HAS SHANE RATTENBURY SOLD HIS ARSE?

   HAS SHANE RATTENBURY SOLD HIS ARSE?

by Dave Wheeler

   Before a previous Australian Federal government was decided, Tony Abbott begged the cross-benchers for their support so he could form government and become PM. He is alleged to have said to cross-bencher, Tony Windsor, “Tony, I would do anything for this job. The only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd have to give serious thought to it.''

    Windsor said Abbott was joking of course, but I don’t believe that. I’m of the firm belief that had Windsor been gay and had Abbott been young enough to think Windsor may have been interested in his arse, Abbott would have offered Windsor full use of it in exchange for his political support. Most politicians would sell their mothers if they thought it would advance them politically.
    But, if we are to use the expression metaphorically, the overwhelming majority of Liberal, National, Labor and Green politicians who hold seats in federal, state and territorial governments have sold their arses in relation to how far to the right they have gone from their party’s founding values. It seems however, the Australian Greens sold its collective arse to a far larger degree than the others. And from within the Australian Greens, Shane Rattenbury does not appear to be an exception. At least Peter Garrett joined a party that was further to the right than the Australian Greens when he metaphorically sold his arse. Shane has not.

  To explain where I’m coming from, the environmental movement came to life in the sixties and early seventies with an emphasis on putting people and the environment before profit, thanks to persons like Ernst Schumacher, Bill Mollison and Paul Ehrlich. It was all about giving two fingers to big multinational corporations and promoting local production for local consumption (When a product is produced and consumed locally less CO2 is produced as the distance between the producer and the consumer is minimised. The production can also be overseen by consumers to ensure it is produced in an environmentally friendly manner) in an ecologically sustainable manner. And ecological sustainability also of course means ensuring our population is kept under control.

Is this how Shane Rattenbury looks today?

  Do we ever hear these policies being advocated by the Australian Greens nowadays? They may encourage the growth of farmers' markets, but do they actively campaign for a return to very high tariffs? Do they actively campaign to reduce our population to an ecologically sustainable level? No! They do the opposite. They seem to have rolled over and accepted deregulation and globalisation as a good thing despite the fact that we always have the threats of recessions and depressions hovering over us and we have not had full employment since 1970. They have also supported the economic growth mantra without realising that nothing in the universe can expand forever. In addition to that they have supported the growth of our population so big business can have more consumers.They are happy to let future generations clean up the mess they have assisted to create. 
   Good luck to all recent migrants now that you are here. If I was born in most of the countries I have visited I would also be doing everything I could to come to Australia. I am just saying that our population is now way past the level of it being ecologically sustainable and we have to choose between the welfare of foreigners over the welfare of young Australians and those that have yet to be born. I favour the welfare of Australians, present and future.
    I realise the Greens are sympathetic to genuine refugees coming here, as am I, but if they wanted to, they could actually campaign for an increase in genuine refugee numbers and retain their arses in doing so by simultaneously campaigning for a drastic decrease in other forms of immigration to a level where our net population slowly declined. They could also campaign to actively discourage Australians having more than two children.

  How can they possibly justify wanting to increase Australia’s population and simultaneously say they care for the environment? Do they really love their kids? Don’t they want to leave Australia in at least as-good-a-condition as it was when they came into it instead of watching it slowly turn to shit?   

   The white feather above should be presented ceremoniously to the Australian Greens to reflect their gutlessness when it comes to their refusal to advocate, for the sake of our environment, that Australia cease its population growth. They obviously care nothing about future generations of Australians, which would also include their own kids and grandkids.

  I heard a pseudo-environmentalist interviewed recently on TV who tried to say he was not opposed to a “big Australia” and that he thought people were part of the solution and not the problem. Does he really believe our future migrants will consume and pollute less than they did in the countries they came from? It was really insulting to a viewer’s intelligence! If they want to save the planet shouldn't they clean up their own backyard first?

