country - ranging from $1.20 in Sydney to 62 cents in Bendigo and 40 cents in Shepparton.

"The truth is that almost all of our cities and towns need to augment their water supplies," he said.

Mr Turnbull said rural people had nothing to fear from water trading between irrigation areas and cities, which could be a source of income for farmers.

He said Goulburn Murray Water lost about 900 gigalitres each year in inefficient distribution infrastructure - about twice the water Melbourne consumes.

Water deals leave farmers in the dry

Carmel Egan = The AGE Melbourne September 17, 2006

VICTORIAN water is being bought and hoarded by speculators and private investors with no intervention from governments and water authorities.

As Melburnians adapt their households to water restrictions, huge volumes of water are being traded and transferred away from districts that impose restrictions during droughts to areas where there are few, if any, controls.

A Victorian Government delay in introducing "water tagging" - which will force buyers to identify the source of their water and comply with restrictions imposed at the point of origin - has allowed the multimillion-dollar investment corporations to swoop on water as it is sold by desperate farmers.

But in the rush to buy water and permanently transfer it before the new laws come in on July 1 next year, the companies are estimated to have last year bought 85 per cent of water traded out of the state's largest authority, Goulburn-Murray Water.

Timbercorp, a publicly listed company controlled by Melbourne racing industry identities, bought the lion's share and has been accused of manipulating the water market and distorting prices with its aggressive acquisitions.

Established 10 years ago, Timbercorp is a multimillion-dollar Managed Investment Scheme (MIS) which entices investors by offering tax incentives against the management fees and establishment costs of large-scale agribusinesses such as hardwood plantations, almond and olive orchards.

The Federal Government is reconsidering MIS tax concessions because of their potential to distort markets and impact on small farmers.

"The purpose of MIS is not to provide tax minimisation for individuals," said federal agriculture minister Peter McGauran.

"Investment that doesn't align to this purpose can distort markets due to increased competition for scarce resources such as water, land and market share."

About 1 million megalitres of water are drawn by irrigators along the the Murray River each year. It takes one megalitre - a million litres - to half-fill an Olympic-size swimming pool. Since water trading began in Victoria in 1994, just under 150,000 megalitres in annual rights have been permanently sold.

In its 2004-05 annual report Timbercorp's water rights were valued at more than $60 million, representing about 60,000 megalitres.

But Timbercorp's general manager of horticulture, Darren Lipton, denied the company was manipulating the market.

"We have a policy to buy water in advance of our needs so we will own permanent water right at the start," said Mr Lipton. "We are not going to buy more than we need ultimately, but we have more than we need at the moment."

He said Timbercorp was being outbid for water rights "at the moment". Mr McGauran's concerns are shared by rural industry activists who argue that MIS farm initiatives are a threat to the social stability of regional communities.

"They are rorting the system big time," said Sunraysia Irrigation Council chairman Danny Lee, who will contest the state election in November on water issues.

"The social dislocation caused by the water loss will outweigh the economic benefit they claim 1000-fold.

"They are transferring it into the Lower Murray as fast as they can. They don't need it yet. They don't have enough crops in the ground." Victorian water authorities allow a permanent annual trade away from their districts of 4 per cent of their total irrigation allocation. Most is being lost from the Goulburn-Murray system, which has banned irrigation in some areas and limited most irrigators to just 17 per cent of their licensed water right.

The big winner is the Lower Murray system, which this year is allowing irrigators to draw 85 per cent of their water allocation, but usually gives 100 per cent access.

Any water bought and transferred before July 1, 2007, will remain under the control of the private owner and water authority to which it was moved.

Water brokers estimate that up to 75 per cent of Goulburn-Murray water and up to 100 per cent of Lower Murray water sold this year has been bought by just three licensees - Timbercorp, SAI Teys McMahon and Macquarie Agribusiness. The companies are all MIS programs.

Batchelor Abandons Community - It's Your Vote?

