Swimming Pools: Our Children in Danger

In the United States in the period of 2005-2009 there were recorded deaths of 3,533 innocent people in non-boat related unintentional drownings.

Drownings accounted for more than 3,000 deaths between 2005-2009.

There are over 10 million private swimming pools in the United States, that’s roughly one swimming pool for every 35 people! Private swimming pools are often maintained by irresponsible owners, many of whom have small children or entertain guests who are small children, which would explain why a disproportionate number of pool drowning deaths are that of innocent children. Minorities are also at a higher risk of death from drowning in pools, with the CDC recording that the drowning death of a 5-14 year old African American child is three times as likely as that of a white child.

How can such a travesty occur in a modern, developed country like the United States? The answer is the swimming pool culture and lobby.

Continue reading

Sustainable development not part of their plan


by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.

Selective Censorship

EXCLUSIVE: by Jim McCrudden

Two years ago ex-pm Gillard introduced the Frankenstein Lowenstein Enquiry.

The Party had been getting twisted knickers knowing that there were blogs everywhere, which could not be silenced because they had not committed defamation.

Shutting up the press is the very first thing governments like to do. Free speech is a handicap to government.

But free speech of sorts Australia has and Australian politicians are forced to adopt the lick-arse approach. Selected journos get inside briefings, made favourites of. Others – well their emails and phone calls are routinely binned.

It works up to a point. It’s Obama’s favourite ploy.

Then, like manna from heaven, it was revealed, in England, that naughty journos were hacking celebrities’ emails, and even bugging their phones.

This was a crime worse than murder. Worse than treason. Worse than Income Tax evasion.

It was INVASION OF PRIVACY. Sapristi! The eighth deadly sin!

Worse, a PC crime!!!!!

Certainly, there were some shocking headlines about tabloid reporters listening to messages left on a mobile phone belonging to a murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler.

But they were extreme and scarcely worse than the paparazzi.

And the information was not used to blackmail or coerce anyone.

Never mind all that.

Egged on by opportunist Pommie politicians smarting over the revelation of their systemic expense fraud, aggrieved celebrities and Toytown University academics were allowed to frame a narrative that was been swallowed whole by the Leveson Enquiry – must shut journos up. One of Leveson’s team was actually sleeping with a barrister who represented some of these celebrities.

“That’s it, ” said the ALP, “We will have an enquiry too. And he can make all sorts of jolly recommendations that mean you don’t have to defame anyone to be punished, you just have to upset them.  And,” they continued, splashing the parquetry with the pee running down their legs in excitement, “We don’t want a court to handle these things, we will have a special Tribunal to hand out the lolly for injured feelings. And we will pick who sits on the Tribunal.”



Now it is coming out.

Who were the worst of the phonebuggers?

Not the Press.


No. His Lud’ship was handed a dossier by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which showed that hacking phones and computers was rife, and that the worst offenders were not reporters but Britain’s most ‘respectable’ companies.

Banks, Insurance Companies, Law Firms were obtaining information; investigators were routinely obtaining everything from bank and credit card statements to itemised mobile phone bills.

And for their economic value, to use in blackmail negotiations, not for a spicy story in the papers.
He ignored it. The press was to be victim.

The ALP knew this was happening in England, that there were much worse villains than reporters, and that is why they restricted the Frankenstein Lowenstein enquiry to press only.

They don’t want the bugging to stop. They just don’t want the results published in the press. Fairfax and the ABC can be counted to smother unwanted stories but not blogs and other media.
In a related story, scientists have announced the possibility of head transplants. Lib insiders are looking at the possibility of switching Julian Assange’s nut with Tony Abbott’s. It’s win win. Assange gets brains, and everything that Abbott says will be grovel-praised by the ABC and Fairfax.


“Australians opposed to the local government referendum have officially formed and welcome the support of any Australian opposed to Canberra’s power grab”, said spokesperson Peter Reith.

Mr Reith’s comments follow the introduction of the Referendum Alteration (Local Government) Bill into the House of Representatives last week. Former Councillor, Julian Leeser, will be Convenor of the Vote ‘No’ campaign, with the support of Mr Reith, Dr Gary Johns, Nick Minchin and Tim Wilson.