   Many believe the Greens to be a disgrace to the left and that they have no right to call themselves true lefties. Trendy lycra-wearing lefties who turn their lights off for an hour once a year many of them may be, but they are not true lefties because true lefties are progressive and push for a far more egalitarian society that aims to leave their children and grandchildren and beyond a clean and pleasant environment. They seem hell-bent on leaving them an overcrowded sewer. 
   It's far easier for them to see themselves as progressive lefties by supporting issues such as gay marriage (as do I) because it does not step on the toes of big business. It's far more difficult tackling issues that threaten vested interests that wield political power.

   Now, back to Shane Rattenbury, our local Australian Green, who, in my opinion, sold his arse for a ministerial position in a right wing Labor government.

 I am led to believe another pseudo-environmentalist and Australian Greens member, Simon Sheikh, who would not be drawn into the population debate when he ran for the Senate in the last election, bought a house in Ainslie on a large block of around 995 square metres in area. It seems its a sardine lifestyle for some but not others. How big is the block Shane lives on today? Did he grow up on a small block or did he as a kid have a decent-sized backyard to run around in like most kids of his generation?
   Shane also criticised Canberra’s Y plan, but as to why he would on ecological grounds is beyond me. Had Civic not grown and had we have instead focussed on the centres of our satellite cities growing to a size that were roughly equal to each other there would have been no central point in Canberra. This would obviously have meant less congestion, because if possible, most people would choose to live in the satellite city near their workplace and as such not have to travel as far as they do today. The densification of Civic began before Shane’s time, but he has made no real effort to slow it down. Shane, along with his right wing mates, will go down in Canberra’s history as one of the people who assisted in ruining the place.
   Having said all that, obviously it is just my opinion, as I realise some people, unlike me, actually enjoy living like sardines in tiny blocks, smelling their neighbour’s dog’s faeces and hearing their neighbour’s domestics. And they actually like what they refer to as the “vibrancy” of Civic, whereas I regard Civic as overcrowded and hectic. Surely however, environmental sustainability should take precedence over anything else, and the best argument there is for our not living like sardines in cities on environmental grounds is the alternative options of our having a larger number of smaller towns or cities around Australia rather than a smaller number of very big cities. Smaller cities allow residents to have backyards that are large enough to grow fruit trees and a decent crop of vegies. Large backyards also make it easier for people to collect their own rainwater and deal with their own sewage, and it would seem that with recent technological advances it is becoming easier to achieve.
  Although I am unable to give the date or title, there was an article in the Canberra Times relatively recently which maintained that the temperature in the older leafier suburbs of Canberra is around 7 degrees lower than the newer sardine-like suburbs during heat waves due to there being more vegetation around the older houses. If so, imagine the amount of power the residents in Sardineland use on their air conditioning compared to those who live in the older suburbs during the hotter summer months.
  If you visit the essay on this site I wrote entitled “Crace, Canberra’s newest slum or an urban paradise? on http://acanberraboy.blogspot.com.au/2013_10_01_archive.html the topic is discussed. Other than that, if we were to decrease or at least not increase Australia’s net population, debates regarding the pros and cons of densification would be largely unnecessary.
   In defence of Right Wing Shane and his Lib-Lab colleagues, one person I spoke to told me that population growth is a federal issue and that all Shane and his mates in local government are doing is making the most of something they have no control over.
   I can’t go along with that argument, as everything within the universe is interconnected, including state, territorial and federal governments. If he is an environmentalist like he claims to be, surely it is his duty to fight for changes in local policies if such changes can have an impact on federal policies and as such affect local people?

    I will now describe a meeting Shane called for the 28/4/15 in the ACT Legislative Assembly to enable him to give his argument for why he believes the light rail project is a good thing. When I heard about it I decided to go along with two of my cobbers who are of a similar age to me and who hold similar views. Why it interested us was not so much about whether light rail would be a better alternative to other transport systems to cope with Canberra’s growth; we were wanting to know why Canberra has to grow, because if Canberra did not grow light rail would not be needed.