Friday, September 15, 2006

ST ARNAUD ABANDONED BY TRANSPORT MINISTER

Leader of The Nationals, Peter Ryan, has accused the Minister for Transport Peter Batchelor of abandoning St Arnaud, after a community event was cancelled at late notice.

Organisers of the event, a planned steam-train journey from Melbourne to St Arnaud, were told only yesterday afternoon that the train couldn't run due to fast train services on the Ballarat line.

Mr Ryan said it was appalling business practice by V/Line to leave the cancellation of the event to the 'last minute'.

"V/Line and the Transport Minister have let the community of St Arnaud down in the worst possible way at the last minute," Mr Ryan said.

"Cancelling a community event which has been planned for months is bad enough. But cancelling it with such late notice is simply unacceptable and has left a whole community disappointed."

Mr Ryan said the event would have brought business to St Arnaud and provided an opportunity for locals to celebrate during tough times in the region.

"At a time when drought is plaguing much of the state, community events are vital to boost people's morale, provide a reason for small towns to celebrate and provide additional customers for local businesses," Mr Ryan said.

"With 800 people set to travel on the train to St Arnaud this weekend and local businesses and organisations having devoted time, money and effort into planning the day, it is very disappointing that this event has even been cancelled at all.

"However its cancellation yesterday afternoon demonstrates appalling planning on V/Line's behalf, and St Arnaud deserves nothing less than the Transport Minister's personal apology.

"Calls placed to the Minister's office in relation to the event have generated nothing but silence - it would seem the Minister has abandoned the community of St Arnaud."

Mr Ryan said St Arnaud was not alone in being let down V/line.

"The cancellation of this weekend's steam train journey to St Arnaud follows that of a similar event planned for Bendigo only last weekend," Mr Ryan said.

"In that case, organisers of a planned steam train journey from Melbourne to Bendigo were told the event had been cancelled due to uncertainty about the safety of running steam trains on the line since it was modified during fast rail works.

"These are matters that should have been thought through long ago and it is yet another chapter in the debacle that is the Bracks Government's fast rail initiative."

Greens True Colours Shine Again

The ACT Greens and an anti-school-closure group had engaged in a disgraceful and selective misrepresentation of statistics, deeply insulting Canberra's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in the process, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jon Stanhope said today.

"Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey has again done a disservice to those she claims to be trying to help, by portraying Indigenous families affected by possible school closures as being less able than non-Indigenous families to adjust to a change of school, and by selectively using statistics to suggest that Aboriginal Canberrans are being targeted by the proposed closures," Mr Stanhope said today.

"I was appalled this week to hear Dr Foskey use Canberra's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children as her latest pawns in her bid to keep her face in the news, essentially portraying Indigenous families as lacking the capacity to successfully make the transition from one school to another, labelling them as less resilient than other families.

"What she is actually asking, if you take her comments to their logical conclusion, is that no school with a single Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child should be considered for closure, because the families involved would not be able to cope. It is hard to think of a more gratuitous or ill-founded insult."

Mr Stanhope said Dr Foskey had selectively chosen statistics to over-dramatise the impact of the Towards 2020 proposals on Indigenous students, ignoring actual numbers and instead quoting percentages that, given some shrinking school populations, often amounted to a handful of students.

"The implication that schools with high numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have somehow been targeted for proposed closure is simply not borne out by the facts," Mr Stanhope said. "There are five secondary colleges with greater numbers of Indigenous students than the single college proposed for closure under Towards 2020 - Dickson College. There are three high schools with greater numbers of Indigenous students than Kambah High - the single high school proposed for possible closure. There are seven primary schools with greater numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students than Isabella Plains Primary and nine with greater numbers than the school proposed for closure that is next highest on the list in respect of Indigenous numbers.