“We welcome any Australian who wants to stand up to Canberra’s power grab”, Mr Reith said.

“Anyone opposed to this local government referendum can register their interest at:


“We’re building a broad-based coalition of people, regardless of their political background, to defeat this Canberra power grab. We want organising committee members, activists, donors, anyone prepared to play a part – big or small – to defeat this Canberra power grab”.

“If you want local communities to provide services based on local need, not Canberra priorities, you will want to sign up”.

“The Constitution isn’t just any old piece of paper, it’s the document that limits the power of Canberra politicians and bureaucrats and outlines the very structure of our democracy”.

“Canberra politicians and bureaucrats are trying to change the Constitution that limits their power using every trick in the book at their disposal”.

“The Vote ‘No’ group is standing up against Canberra’s power grab”.

“$21.6 million of public money is being used to campaign for this referendum. The Australian Local Government Association is amassing a $10 million ratepayer-funded campaign war chest. The Federal government has appropriated $11.6 million for a campaign that they have admitted will be a defacto ‘yes’ campaign”. Under questioning, Senator Jacinta Collins stated in the Senate:

“Certainly we will be looking at a broad education campaign, but a component of that campaign will be a position where the government seeks to advocate that there are strong benefits in accepting what is proposed in this case”. – Senator Jacinta Collins, 15/05/2013

“Defeating this referendum will require every Australian standing up for their community and services being delivered on local need, not Canberra priorities”, Mr Reith said.

Media contact Peter Reith: 0408 803 891, Dr Gary Johns: 0438 290 852, Tim Wilson: 0417 356 165, Nick Minchin: 0427 462 469, Julian Leeser: 0419 630 955

Kevin Rudd Wins the Golden Fleece Award

The Carbon Sense Coalition has awarded its Inaugural Golden Fleece Award to Kevin Rudd and coal industry leaders for “flagrant fleecing of community savings" writes Viv Forbes

Its appropriate that the Golden Fleece award would recognise futile ‘research’ on Carbon Capture & Sequestration. A costly and complex process designed to capture and bury carbon dioxide gas produced by burning carbon fuels such as 'coal, oil and gas'.

It is obviously possible, in an engineering sense, to collect, separate, compress, pump and pipe gases, so new “research” is largely a waste of money. Engineers know how to do these things, and their likely costs. But only foolish green zealots would think of spending billions to bury a harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in hopes of cooling the climate some time in the century ahead.

About 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burnt in a power station. To capture, compress and bury it could take at least 30% of the electricity produced, greatly increasing the cost of the limited amount of electricity left for sale – more coal used, increased electricity costs, for ZERO measurable benefits.

We have come to expect stupidity from politicians, but coal industry leaders who agreed to waste money on this should be sued by shareholders for negligence. Maybe they were just drooling at all the extra coal they would sell in order to produce the same electricity?

Kevin Rudd wins this award for “a Flagrant Fleece of $400 million taken from tax payers to fund the fatuous Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.” There is little to show for the millions already spent except a lot of receipts for high class salaries, consultants, travel, entertainment and “operational expenses”.

Pumping gases underground is sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to drive oil recovery from declining oil fields.

Normally, however, CCS will just produce more expensive electricity.

This result is not needed as politicians have already invented dozens of ways of doing just that.

More, as well as:

  • The Warming of the last Century is too Small to Notice
  • Clean Coal by Wire
  • The New Cold War
  • The Great Barrier Reef
  • A revival of the Medieval Practice of Book Burning
  • The Beginning of the End

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/golden-fleece-award.pdf [PDF, 133 KB]

This article was reposted via Viv Forbes who writes from the Carbon Sense Coalition which can be reached at http://carbon-sense.com/

US States Outlaw United Nations Agenda 21

A. Essery

Allan asks the question, “Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.” From experience you will likely get a blank stare because Local Agenda 21 has become “embedded” in law. It happened more than 20-years-ago and people don’t remember how or why it all happened. But, happen it did! GC.Ed@L.

 There are some who read my previous three articles on Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development” and World Government and believe that it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy theory that should be sniggered at because it really doesn’t exist except in the minds of fools.  Those more astute readers take the time to do some research of their own and discover that Agenda 21, the United Nations “Sustainable Development” plan, does actually exist and is much more insidious than most would imagine.