     To begin the meeting Shane was introduced to the crowd by one of his subordinates. When Shane got hold of the microphone he spruiked the benefits of light rail, as expected, with his basic message being that we have two choices, one is to live like sardines in high density coupled to a good public transport system like light rail and the other is for us to emulate Los Angeles by having miles of urban sprawl with its accompanying polluting traffic and congestion. Not once however, did he mention the third option of ensuring Canberra ceased to grow its population!

   When question time came the three of us raised our hands, wanting to ask him why he had not mentioned the latter option. But, his subordinate, who was deciding which members of the audience were allowed to ask questions, would not choose us.

    Shane stood there doing nothing while his subordinate chose who was going to ask questions. Why couldn’t Shane have chosen who was going to ask the questions himself and then answered them? While he was doing that his subordinate could have done something useful like filing. Alternatively, he could have picked lint from Shane’s coat. It was an inefficient use of labour which we taxpayers paid for.

    A bloke who looked a bit older than me eventually got his turn to ask a question. He asked why we need to actively encourage population growth, which implied that if we did not actively encourage population growth Canberra may not grow, and if that was the case light rail would not be needed. When he had finished his question my two mates and I clapped. At least someone had asked something similar to what we wanted ask, even though we would have been far less subtle or diplomatic in the way we would have phrased the question and we would have expressed our belief that growth needs to be actively discouraged. 
  In paraphrasing how I interpreted Shane's response, he let it be known that he was of the opinion that if we wanted to we could choose to not release more land to ensure our population did not grow, but in doing so it would result in development over the border in places like Googong. And because of that, he claimed, we would still have congestion problems caused by NSW residents commuting to Canberra. He also indicated that in such a situation the NSW government was under no legal obligation to pay for infrastructure to assist the ACT government deal with the said traffic congestion within our borders, even though it would be caused by NSW traffic.
  We could see obvious flaws in Shane's argument without even discussing it with each other. We continued to raise our hands every time other people’s questions had been answered so we could challenge Shane’s belief that not releasing more land was not a good idea.

    We continued to be ignored for the duration of question time and I am guessing it was because Shane’s subordinate detected our stance when he heard us clap the bloke who suggested we should not encourage population growth within the ACT. It would seem his subordinate wanted to protect Shane from having to answer difficult questions, in particular questions that may expose him as a pseudo-environmentalist. 
We left that night in disgust even though we were not surprised at the way the whole show was presented.

   In regard to Shane’s argument for why he believed land should continue to be released in the ACT, its flaws are large enough to drive a Mac truck through.

    For a start, if we were not releasing more land within the ACT and we disallowed infill or high-rise, to state the obvious there would be no extra costs in infrastructure for roads, water, sewerage, power, etc, to service houses and flats that did not exist.
   And if we took the measures I have just suggested, those Canberrans who work in the building industry would neither add nor decrease congestion because they would travel to NSW to work instead of travelling to work within the ACT, should nearby NSW open up more land for development. 

   But, if we took the measures I suggest I acknowledge that if Australia's overall population continued to grow the Federal Public Service would grow with it, as would its supporting industries. However, the erection of buildings required for extra public servants, and those that service the extra public servants, would not necessarily have to be carried out within the centre of Canberra unless the Federal Government, which has control of the Parliamentary Triangle, decided to build high-rise buildings within that area.
   If the Federal Government did not build the said new buildings within the Parliamentary Triangle, they could be built in either NSW or in a number of places within the ACT just before the ACT/NSW border. This would mean we would have no more congestion than we have now.
    Other than that, if the ACT Government simply asked the Federal Government to decentralise by building extra Australian Public Service offices just outside the ACT I doubt it or the NSW government would refuse the request, particularly if QBN, Yass or other councils wanted them.

    In a worse case scenario, the Federal Government could choose to build new high-rise offices within the Parliamentary Triangle, which would mean more people were employed within central Canberra. This definitely would cause a traffic problem from NSW commuters.