"If every school proposed for closure in Towards 2020 ended up closing, about 90 of the 900 of so Indigenous students in the public school system would be affected. And, of course, there is no proposal to close a single one of the five Koori Preschools this Government supports. The ACT Government's success in boosting educational outcomes for Indigenous students is exemplary and unmatched anywhere else in the nation. Dr Foskey should be ashamed of jumping on every anti-school-closure stunt that comes along, regardless of its logic or merit."

TWITer Angers Group at wild dog jibe

Border Mail Wodonga Vic: A GROUP involved in wild dog control for the past 70 years has described recent comments by Victoria's Environment Minister as "totally unacceptable and patently untrue". The Cheshunt Wild Dog Destruction League is angered by comments from John Thwaites in a recent trip to the North East saying farmers and hunters are to blame for the plague of wild dogs running amok. Mr Thwaites also rejected aerial baiting as a solution and dismissed evidence from a five-year trial in NSW that backed its use. The league has written to member for Benalla Bill Sykes to express its disgust with the minister. "Our dog league has been in existence for over 70 years for the very purpose of reducing the risk of wild dog attacks on our livestock and to suggest that we would be careless in our attitude to wild dog control is an insult," the letter said. "Our members strive endlessly to minimise the risks and work continuously with Mr Thwaites' departmental dogmen to achieve some results. "Insults are cheap, but very damaging to a good relationship." Mr Sykes was told 63 sheep were killed during the year and 38 maimed, but the league says many killings were unreported. A total of 26 dogs were trapped and shot during the year. Mr Sykes raised the on-going wild dog problem in Parliament this week and said Mr Thwaites had "a deplorable reputation" in country Victoria. "Local livestock owners are incensed that the minister responsible for managing Crown land on which the wild dogs multiply by feeding on native animals and lambs, sheep and calves from adjoining properties is failing to accept responsibility for the problems," Mr Sykes said. He said Mr Thwaites should accept responsibility for wild dog management on government land and apologise to livestock owners for the expense and emotional pain wild dogs caused landholders. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* NOTE: Casting a vote for TWIT-er would far exceed a "BIG MISTAKE" it would be casting dispersions on this nation with a fool of this calibre allowed to continue in office with his radical green policies and self preservation tactics.

TWITer - Took a Lesson in Verbal Jousting

Rick Wallace - The Australian September 11, 2006

VICTORIAN Water Minister John Thwaites has launched an extraordinary attack on his federal counterpart, Malcolm Turnbull, describing the millionaire MP as ego-driven and unco-operative.

The minister's attack during an interview with The Australian follows a heated exchange between the pair at a ministerial council of water ministers in Melbourne last month.

The pair are also at loggerheads over federal funding for water recycling projects and the $1.6 billion the state Government has received from state water authorities since 1999.

Mr Thwaites said that although Mr Turnbull was "intelligent and a very good media performer", he was "not the best person at getting a result through co-operation".

"Turnbull can be really good, but he also at times lets his ego get away with him," Mr Thwaites said last week.

"I think we are working fairly well (together) on projects. It's more that he comes out with comments simply bagging the states. To say things like all the problems are because of the state water authorities doesn't actually lead to positive results, or to say it's all because of the states taking dividends out of water authorities when the amount of dividends are very small compared to the amount we are investing.

"And it's totally hypocritical when the federal Government takes enormous dividends out of Telstra and almost no (Victorian) dividends come out of country water authorities."

But Mr Turnbull returned fire yesterday, saying "there's nothing like the truth to hit a raw nerve".

"The truth is that urban water is a very profitable business and that state governments have used restrictions to reduce demand rather than investing in new infrastructure to increase supply," he said.

Bracks Blows Your Bucks

Leader of The Nationals Peter Ryan says the Bracks Government should cancel all political-based advertising immediately and prepare a new Code of Conduct to prevent the ongoing rort of public funds.

Mr Ryan said today's release of the Auditor-General's report into government advertising had confirmed his worst fears.

"We knew Melbourne Labor was addicted to self-promotion and propaganda but we didn't know they were spending more than $160 million a year on advertising," Mr Ryan said.