State Legislatures in the United States are far more advanced in fighting this scourge than we in Australia.  In the latest move and following the lead of Alabama, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives recently voted unanimously to introduce legislation that will protect private property rights from the United Nations and to outlaw Agenda 21 because it poses an unacceptable threat to liberty, values and sovereignty.  It has been reported that to date some 158 government authorities in various countries have outlawed Agenda 21.

The United Nations put Agenda 21 forward as a sustainable development initiative supposedly aimed at the protection of the environment, but nothing could be further from the truth because Agenda 21 has little to do with the protection of the environment and a lot to do with the abolition of private land ownership and property rights.  The more sinister aim is the complete transformation of the global economy in ways that are completely at odds with national sovereignty, individual liberty and traditions of self-governance.

The ultimate UN plan was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. According to the UN, “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”  The answer, according to the UN, is to control every aspect of human life.

While the average Australian citizen is unaware of Agenda 21 and its true implications, not so the various levels of Government, Federal, State, and Local.  Shire Councils, have seen the advantage of adopting the socialist lie of ‘sustainable development’, but not for the benefit of their rate payers, and the more observant property owners, especially farmers, in our society would have noticed the slow but sure encroachment of local government regulation dictating what you can and can’t do with the property that you own.  Shire Councils are becoming more and more powerful and introducing more and harsher property and environmental by-laws that to most in the society would make little sense and are a long way short of believable justification. 

Australia has been part of Agenda 21 since Keating signed us up in 1992.  So, as signed up members of the Agenda 21 initiative you would think that our politicians, both State and Federal, plus our local governments would know all about it.  Well, you may think so, but try getting any information about Agenda 21, or ‘sustainable development’, from your local member or from your Shire Council and you will be confronted by a stone wall.  Ask your Shire Council if it is a signatory to Agenda 21 or ”Sustainable Development” and you will likely be treated like a leper. 

While here in Australia our various forms of government think they are keeping us in the dark and giving us the old ‘Mushroom” treatment, nothing could be further from the truth.  More and more citizens are becoming aware of this treasonous United Nations plan.   Is treasonous too strong a term?  Not at all.   When a foreign-based organization, aided and abetted by our own government, plans to remove your freedom, your constitutional rights, your property rights and the sovereignty of your nation then that is treason and if our politicians, bureaucrats and councilors are a part of it then they are surely committing treason?

How does your local council shape up?  Are they signatories to “Sustainable Development”.   If they are, then they are instruments of the United Nations that are following the dictates of Agenda 21.  Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.

(Thanks to  Alex Newman, The New American) 

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.





MUST READ: A Health Warning For Liberals

Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist transformation

Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist transformation. Some of this is top down. Much of it is bottom up, writes Dr Grant N Ross

2 years I was the Melbourne University Liberal Club’s token doctor.
Turning up late, or never, I would always be out of kilter with JSM,
political theories and fights of the day and somewhat under the
impression that Kroger was a kind of cheese. 
being a stereotype got me over the line.

would like to redeem my standing by attempting to write about the
direction of health under Labor and the alternative policy direction
the Liberal Party should choose when in Government.

feel that there is a need f
or a Liberal establishment to take note of
the direction of health under Roxon and Plibersek and to hear the
story I am about to tell about the pressures within medicine that
will come to change the way doctors do politics for the next 20
years. All is not well, and I want to tell you why.

we speak, Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist
of this is top down. Much of it is bottom up.

The Top Down 

the top down, there have been a series of reforms that:

  • Create
    a greater role for government in health

  • Are
    mostly anti-doctor

  • Occurred
    without significant consultation with the medical profession

  • Involved
    the creation of enormous layers of bureaucracy to centrally manage
    an existing private industry

  • Prioritised
    special interests and unions rather than the front line service

reforms include the creation of many different councils to
micromanage various health care aims instead of directly funding
practitioners; and by doing so orchestrate a transfer of power away
from practitioners and patients towards bureaucrats and their

quick list of the agencies and bureaucracies created by federal Labor
include the following:

  • Australian
    commission on safety and quality of healthcare

  • National
    Health performance authority

  • Independent
    Hospital Pricing Authority

  • The
    Administrator and funding body

  • Medicare

  • Australian
    Medical Locals Network

  • Australian
    national preventative health agency

  • Local
    Hospital Networks

  • Health
    Workforce Australia

  • Aged
    Care Reform Implementation Council

  • Mental
    Health Commission

  • Aged
    Care Financing Authority

are three cardinal reforms by Labor that have made things worse in
health; national registration, Prescribing and Medicare Locals.