   In such an unlikely situation however, the problem would be very limited, and any measures that were needed to rectify it, such as constructing wider roads or using more buses, would be far less costly than continuing to grow our population. 
    It would also be a one-off expenditure, as there is a limit to how many people can fit into the Parliamentary Triangle, and the Federal Government would have to pay for facilities within that area.
    I may have misunderstood one point Shane was trying to make on the night, but he seemed to be saying that we would have problems restricting Canberra's growth because the Australian Constitution guarantees free trade between the states and territories. I don't see that as being relevant, as nobody would be restricting free trade. Not releasing land or allowing infill or high-rise would not prevent a company from buying or leasing existing buildings. Lord Howe Island, which is part of NSW, is not releasing any more land and does not allow infill, and it is quite legal for it to do so.
     Of course there may be problems with congestion in nearby NSW, but that would be their problem and there would be nothing to stop the relevant councils from sending the same message to the Federal Government regarding our country being overpopulated by them also choosing to not release any more land.

    In summary, my message to Shane Rattenbury and the rest of the Australian Greens who hold seats in Federal or local governments is to "Piss or get off the pot!" If you are truly a party of environmentalists who genuinely care about the wellbeing of future generations and as such want to leave Australia in as good if not better state than it was before you were born into it, return to the values of those who started the environmental movement. Use your political power to attempt to change things for the better.
  Greens who hold Federal seats should be pushing for us to get out of the global economy by greatly increasing tariffs. Above all they should be pushing for the implementation of policies that reduce our net population.
   Greens that hold seats in state or territorial governments or councils should be doing their best to ensure their local population does not grow and that they get as close as possible to self-sufficiency.
    My message to ACT voters who have any concern about the wellbeing of future generations is to not only not vote for the Canberra Liberals or Labor; they should also not vote for Australian Greens candidates in either local or Federal elections unless the Australian Greens, as a party, first make the sorts of changes to their policies I suggest. 
    Many environmentalists vote Green because they consider them the lesser of the evils, but with the current Green environmental platform,(which includes increasing our population and not opposing being a part of the global economy), which can only be described as pure tokenism, they are a part of the problem and definitely not the solution. Even their new leader has admitted that he is "mainstream."  
    Should no candidate in your electorate run for the next local or Federal election with a platform that does not at least include stopping population growth, you are better off voting informally. By voting for what you consider the lesser of the evils you are assisting in the perpetuation of the demise of your environment and your species, and time is running out. 
   
Is this what Australians want?  My lifestyle could be a lot more environmentally friendly than it is, but living an environmentally friendly lifestyle as an individual is futile if it is not enforced on whole populations by governments. With that in mind, I reiterate, when your next Federal or local election comes around I suggest you either vote informally or vote for moral candidates.
A question to myself from my second personality, Personality 2
   You claim you're a Rationalist, Wheeler, which means you should also be a realist and a pragmatist. What you're suggesting would require an extremely radical change in our economic system, and there is no way Australians would be willing to change things to that degree by way of the ballot box. You must understand, most modern humans still have hunter gatherer brains and cannot possibly think long term, which is why they vote in such appalling politicians and why they have got themselves in such a mess.
And how would people be employed in your no-growth utopia?
My response to Personality 2
I agree with what you're saying about most people having hunter gatherer brains 2, and I would only want to change things by way of the ballot box because history has shown that totalitarianism is disastrous. But, if a person considers he has the capacity to rise beyond his hunter gatherer mentality and either votes for a moral candidate that thinks long term, or informally if one does not stand in his electorate, it requires no effort or futile sacrifice. And you never know, with enough pressure on politicians from a minority of people it may be enough to persuade those in power to reduce the rate our population grows. If that occurs at least Australia will be habitable for a longer time than it would be if we were to continue with the status quo.
  In regard to having full employment, as you say, the whole economic system would have to change and it would take a book to explain how. In brief however, it would have to involve job-sharing with government subsidies and possibly kibbutzim for those it would suit.
  An alternative economist, Professor Bill Mitchell, of the University of Newcastle, who is the Director of the "Centre of full employment and equity" (Cofee), has some good ideas that could be used, although I believe we need to go further than what he suggests and have a more isolationist approach. He explains the theory he advocates on the following link. http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/
  The following Henry Lawson poem, "Freedom on the Wallaby," put to music by Raymond Crooke and PM Adamson, was written in 1891 after the shearer's strike. Its purpose was to motivate Australians into standing up to the greed of big business. Big business not only attempts to pay workers as little as possible and to undercut their conditions; it shits on future generations by putting profit before the environment. This has occurred in Australia by direct environmental destruction and puppet politicians raising our population to a level of it being ecologically unsustainable, causing bad congestion and making housing unaffordable. To big business excess population means more customers domestically and unions having less industrial clout because of the fierce competition for the limited number of positions available within the export industries.
If you love your kids do not vote for the Coalition, Labor or the Australian Greens.