"The Auditor-General reviewed eight Bracks Government advertising campaigns and found that six of them didn't comply with some aspects of the guidelines. In the case of the Our Water, Our Future advertising campaign the Auditor-General determined that they were indistinguishable from party political messages.

"The Nationals raised this issue almost 12 months ago and called on the government to develop new guidelines because we believed most of the advertising was party political and should not be paid for by taxpayers.

"The Auditor-General's commentary reflects The Nationals view that there should be a review of the guidelines to provide for more explicit and detailed guidance about the appropriate use of public funds."

The Auditor-General's report found that the estimated total amount of advertising undertaken by the Bracks Government had risen from $123 million in 2002-03 to $161.3 million in 2004-05.

It was estimated that the government spent $88.4 million in the first six months of the 2005-06 financial year.

"By these estimates, we are seeing the true picture of a government that is spending more than $3 million per week on advertising," Mr Ryan said.

"No-one is objecting to community service announcements or genuine information on policy initiatives which people need to be made aware of, but the gratuitous self-promotion is an obscene waste of taxpayers' funds.

"We need a system where the government of the day does not have such a free rein to do whatever it likes in terms of political advertising.

"Victorians have had enough of this waste of money and the only way we will change it is with a new system that has the support of all parties and stops governments from exploiting their position of power."

JENKINS ACCUSED OF MISLEADING GIPPSLANDERS

The Labor Member for Morwell Brendan Jenkins has been accused of misleading Gippslanders over the proposal to recycle Melbourne's sewage and pump it to the Latrobe Valley.

The Nationals Member for Gippsland Province Peter Hall said the Bracks Government's 'Eastern Water Recycling Project' was all about recycling a large volume of water from Melbourne treatment plants and pumping it to the Latrobe Valley.

"Melbourne Labor wants to pump treated effluent from Melbourne to the Latrobe Valley and take fresh Gippsland water in return," Mr Hall said.

"Mr Jenkins needs to explain why he supports the plan which is all about looking after metropolitan Melbourne and nothing about the needs of Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley."

Mr Hall said he was not opposed to recycling water for industrial use or watering parks, gardens and recreation reserves.

"But I am totally opposed to the principle that Mr Jenkins and his Melbourne Labor mates are pursuing at the moment," Mr Hall said.

"They want the Latrobe Valley to accept Melbourne's treated effluent in return for fresh water from the Thomson River system.

"The Government's Draft Water Strategy proposes a connection between Melbourne's Eastern Water treatment plant at Carrum and the Gippsland Water Factory, to bring Melbourne's effluent to Gippsland.

"It also proposes a connection from Blue Rock and Tarago Reservoirs to Cardinia Reservoir which supplies Melbourne with water. It is obvious that the Government proposes to send treated effluent one way and fresh water the other", Mr Hall said.

"I've always supported the need to upgrade facilities to treat locally produced waste, but I cannot help feeling the only reason the Gippsland Water Factory is being built is to facilitate a dirty water/fresh water exchange in the future.

"Melbourne needs to make arrangements to recycle its own water and use it in Melbourne, not pump it back to the Latrobe Valley."

Mr Jenkins criticised The Nationals for opposing the plan this week when he told ABC Radio Gippsland this week:

"For the National Party to claim that that's waste from Melbourne is irresponsible and it's absolutely false."

Mr Hall refuted Mr Jenkins' allegations and referred to the government's Draft Sustainable Water Strategy: Central Region.

"It is the government's own strategy and it clearly spells out a plan to pump treated effluent from Melbourne for use in the Latrobe Valley," Mr Hall said.

"And the plan explicitly states that 'in the long term, West Gippsland may need to access additional urban water from the Eastern Water Recycling Proposal.'

"Melbourne has to learn to live within its water means. It has to recycle and use its water in the metropolitan area and no additional Gippsland water should be sent to the city to be replaced with recycled effluent, despite Mr Jenkins support for such a proposal."