2010 we have had the imposition of a massive tax on doctors by way of
a National Registration reform by Nicola Roxon.
Previously, doctors were registered to a state body but are now
registered to the Australian Health Practitioners Registration
Agency; a centralised national authority.

formed by Labor to ‘facilitate’ national registration, imposes a
$680 ‘Doctor Tax’ on doctors every year; much higher than
previously imposed. The agency’s role, it seems, is to run a police
check once a year, keep names on a register and then deal with a
doctor if they do something wrong by threatening or taking away the
legal right to practice Medicine.

most doctors agree on the need for professional regulation, nobody
accepted the AHPRA model being imposed in the face of a functioning
previous system.

is an overwhelming sentiment among the medical community that the
AHPRA reforms are decidedly anti-doctor. Firstly, they removed
semi-autonomy from the previous state based QUANGOs. Secondly, the
AHPRA came about against the wishes of the AMA and the medical
profession at large. Thirdly, doctors have to pay extraordinarily
higher registration fees. Fourthly, AHPRA lumps doctors together with
other health professionals in an overt breach of professional


Footnote I – The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law came into effect in 2010. Whilst it was a COAG agreement, AHPRA was a cornerstone commitment of Labor and driven largely by their political agenda and under mostly government influence.

is most worrying is that the registration reforms are a direct step
towards the complete Federal take over of health; via monopolising
the licensing of ALL health professionals in the country to one
federally controlled agency. This should be interpreted as a step
towards government socialisation of the entire health workforce. 

is quite sure what will happen in the future with AHPRA. I would look
at it as a dysfunctional way of registering doctors and a target for
reform under a Liberal government.

under Labor

Labor reforms have particularly offended the medical profession by
allowing nurses and other non-doctors to prescribe medications.
Prescribing has long been the privilege of the physician, a deeply
difficult and precise business and the Government have legislated for
non doctors to prescribe dangerous medications.

still do not agree with this. Below is an example of a lethal
medication that should not be given to people in a range of
circumstances ranging from addiction to intra cranial conditions that
is available from a nurse with no medical training. 


Footnote II – http://www.ahpra.gov.au accessed 6/11/2012
nobody would wish the loss of political capital by enabling more
practitioners to prescribe, a government should make a principled
stand on prescribing and give that right exclusivity to those who
lead the health system; doctors. Put simply, do not politicize
opiates; morphine is a drug, not an entitlement. We are all better
off without this gray zone.

Practice and the Medicare Locals

Locals are essentially the creation of large bureaucracies all across
Australia to control the delivery of General Practice services.
Marking the greatest shift of power away from the functioning private
sector to yet more bureaucrats, these organizations claim to
‘coordinate resources’, ‘identify gaps in access’ and other
nebulous imperatives.

are really about creating a centralized bureaucracy, more removed
from front line services, to control the allocation of General
Practice visits. Most of these agencies will be run by non-doctors
with political agendas. This
redirect front line funding.

most left leaning elitists and pundits would label a move against
Medicare Locals as ‘protectionism’ for doctors, it should be a
Liberal priority for several reasons.

for service, rather than centralized allocation, is the most
efficient form of funding for primary care. Doctors alone deliver the
vast majority of primary care via their minute to minute labor.
Direct funding is clearly superior.

reinforcing private practice builds trust within the medical
profession and empowers doctors to deliver good care for their

it builds on the only model that can safely deliver cost effective
health care in a flexible and dynamic way. There is pragmatism within
the medical profession that is unrivaled in history. Pragmatism
requires individual liberty. It is the antithesis of bureaucracy.

should be allowed to govern how they arrange their practice and the
market is the best way to ensure that each patient finds the doctor
they prefer. We all know that we would prefer to choose our doctor
when we need them; not when the government tells us.