    Many Aussies in Lawson's time had a general disrespect of authority, and as a result were less inclined to sell their arses. Because of this attitude many Australians before joining the army to fight during WW1 had been organised in their civilian life, and during that war it did not take much provocation for them to take collective action against unpopular commanding officers, particularly when they were being stood over by Pommie officers who were products of the class system.
  For example, if addressed by an unpopular officer they sometimes employed the tactic of "counting out." The process would begin by one of the soldiers yelling out, "One." Another soldier would yell out, "Two." Another would yell out,"Three." When it got to ten there would be a chorus of "Out you Tommy Woodbine bastard!" They would then break up, turn their backs on the officer and begin playing two up or engaging in some other activity. Woodbines were a cheap and poor quality cigarette.
  Nowadays such attitudes seem to have been replaced by subservience, and in the case of many Australian men, emasculation. The Labor party when in office retained much of Workchoice's anti-worker-anti-strike legislation and workers just rolled over and took it.
   I would love to see more young Australians wake up and realise they have been shat on, and in doing so show the same sort of militancy as the diggers in WW1 showed when they employed the practice of "counting out." Unfortunately electronic gadgetry and sensationalist low IQ media has caused them to be “dumbed down,” and many don't even realise they are being exploited and that their futures are severely threatened. Filthy old capitalists are spending what should be their inheritance. If they realised what has been done to them and what is still being done to them they would despise my generation, the generations that preceded mine as well as the generation that followed mine.

  The deceased QLD politician, the late Russ Hinze (above) became a born-again socialist and environmentalist just before he died, and after going to Heaven returned to Earth as an angel. He was an outstanding example of what the democratic process can produce. He was last seen flying over the Royal Hotel in Queanbeyan just after closing time. Prior to that he visited my mate and me at work and we got to know him quite well.

     Pictured above are the late Joe Bjelke Petersen, the ex premier of QLD and a fundamentalist Christian, and the late Russ Hinze, the minister for everything. What fantastic human beings they were! Who says democracy doesn't always work? Having said that, in Russ's favour what you saw was what you got. Unlike most of today's politicians Russ did little to hide his true character.
   Hitler's first step to power was through the democratic process. He was quoted as saying,"The masses are blind and stupid," and history has proven he was right. Great throngs of them worshipped him like a god, even though he was a dangerous madman. He succeeded primarily because he was a great orator and could produce a scapegoat for the Depression.
   Political candidates who are genuine, moral and have platforms that are rationally-based must be conscious of the need to use plain and aggressive language, as the majority of the population are simpleminded, addicted to sensationalism and incapable of focussing on anything with too much depth. Donald Trump, who espouses absolute garbage, is getting a lot of free publicity by making inflammatory statements. He is also getting a lot of followers.
  Having good policy and being able to appeal to those with a brain obviously assists, but it is not enough by itself, as those with a brain make up only a small proportion of the population. By observing the number of idiots throughout the world who have gained office by way of the democratic process I can say that history proves that what I am saying is correct.

