Parliament’s back in session, Peter Slipper is running the show as speaker of the House, and questions on the NT intervention, a people’s bank and MPs’ tax returns have emerged in OurSay’s People’s Question project.
A question from Emily Price raises the government’s Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill, introduced by Jenny Macklin in November:
“The proposed Stronger Futures legislation has not been consented to by communities in the NT. The legislation is also a continuation of the NT intervention, which has been criticised by representatives of the United Nations as being in breach of international law. Will the government please recommend the passing of a motion that the legislation be assessed by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights?”
The new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights will be established in the current sittings after the government’s human rights package passed Parliament at the end of last year, with the committee’s role to assess whether legislation is compatible with human rights. The Stronger Futures Bill would make for an interesting first-up test of the committee’s role, which will rely heavily on UN conventions in assessing legislation.
Geoff Pain has picked up on the idea of a people’s bank floated two years ago:
“To the Treasurer: an Australia Post People’s Bank would allow taxpayers to easily regain the advantages of government owned and operated banking. All of the electronic transfer infrastructure already exists and it would provide job opportunities in the smallest communities where the big four and their co-branded derivatives don’t want to open a branch. It would not charge exorbitant illegal fees and would always follow Reserve Bank leads on interest rates. Operating surplus could assist budget bottom line. Will you make it happen?”
The idea of a “people’s bank” was raised by the “Six Economists” who urged a new financial inquiry and a range of other measures in 2009 in the aftermath of the financial crisis with Australia Post proposed as the vehicle for increasing competition in a market dominated by the big four banks. The letter raised 14 specific questions, each of them meaty issues. I wrote about the issue at the time (in the shadow of the GFC and with Kevin Rudd at the helm):
“It merits serious consideration because the long-term project – pursued by both sides of politics – to maintain competition in lending in Australia is failing. It depended on the availability of externally-sourced capital for the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, which was fine while the world financial system was spilling over with finance but ended the moment the crisis hit – especially after the bank guarantee massively strengthened the hand of the major banks over what was left of the non-bank lending sector.
“… It’s hard to see what downsides there are for the government in conducting the sort of inquiry urged in the letter. It has handled the triage stage of the financial crisis very well. Now is the time to take a step back and consider an overarching strategy.
“How long until the government is again confronted with one of the banks unilaterally raising interest rates, particularly for business lending? The problem of Australia’s banking oligopoly needs a long-term solution.”
And just to highlight that this issue is just as relevant as it was in July 2009, there’s currently speculation that, in the absence of an RBA rate cut, ANZ is considering lifting interest rates despite recent claims from banks about rising funding costs repeatedly being discredited.
Peter Asnins challenged MPs to reveal their tax returns
“To all members of government in both houses, as you can see, in the run up to the election in the US, candidates have chosen to make their tax returns public. Would you be prepared to publish your tax returns for the past five years so the Australian public can see the effective rate of tax paid. Income would be assessed as salary, tax free allowances, dividends and capital gains.”
Asnins’s question might be brushed aside as not falling within any minister’s responsibility; MPs and senators are currently required to declare pecuniary interests via a paper-based system (Open Australia maintains an electronic record of them) but tax returns are a different matter; attention would focus on MPs like Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Garrett, Barry Haase and Mark Dreyfus rather than the majority of MPs who have no income or wealth outside their political careers.
A notable absence from the questions so far is foreign policy, beyond a question on the government’s treatment of Julian Assange (which is currently one of the top five questions).
Geoff Pain also proposed an intriguing question about the use of Australian uranium in armaments such as armour-piercing ammunition and the exposure of Australian troops to uranium dust in previous and current conflicts. Syria and the continued presence of a Syrian ambassador in Australia looks to be a potential issue, as is the looming budget which is now 12 weeks away.
Nominations and voting close on March 4.
*Crikey and OurSay are giving you the opportunity to get your question asked in the House of Representatives. Each week Crikey will feature a new reader question, and will look into the where/how and why of the issue and the politics behind it. A mystery member of parliament has agreed to take part in this OurSay initiative and take the People’s Question to Question Time in March. Start hitting OurSay with questions here: @OurSayAust, @OurSayPeoplesQ (#PeoplesQ #auspol) or on Facebook. Or go to thepeoplesquestion.oursay.org for more information.
Re the ADF’s use of DU.
Several weapons used by the ADF were designed to use DU (depleted uranium). In particular AP (armour piercing) ammunition for the 120mm main armament of the Army’s tanks and the 20mm ammunition used in the Navy’s Phalanx CIWS (Close In Weapon System) anti-ship missile gatling gun.
The ADF years ago (when these weapons were first considered) sought an alternative to DU, which is used due to the denseness of the DU, which markedly increases it’s armour piercing qualities, particularly against heavily armoured (other tanks) or hard to hit targets (where a single hit has to do a lot of damage to stop an incoming supersonic anti-ship missile.
The ADF chose to select tungsten rather than DU for these weapons, as tungsten is both commercially available and quite dense, even if not quite as good as DU for the purposes designed.
The only other significant use of DU is as the core of the Chobham-derived armour used on the M1 tank used by the Army. The only way that DU would make its way from the core of the M1’s armour into the wider environment, such as the crew’s lungs, is if the tank was hit by an armour piercing tank round which penetrated the armour, in which case the liklyhood of the crew surviving to ingest DU is almost nil.
Given that we are extremely unlikely to deply our M1s to Afghanistan, the risk of DU entering the environment from ADF activities is quite low.
Not to denigrate the enquirers line of question, but there are significantly larger environmental issues, such as fuel spills in and around the ADFs fuel farms at air bases, which warrent investigation.
@MICHAEL JAMES – As we apparently sell uranium to the US, how much of our uranium is been used in their Depleted Uranium bombs? Our uranium was used in all of Japan’s nuclear reactors that are in strife at the moment(to say the least?).
Just because we haven’t used it in our weapons doesn’t necessarily let us off the hook, does it? There’s evidence of horrific ramifications of using these weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and who knows where else? Most disturbing indeed!
Michael,
Don’t the USA use DU in their war games (or ‘exercises’ or whatever weasel word they favour) in Far North Queensland? Or possibly I’ve dreamt this or made it up…
@ZUT ALORS – Well if they do, we’ll hear about the repercussions soon. Countries where the US have used this disgusting weapon have been exposed to dangerous radiation. Birth defects; childhood cancers and cancers in the general public. There’s a documentary called, ‘The Doctor, Depleted Uranium, and the dying children of Iraq’? I suggest you take a look. If you put the title into your search engine you’l find the link, or go to http://www.freedocumentaries.org There’s no doubt as to the ramifications of this hideous stuff.
There’s a bloke called Donald Rokke, a US retired military person who was asked by the US authorities to clean up the trucks etc that had been used in Iraq. He was lauded in high places until he was laid low with cancer and had connected this with exposure to these vehicles. He was not lauded any more. In fact, he’s had all sorts of threats against him, including his life. He has several cancers. He made a documentary called, ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’. Also worth a look!
If you put Depleted Uranium into your search engine you can follow the link and see the hideous deformities caused by this stuff! Horrific!
Is it true that depleted uranium could be used by the Americans for war games conducted in Australia? It is evident these war games are made as realistic as possible.