have written about three big players in the health reform agenda of
the last 5 years. National Registration and the step towards
socialist health system, widening of prescribing rights and finally
the complete government takeover of General Practice. These are just
a few example of the top down socialist pressures on health that I
have noticed. 
they are not the most worrying change ahead of us.

for us, Peter Dutton, Shadow Minister for Health, has already
demonstrated his capacity for reform by pledging to scrap the
Medicare Locals and GP super clinics.

is an ex policemen, successful businessman, ex-Minister in the Howard
Government and assistant treasurer to the great Peter Costello. He is
clearly a man who understands health and has a distinct policy vision
to restore the health system to a position of strength, rather than
interference and bureaucratization. I believe he will be warmly
welcomed by the medical community and be one of the best advocates
for the restoration of a sensible health system.

The Bottom Up 


have spoken about some of the top down pressures in a socialist
direction on the health system. I would like to talk briefly about
some of the pressures from the bottom up, that only a doctor can see,
that are still pertinent to the Liberal agenda.

the fantasia reforms of the Roxon/Plibersek era are anything to lose
sleep over, they are nothing on the bottom up forces plaguing
medicine at a much more sinister level.

my entry into medicine as a first year student in 2006, the values
underpinning medicine have been rampantly veering towards the left.
The pressures mounting from the bottom, aka medical school
environments, are horrendously aligned with ALP and Greens stigmata.
For those who thought that foaming at the mouth socialism and
bureaucratic elitism were limited to the confines of the Arts
departments, you are wrong.

Medical schools themselves have pursued a long march style reform
into the medical degree; especially in the selection of candidates.
Traditionally, school leavers were selected based on ENTER/ATAR score
and the Undergraduate Medical Admissions Tests. No test is perfect,
but the principle was that admission was based on objective academic
capacity; with a view to selecting bright school leavers (whether
advantaged or otherwise).

principle cemented medicine as being about academic capacity,
something worth its salt in any market, rather than ‘social
equity’. This is the right way for things to be.

courses almost universally select via interview. You can dress up how
‘official’ and ‘standardized’ your interviews are, but they
remain the quintessence of subjective selection. That is the purpose
of interviews. They are effectively a mechanism to allow people to
form a personal opinion on a candidate. And exercise bias. 


a background of the inherent socialist tendencies of education at
both secondary and tertiary level, the reforms to selection have
outright enabled the medical schools to pursue a political agenda
that aims to expand the role of government in healthcare, involve
medicine into a nexus of government social equality agendas and
further the promotion of minority special interests to any particular
degree. This is the definition of long-marching.


results of these efforts are now coming to fruition. Medicine is
becoming overtaken by special interest group after special interest
group, all vying to dictate the rules of medical practice and
employment, values and principles in an ever growing mountain of
elitist control. The effects of this can be seen via organizations
such as the Australian Medical Students Association, the Post
Graduate Medical Council of Victoria and even the Medical Journal of
Australia and the Australian Medical Association; a nexus of
bureaucratic woe:


Footnote III – http://www.amsa.org.au

organizations are replete with bureaucratic choke holds and
indecisive post modern ‘collaboration tactics. The result,
obviously, is what we have seen under Kevin Rudd: Power from the
people to their overlords in an ever growing unholy alliance of
bureaucrats, red tape and pathetic backyard politicians who would
rather do anything to promote themselves rather than a good idea. It
promotes ‘sellout politics’ and betrays the individuals who
together make medicine what it is and what gives individuals the
right to be free in this country. 
long as this framework persists, doctors will be worse off and
patients will be worse off. 

the moment, the AMA can be proud of the leadership it has had.
Brendan Nelson went on to become Liberal Party Leader. Rosanna
Capolingua was clearly Liberal, Michael Wooldridge kept General
Practice sustainable and independent. Steve Hambleton, current AMA
leader, stands for sensible restraint and genuinely aims to protect
autonomy for doctors. We have been lucky. But I am not so sure about
our future. Just look at what the ever growing Australian Medical
Association calls for on Climate Change:


Footnote IV – http://www.amsa.org.au/press-release/20120703-amsa-calls-for-leadership-on-climate-change/
  • Australian
    Medical Student Association


