Australia’s Katrina moment
Corruption and the cult of the market have made a natural disaster into an outrage.
By John Pilger Published 29 January 2011
When you fly over the earth's oldest land mass, Australia, the view can be shocking. There are scars as long as European countries, the result of erosion. Salt pans shimmer where once native vegetation grew. This is almost impossible to reverse. The first to die are the most vulnerable species. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Australia's devastation of its natural environment has caused more mammal extinction than in any other country. The iconic koala is used to attract tourists; the Queen and Oprah Winfrey are photographed cuddling one, unaware that this unique creature has enriched the state of Queensland for decades with its industrial slaughter and the sale of its skin to Britain and America. Today, the belatedly "protected" koala is threatened not by flood or drought, but rapacious land-clearing, of which Queensland is the national champion. Each year, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the state in effect destroys 100 million birds, mammals and reptiles.
The land is "cleared" by fire or machinery, often with a heavy chain tied between two bulldozers: a technique developed by Queensland's most notorious land-clearer, the late Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, the conservative state premier for 19 years, whose self-awarded knighthood was given for "services to parliamentary democracy", such as winning gerrymandered elections with 20 per cent of the vote. In 1992, a defamation jury found that Bjelke-Petersen had been bribed "on a large scale and on many occasions". Two of his ministers and his police commissioner were jailed. Lucrative land became a prize for cronies known as the "white shoe brigade". Brown envelopes of cash were handed over at a five-star hotel recently lapped by floodwaters in the centre of Brisbane.
Wrong type of flood
Last May, the Queensland Labor government announced that it had sold swaths of the state's forests and plantations to Hancock Queensland Plantations, a subsidiary of a US-based timber multinational. Queensland has many low-lying flood plains on which developers have been allowed to make fortunes selling plots. The victims of the great flood have been mostly poor people. Most could not afford insurance, or discovered that their policy did not include "types of flood".
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, says an ACCC report, deliberately stopped insurance companies from agreeing a common definition of flood so that "insurers will continue to compete vigorously by product differentiation" through offerings that use many definitions of "flood" to specify which risks are covered and which are excluded. The callousness of this imposed confusion is emblematic of how the Australian elite have treated those ruined by an inland ocean the size of Germany and France combined. Flooding also struck Brazil in April and Sri Lanka in December, but the disaster in Australia is far more revealing; for Australia is a "first-world" country with advanced technology and communications, and yet tens of thousands of people received no emergency warning. Here, the cult of the "market" has diminished public services and infrastructure budgets, and divided by wealth a society that once boasted the most equitable spread of personal income in the world.
Little of this is discussed in a media where Rupert Murdoch owns 70 per cent of state capital-city press. When the leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, dared suggest that the Queensland flood was due in part to "the burning of fossil fuels [causing] the hottest oceans we've ever seen off Australia", he was told to apologise to the mining industry. In the decade to 2005, says the Wilderness Society, "the amount of land-clearing in Australia was so extensive that the greenhouse gases produced rivalled the amount produced by cars and trucks".
Divide and rule
A feature of the floods has been the PR campaigns of leading right-wing Labor Party politicians, notably the prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the Queensland premier, Anna Bligh, who have talked up the "Aussie battler" spirit in the face of "Mother Nature's wrath". The media echo of this evokes Sir Johannes's description of spinning a line to journalists as "feeding the chooks". In truth, successive governments have rejected, ignored or suppressed the recommendations of their own experts which, if acted upon, could have saved Brisbane.
In 1999, a report commissioned by Brisbane City Council warned of "significantly higher" flooding than in the last great flood in 1974. When this was leaked, an alleged cover-up was referred to the state's crime and misconduct commission, but nothing happened.
Andrew Short, director of the coastal studies unit at the University of Sydney, compares the Queensland flood with the scandal of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. "This is something we have been waiting for . . ." he said. "Why were there no levees to protect the low-lying towns? . . . Why are major highways and railways still below flood level?"
Prime Minister Gillard has so far offered crumbs from a treasury in surplus, that subsidises the fossil-fuel industry with A$10bn (£6.2bn) and that is pledged to spend A$1.1bn on Australia's mercenary "commitment" to American wars. Having sent just 13 helicopters to rescue the stranded, Gillard appointed Major General Mick Slater to lead the recovery operation: an admission that the civilian emergency services had been so depleted, they could not cope. Slater's most interesting statement has been a threat. "There is no reason why we won't have [success]," he said, "unless . . . the media start to become divisive within the community and then, if there are areas of failure, I think I could find the reason and track it back to different areas within the media." He was not challenged. The chooks were fed.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


128 comments
@ Mr divine.
What's up has the answer stumped you?.......again.
Now listen hear you naughty boy. Don't go wandering off into the woods, I'm hear asking you a question. I'm sick to the back teeth of educating you, yet you still don't seem to be able to take in what I'm teaching you. So listen carefully.
What.......exactly.......do you.........mean.........by.........capital? There are different kinds of capital you airbrain. Now answer the question and let your audiance decide as to whether you are right or wrong. Come on now, you've been shy with your answers up to this point.
I await your next shot thick cut.
@ Mr.Divine
I have no interest in debating with you. I have no interest in your person and have no intentions of discussing who I am. I do not like to even comment at all. My initial comment stemmed from the quote below in which my view of the Castorp and Co's campaign against Pilger, was challenged. I only thought it appropriate to give you an opportunity to enlighten me further, in which case I might give you and Castorp's comments more respect in future articles.
"...people like me and Hans who are willing to question every reporter, be it left or right wing."
The challenge: Please could you both post some links to examples of some of your other 'questions'.
You have still failed to do this.
