Show Hide image

John Pilger: The Queensland floods - 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.

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Leader: The Tories and social mobility

The imminent cuts to tax credits – given to four and a half million Britons to supplement low-paid work – expose the hollowness of Cameron's promise to help.

David Cameron has often expressed a simple creed: “If you want to work hard and get on in life, this government will be on your side.” Yet the imminent cuts to tax credits – given to four and a half million Britons to supplement low-paid work – expose the hollowness of this claim. Introduced in Gordon Brown’s first term as chancellor, they have been credited with helping to reduce the proportion of children living below the poverty line from 35 per cent in 1998-99 to 19 per cent in 2012-13. Now, the cuts to tax credits announced by George Osborne in his first post-election Budget will leave three million households £1,000 a year worse off, according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). With unfortunate timing, households will be informed just before Christmas of how much they stand to lose from April next year.

These cuts will have bleak consequences for working families on the lowest incomes, the “strivers” whom the Conservatives aspire to support. They are antithetical to social mobility, pulling the ladder into work away from struggling families and ensuring that more children grow up in poverty. The stated reasons for pursuing the policy are to run an annual Budget surplus, to reduce government subsidies for low-paid work and to encourage employers to pay more. Yet the higher minimum wage announced by Mr Osborne (which he calls a “living wage”) will reach only £9 in 2020, long after the tax-credit cuts are scheduled to take effect. In addition, Paul Johnson of the IFS rejects the link that the Chancellor has made between the higher minimum wage and the withdrawal of tax credits. “There’s not actually an enormously close overlap between those on the minimum wage and those on tax credits, so the gainers from the minimum wage are a very different group on average to the people losing from tax credits,” he told the BBC’s World at One on 5 October.

The opposition to cutting tax credits extends far beyond the political left. The Sun has condemned the plans and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, as well as the former Tory minister and executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, David Willetts, are opposed to them. David Davis, who stood for the leadership against Mr Cameron, voted against them in the House of Commons last month.

Besides the economic effects of tax credits, the whole issue has become politically dangerous for the Chancellor, threatening to crowd out the positive messages he was trying to promote at the Conservative party conference and losing him support on his own benches. His cause was not helped by the declaration to a fringe meeting in Manchester by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, that the forthcoming cuts to welfare were a “cultural signal” that Britons were prepared to work as hard as Asians or Americans. A positive cultural signal is little comfort to struggling families.

Mr Osborne has been offered a way out of this mess by Frank Field, the chair of the Commons work and pensions select committee and a Labour MP respected by many Tories. He proposes to keep the level at which tax credits are withdrawn at £6,420, rather than reducing it as planned to £3,850. This could be paid for by increasing the withdrawal rate for those higher up the income scale. Mr Osborne, who has spoken of his wish to command and hold the centre ground of British politics, seems disinclined to follow this advice. How can Mr Cameron claim that the Tories are now the “workers’ party” when he has just taken away a significant sum of money from some of the hardest workers in the country?

This article first appeared in the 08 October 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin vs Isis