  Pictured above are another two great examples of what democracy can produce. How would you like to come home to Tony or Bronnie after a hard day's work? As I write the Coalition is pushing for the deregulation of shipping around the Australian coast, meaning they want ships from Third World countries crewed by crews that receive Third World wages shipping goods between Australian cities. Even Bob Menzies,with all his faults, would not have contemplated such a move. The government also continue live exports knowing full well many of the animals will suffer extreme cruelty. If non-human animals are to be eaten they deserve a good life and a quick and painless death. The Coalition nowadays is composed of people who must not have the ability to empathise. They could only be described as absolute scum. Labor is no better.
   Many believe Abbott, after having made his "captain's call" and knighting Prince Phillip, showed himself to be slightly autistic, and they are probably right. His successor, Turnbull, is a far smoother operator and in my opinion a conman who will continue to peddle irrationally-based, immoral, non-holistic, environmentally unfriendly garbage, at the expense of future generations. He also believes we need a "big Australia" and "economic growth." Few people become as wealthy as Turnbull by being good blokes.
   The last I heard is that Turnbull is behind planned ad's that accuse unionists who want to protect Australian jobs from being taken by Chinese labour as being "racist."
   Bluescope steelworker unionists have recently voted to give away hard won pay and conditions to prevent their employer moving overseas where it can employ cheap Third Wold labour. Free trade means a race to the bottom. It is taking a long time for the penny to drop because the pay and conditions of workers is being eroded by stealth.
   I recently heard that a 99 lease for the port at Darwin has been sold to a Chinese company. The politicians behind that move really must hate their kids, although I strongly suspect there were brown envelopes full of cash that went with the deal. The fact that it was allowed to happen says much about how dumbed-down and gutless Australians have become. Why would those with mega-capital want Australia to become a totalitarian state when they can get away with so much within a democracy?

  Is this the way future generations of Australians will need to travel? Most will not be able to afford to travel on light rail unless it is as packed as the overcrowded trains in India.
   My reason for cynicism regarding humanity is not based on misanthropy; I see it as simply seeing humanity’s history as it is. Furthermore, I do not have a soul-destroying hatred for persons I regard as grossly immoral, as I do not believe we have contra causal free will. A belief in contra causal free will involves having a belief (blind faith) that the laws of physics can be contravened, and there is no proof that this is possible despite various Sceptic societies offering large sums of money to those who can prove it can be done. How can we possibly, by an act of “will,” alter the forces of the universe that act upon the atoms we are composed of, the very same forces that form and regulate our brains, and subsequently our minds, and the “decisions” they make?

  It is my firm belief that many of today's members of parliament and many of Australia's billionaires and CEO's would love to see a return to the days when kids of the age of this little girl and younger were made to work in factories and paid next to nothing.
   

   Pictured above is another sketch of the late Russ Hinze showing what he looked like when he returned to Earth as an angel.
    

  The top photo is of me meeting the late Russ Hinze when he returned to Earth as an angel. Remember, as Russ in an angel he does not show up in photos. The photo directly above is of me sparring with the late Russ Hinze. I was trying to stick to his lead hand, but was not having a lot of success. Russ got the better of me by using his wings. I thought they would be an encumbrance but he was able to use them as weapons.

  The above photo is of Russ Hinze sparring with a cobber of mine, Tony Quinn, just after Russ had finished sparring with me. It began in a very friendly manner but Russ lost his temper after a few minutes and kicked Tony in the cods. (Remember, as Russ is an angel he does not show-up in photographs). Tony retaliated by leg-sweeping Russ, which sprained one of Russ's wings. The photo below shows Tony and Russ after they had cooled off, posing for the photo.

   

UPDA/16
   The link below will take you to a Canberra Times article printed on the 13/9/16 which seems to suggest that Shane Rattenbury owns negatively geared properties and that one is in the light rail corridor and is expected to increase in value if the light rail is constructed. I ask again; has Shane sold his arse? http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-election-2016/greens-leader-negatively-gears-investment-properties-one-in-light-rail-corridor-20160912-grealf.html

 PS Does anyone know the size of the blocks Shane and the other people within the ACT Assembly who call themselves Greens live on?
  I have imbedded a youtube link below which depicts the sort of society Shane and his right wing mates seem to want.

  For more mainly Canberra-based essays and yarns hit the “Home” button above.