I have wasted an entire afternoon trawling through the archives trying to find one example to justify your claimed impartiality. All I can find are comments of contempt for Pilger, anger at his apparent abhorrent journalism, dismissal for the general themes he discusses, mockery of those in agreement, coupled with a currant of underlying support for the status quo and agreed media narratives.
The challenge was to post an old link, not one made yesterday! Furthermore you haven't even posted one that pretends to show your claimed objectivity, this time you appear to mock the student movement against cuts (?) - subject to opinion, your comments certainly lack sincerity.
“Do you see what I mean about using inaccurate information to try and prove a point?” - Mr.Divine
“I don't want the left to be associated with liars...” - Mr.Divine
With your perceived commitment to honesty, integrity and facts presumably to aid the social concious and your anger at the apparent lack of it; let me make two assumptions about your self. That you believe Tony Blair and George Bush should be tried for War Crimes. And that you are a firm believer in the need for a new 9/11 inquiry, if only to explain how Tower 7 collapsed. Hmm Petal Thrower.
You sir have failed to convince me of your impartiality, and instead reinforced my opinion that your comments are not born out of a commitment to truth but instead part of a larger organised campaign against Pilger.
Forgive me if I continue to ignore your comments and instead marvel at the effort you all go to. I don't intend to enagae with you further.
Good news: this website (======= http://www.yessoso.com/ =======) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satis
Virtually all construction involves destruction.
@Mr Divine
I wrote 'similarities of' ' There are also great development projects in Brazi, (ie the similarities) but that doesn't stop the profiteers from going about their business in the same way. I agree that governments should step in " for the good" but it this good that people can't agree on from the left, right or centre of politics. We only have to look closer to home and to the heated discussions that are occuring with our beloved coalition.
I'm quite aware that big business doesn't always win over in Australia and that many Australian people believe in returning land to the original inhabitants. From the environmental perspective I believe that it was the Australian Trade Unions that coined the phrase 'a race to the bottom' when environmental issues became the big debate. Since then I'm afraid that land reform has tipped in favour of the profiteer rather than for the good of the people despite all the good work of which you have mentioned.
@Mr Divine
Don't take it to heart, but thanks.
It was reported in May 2008 by ACF executive director Don Henry that Australian taxpayers will have to give BHP Billiton an estimated $117 million in diesel fuel subsidies during the four-year expansion of the company’s Olympic Dam mine.
The company's annual average diesel rebate from tax payers is estimated to be between $130 - $138 million dollars.
Looks like Pilger and Gideon have a point.
I still awaite your next shot sire.
So the debate now narrows to this one question,
"Has the material reward for labour increased in absolute terms in the last 150 years?"
If the answer is yea then Marx is wrong. Do you say 'No" andyg?
No, no, sire, the accumulation of capital is the surplus that has not been paid for labour. In other words it is accumulated wealth that has been stolen from the worker, whether that is direct labour or what the worker has saved from his labour. (Interest on savings etc)
Without capital there would no be labou: Lobour is what men are capable of producing from the earth. Western philosophy states that men mould the land whereas north American indian philosophy was that the land moulded the man. You decide which is right. The concept of money reward for labour is a relatively new concept in relation to the existance of mankind. So from a modern day perspective you would be correct with regards to the developed world. But. over the time period you give and in relation to mankind as a whole over that time period you would be wrong.
And labour by itself is not the creating all of the wealth for the land can produce by itself through self seeding and raw materials on the surface: This statement is true enough and reflecs my arguement regarding the salt pans and invasive species earlier in the debate. But, the land can not produce at the rate of extraction therefore the concept of desertification starts to become the norm. Oil for example is one such commodity that will cease because of the rate of extraction in relation to the time for it to become what it is. ie oil. The same could be said of some species of trees such as the large Redwoods, or, peatbogs that are vital for so many different species of birds, bees and insects.
The introduction of social security means that some people are living like owners of capital, off the labour of others.
I wouldn't quite put it like this but I take the point. Universal social security payments were part of the Universal declaration of human rights. Depending on where you are in the world depends on what you get. Just because there is a declaration in place and agreed to it doesn't automatically follow that it is implemented. If it was then we wouldn't constantly see those people in South Africa starving to death. So from a Universal point of view Marx writing are still relevant and therfore from the pictures that come on to the television screens here, yes these would be the beggers, what other choice have they got? I could also refer to European states that have recently seen war and the attrocities that have occured to those who have nothing to do with war. So even closer to home Marxist writings are relevant.
Your last paragraph requires further clarification. I think that you could have given a better example than pension funds give what has occured to many of them over the years.
I await your next shot sire.
andyg; you haven't debated anything. You don't support anything you say with facts. You can't counter any of the points that Hans and I have made with regards to Pilger's inaccuracies. All you can do is cheer lead. "John is great because he is one of the left". All abrad does is accuse us of being conspirators and tries to make me search through archives of my past posts to 'prove' I criticise other people!
Why don't you two try and counter what Hans and I have said? That's a debate andyg, not your airhead ramblings. I've pointed out a number of factual inaccuracies in this article. A debate involves you counteracting my points not going off into wild tangents be it Brazil or 'true power begins with the land and ends with the gun' rubbish. What silly slogans and expressions you have stuck in your airhead as well as ultra common insults: 'get a life' ... you sound like a teenage girl from ten years back.
And who the hell writes 'toodle pip old boy' ? Do you really think that is an insult or something or even funny .. its definitely not original. But what is original about you? You certainly haven't told me anything I don't already know nor have you managed to present a coherent argument on any of your points.
Like I said earlier you write airhead rambling that go off on unrelated tangents and your attempted insults are unoriginal. You need to get your head straight because at the moment it is full of woolly nonsense. And the more you try to insult other people with worn out phrases from the past the more stupid you look.
I look forward to hearing your next contribution on a NS article.
By the way, who are YOU?