    Footnote V – Australian Medical Students 2010 Policy Document Climate Change and Health see website http://www.amsa.org.au
  • The
    Australian Medical Association’s is little better than the student
    body in this regard:

Footnote VI – http://ama.com.au/node/4442

think I have made my case. 
anybody in the Coalition did have a silver bullet to stop the long
march, they’d immediately be preselected for a golden safe seat. I
am not that man.

if we were to theoretically look at reversing the political bias
pressuring medicine in Australia, I would start with reforms that
target medical selection, medical training, the de-bureaucratisation
of medical registration at the junior level and aim to move the
governance of medical training away from University bureaucrats and
elitist back to grassroots doctor groups.

would help. 
is an argument for such change on the basis that it restores
efficiency and principles of autonomy to the medical profession and
by extension of that, to patients. It would be one hell of an effort,
but I honestly do not believe it to be beyond an Abbott government to
achieve in some capacity.

other issues are perennial for Liberals; especially for those of us
who have campaigned on campus. The fight against bureaucrats, against
elitists and to genuinely reform education in this country in the way
that David Cameron is trying in England. Perhaps some of the above
changes could be caught up in a commission of audit. I would like to
see that. But I don’t know. I am not a politician.


a doctor, I naturally bring more of a background of social sciences
and welfare to the Liberal table than I do tax reform and economics.

However, there is a need for a Liberal establishment to take note of
the direction of health reform that the Roxon and Plibersek ministry
has imposed on health and a need to identify them as inefficient,
retrograde, centralist and to be removed as needed. Equally important
is the message I would like to impart about the need to think about
what is needed to prevent the medical establishment being long
marched into foot soldiers for the ALP.

remember, health accounts for 12-17% of spending and employs 11% of
all Australians. That is one hell of a voter base to lose to the

Dutton has a lot to contribute to health in the next Liberal
Government. Autonomy, efficiency and restraint will serve our country
well. Similarly, I encourage young Liberals in rising positions of
leadership to consider the principles of a sound health system as
they develop their policy directions.

The electorate expect a good
health system and we have no excuse for leaving ourselves weak on
this front from a simple lack of knowledge.

Grant N Ross MBBS B.Med Sci is a medical practitioner and graduate of
Melbourne University.



I – The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law came into effect
in 2010. Whilst it was a COAG agreement, AHPRA was a cornerstone
commitment of Labor and driven largely by their political agenda and
under mostly government influence.

II –

see About AMSA accessed 6/11/2012

IV –

V – Australian Medical Students 2010 Policy Document Climate Change
and Health see website

VI –

Another perspective on guns


Guns, Politics, Logic and Lies

Politics: The 1996 Port Arthur tragedy gave newly elected Prime Minister John Howard the opportunity to exchange a perception of waffling political mediocrity for one of leader with dogged might.

Massaging the wave of national grief, Mr. Howard vowed to make Australians safer with the introduction of new gun control laws. That the Australian Bureau of Statistics had just released a 16-year study on homicide by gun showed a steady decline was ignored—John Howard was an avowed gun hater. That existing laws were obviously sufficient was inconvenient, but one could turn a blind eye to that, and politically motivated, he did.

With his irrational move against all law abiding gun owners in Australia Mr. Howard followed advice from those who knew little of firearms, or, more likely, had personal agendas to remove all firearms.

Ignorance and emotive speech had led to a belief that the words ‘automatic’, ‘fully automatic’, ‘semi-automatic’ connoted evil. Joined with the words ‘weapon’ or ‘assault’ every firearm in Australia was demonised. Even the word ‘gun’ uttered in some circles caused hysteria.

The criminalizing of the largely harmless, for-rabbits-only, .22 calibre semi-automatic rifles—rifles of sentimental value handed down through families for generations was an example of knee-jerk politics.

Rarely, if ever, mentioned in mainstream media in the current debate is the failed firearms buy-back program where more than $500 million spent appears to have had little effect. Also included in the “rarely mentioned” matters is the systemic corruption known for years in the Australian Customs at airports, seaports, and post offices.

