Australia’s Katrina moment

Corruption and the cult of the market have made a natural disaster into an outrage.

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.

128 comments

andyg's picture

@ Mr Divine.
I don't wish to sound cheeky but where has Hans gone?

andyg's picture

@Joffemannen

Couldn't agree more.

Hans Castorp's picture

"Paid trolls!"

Who on earth would be paying me? "The corporations"/the gubmint/Rupert Murdoch axis I assume.

I suppose Mr Divine and I can take accusation as a compliment on our apparent professionalism, and proof positive of what deluded cretins Pilger fans are.

I assure you folks, I slag off Pilger because his writing appauls me; more than merely a travesty of journalism and on the level of human behaviour.

Mr. Divine's picture

Stick to the question. don't evade the question.

"Has the material reward for labour increased in absolute terms in the last 150 years?"

And I'm not talking about one individual I'm talking about labour as whole.

And please stop evading the question. Do you know what he question of the debate so far is? This is where you need to to ficus your attention on:

"Has the material reward for labour increased in absolute terms in the last 150 years?"

Now are you sure you can keep that question in focus and not wander off into some other evasive direction? Lets see how focused you can be.

Answer the question.

Hans Castorp's picture

Jeez. Is there a human corpse John Pilger WON'T use as a soapbox?

No mention then that Brazil has been run by a left-winger for a long time, but rescue services were no better equipped and mortality rates much higher. Nope - it was capitalism, not water, that caused this mess, Comrades.

Also, the usual bald lies: "Prime Minister Gillard has so far offered crumbs from a treasury in surplus". Erm, the federal gubmint has given loads of aid to Queensland, and is implementing an equitable tax, exempting flood victims, to help pay for the clean-up and so on. But that doesn't fit The Troof, so it's not happening!

Makes you wonder whether the NS even bother to fact-check Pilger's jeremiads. Perhaps they're inured to the fact that if they did, nothing would remain.

Shameless stuff, as per.

Bring on the petal-throwers...

"ThankyouJohnyouarealonevoiceoftruthinawildernessofcorporatemedialiesandanyonewhodisagreesisashillfortheMurdochZionistconspiracy" .... and so on.

Why oh why can't the NS ditch this mendacious old turkey?

andyg's picture

Oh dear, your fishing again now that your salt pan has run dry. All I see now in your words are the unaccounted costs or extra units from your exploited wealth. Don't people like yourself refer to this as a 'dovetail'. In the UK it's refered to as the 'Philips' bend. Our last chancellor, very much like yourself had a strange concept of Keynesian economics when it came to the global financial crash. He nationalised the debt of the financial institutions and privatised the profits. Something I suppose that you might do if you had the position, never mind. If these Adam Smith economic and fiscal institutions are so elitist, why o why have the economies of scale(s) of such institutions come to such a climax? I wonder if it's the relationship between supply and demand, or maybe des capital?
You promised above that there was more to come. I do wish you would extend your knowledge of which to date I have seen little.
I awaite your next shot sire now that you are literary injured.
Toodle pip Skippy.

andyg's picture

"First, the Government can veto pay and conditions agreements between the rail unions and private train operating companies. Secondly, the Government can waive penalty payments incurred by private train operating companies involved in industrial disputes. Thirdly, the Government can provide compensation—this is staggering, and I do not know of any other example in any other industry, public or privatised—to private train operating companies that have lost revenue through involvement in industrial disputes. In other words, on top of the billions of pounds of subsidy and profit already paid to private train operators, it is now Government policy to bankroll private train operating companies in their disputes with the rail unions. That is subsidising a subsidy. It is subsidising industrial relations failure on behalf of employers".
Now do you see my point. I was not simply trying to cause an arguement but people have been dying on the railways whilst all this goes on.

stevem1's picture

At last the truth about what has been happening in Australia. The same things that are happening all over the world. Some people can,t stomach it but Pilger gives it to us straight. The world,s greatest living journalist.

andyg's picture

Sorry Mr D but I've been away for a while.

Yes Mr Divine I know. Without it we wouldn't be able to eat, sleep or drink. But there is a clear distinction between what we eat, how we sleep and how our drink is produced. On the one hand the labour or capital from that labour can often outstrip what is actually required. It's all very well pretending that something is vital but we need to risk assess the consequencies of our actions. The way capital and labour change is dependant on what technology is available at any particular time. But just because the majority of people believe it to be vital it doesn't automatically follow that it is safe. The consequencies can often outstrip the necessity but I don't think that this is the point you are trying to make.
If we were to go back to say the Speenhamland system in the UK we might just agree that this particular system of capital accumulation has constantly churned out winners and losers. What I don't understand is why when we discuss equality issues that we fail to agree that over that time period there appears to be more losers than winners. The losers who form the majority always appear to be the initial producers i.e. the workers. It is this arguement that has been the thread throughout this discussion from the very start and it is also the thread that's made by JP.
From a global perspective we can apply the same arguement across continents i.e. starvation in Ethiopia
while Ethiopia was expoting foodstuffs. The same can be said of the great Indian famine, there was enough grain on the market at that time to feed the population of India twice over. The same theme can be seen in most famines. It's not that food or commodities are not available, it's the fact that people can not gain access to it. From a money capital point of view, companies often hold governments to ransom over subsidies. If they don't get what they want they simply uproot and set up in some other location.
I await your next shot sire.

andyg's picture

Marx did state that "employed workers have no democratic control over what they produce; production priorities are determined by the profit motives of the employers rather than the democratically according to the human needs in society; and there are built - in tendancies towards economic and political crisis. Genuine democracy simply is not possible in a society divided into exploiting and exploited classes. The state acts on behalf of the dominant or 'ruling' classes and is an essential institution for maintaining the class system and the exploitation of workers".
He hit the nail on the head in relation to the modern day rail workers.

Latest tweets