Current official statistics are extremely difficult to uncover, other than graphs and reports by anti-gun groups, and this finding by: Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi The Australian Firearms Buyback and its Effect on Gun Deaths is never mentioned. This is what the abstract notes:

The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strictgun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in PortArthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyse the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates. (JEL C22, K19)

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf  (Note: slow to load)

ABS: Firearm deaths, Australia, 1980 to 1995

Number of Deaths during the reference period of 15 years, 1980-95, a total of 10,150 deaths were registered as firearm-related. This accounted for half a percent of all deaths reported. However, in terms of premature mortality, firearm deaths are more significant, accounting for about 2.4% of total years of potential life lost before age 76 (see Technical Note). Of total deaths from external causes, which include accidents of all types, and all suicides and homicides, firearm deaths contributed 8.9%. Although the relative magnitude of deaths from the use of firearms as a cause of death is small, such deaths have social significance beyond the actual proportions and numbers. Analysis of ABS mortality data indicates that firearms are involved in approximately one-quarter of all suicides and one-fifth of all homicides.


Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, November 2003.

An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.

Of the 128 544 deaths registered in Australia in 2001, 7876 deaths were caused by accidents, poisonings and violence (referred to as 'external causes'). The leading external cause of death in 2001 was accidents (transport, falls, and drowning/submersion) accounting for 61 per cent of all incidents. Firearms as a 'cause of death' only represent a small fraction of all external causes of death in Australia (4.2% or 333 deaths in 2001). While firearms account for a small proportion of externally caused deaths, there is much focus on controlling the use of firearms in criminal activities – particularly on whether or not their use has increased or decreased since the introduction of firearms controls in 1997. Briefly, these controls banned self loading rifles and both self loading and pump action shotguns; saw the establishment of nationwide firearms registration; and introduced stringent limitations to the ownership of firearms, primarily minimum age restrictions and satisfactory fitness and reason for ownership of firearms (Mouzos 1999). The main focus of this report is the identification of shifts in trends and patterns over the 11-year period between 1991 and 2001.


SMH, October 2006: The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur (showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no (difference in the rate of decline.


However Posted on June 13, 2011 Gun Control Australia:

With thousands of lives saved by reduced rates of gun homicide and gun suicide, we know how wonderfully successful the gun laws introduced after the six, gun (massacres in 1987 and the two gun massacres of 1996 have been. We refer to the combination of these stricter gun laws as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA).


Guns: Lawful gun owners are generally a responsible group. However, fear of strict law, media fed propaganda from gun control groups and (do-gooder social engineers) demands a constant vigilance, if they are to continue their chosen sport.

Never cited by the shrill, anti-gun advocates is the British story where the government in 1997 removed all legitimately owned handguns from society—over 200,000 handguns at a cost of nearly $500 million. (Sound familiar?) Crime figures, from Britain now show dramatic increases in handgun crime. The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year—a rise of 89 per cent.


Logic and Lies: Anything to do with guns is emotive to all parties. With a cool head, however, we must ask, what are we trying to achieve? What is the ultimate goal of gun control? Is it to save lives and prevent untimely death? Is it to abolish firearms ownership? Or is it about the way in which you die? Few of us choose either method or time of our demise, but it usually comes with the comforting: “It was peaceful.” “It was quick.” “He wouldn’t have known what happened,” as in the case of a head-on collision.

Surely, gun control is about preventing death; in which case, is it not reasonable to ask what is the leading cause of “untimely” death? Should we not focus upon what kills us most, or does that remove polarising passion and biased agenda? What part does glorification of violence in movies play, for example?

Attorney General Nicola Roxon legislated a colour change on cigarette packages but more than 25,000 Australians will die this year from smoking. Last year 1,292 died on our roads. The incapacitated and injured are many thousands more. Accidents in the home, murders via knives, screwdrivers, hammers, and electrocution are only a few of non-firearms deaths. Dieting, sex and prescribed medications also cause “untimely” death.

The Australian Medical Association seeks to rid society of all firearms, but the AMA’s members allegedly cause more than 2,000 deaths per year through “Iatrogenic Injury,” and “co-morbidities.” All of the above kill more Australians than the 0.5% to 1% of the population who are killed by firearms. Consider also that police shootings causing death are included.

You can take any firearms statistics pro and con, add as much spin and lies to suit your agenda and guns are far from being a major factor in what kills us—and that’s a fact.

We can legislate against guns but we can’t legislate against insanity.

Guns vs people