Tony abbott

by

Privileged to be invited for the welcome event for PM of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu in Sydney

Sydney, 22 Feb, 2017

It was a great pleasure & privilege to be invited to the welcome event for Prime Minister of Israel, His Excellency Benjamin Netanyahu, at the iconic Central Synagogue, Bondi Junction, Sydney. Central Synagogue is the biggest Synagogue in the Southern Hemisphere.

This was the first official visit of an Israeli PM to Australia in 70 years.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described Israel as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and praised Israelis for their innovative attitude. He described Australia as a great friend of Israel. PM Netanyahu (Nicknamed Bibi) spoke well and outlined Jewish people’s “can do” and “must succeed” instincts. He mentioned his belief, and the fact, of the Jewish people, the Indians & the Chinese being the people belonging to the ancient civilizations, which have survived despite the odds and adversities.

The high profile nature of the event can be gauzed by the presence of Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, former Prime Ministers (John Howard and Tony Abbott), NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and many Ministers and MPs from both sides of politics.

There were a few representatives from Australian multicultural community, which included Indian (myself), Greek, Chinese, Armenian and South Korean. The crowd of approximately 2000 people gave standing ovation and a round of prolonged applause to Australian PM, Israeli PM, and Former Prime Ministers, Abbott and Howard.

 

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

by

Libs had no other real options

22nd September, 2015

Quite a lot of my Indian friends from overseas have asked me how did it happen that Liberal Party changed its leader.  They were perplexed about the mechanism. Things like this do not happen in many democracies.

That’s all true, but there is basically a very simple explanation. Change like this can happen in any democracy which follows Westminster system.

People elect MPs and MPs elect their leader. For obvious reasons, MPs can remove their leader and choose another leader too, if their leader is not performing and is not able to lead effectively and efficiently.

The Coalition, comprising of Liberal Party and National Party, led by Mr Tony Abbott won the election in 2013. Elected MPs then formally elected Mr Abbott as their leader, who was then sworn in as the Prime Minister of Australia on 18th September, 2013.

The Abbott Government did an excellent job as far as the uncontrolled arrival of asylum seekers was concerned. They stopped the Boats, arriving at Australian shores. They were also good at tackling terror threats. They were not as successful in the economic management and Budgets. This problem was compounded due to their failure in political communication, which led to significant dissatisfaction. Opinion polls were consistent in their results about their unpopularity. The Coalition lagged behind the Opposition for most of the time since September 2013 election.

Lack of majority in the Senate did not help as The Abbott Government’s proposals were defeated there. The main Opposition Party along with Greens and Independent Senators obstructed Government’s legislative agenda.

This could have been tackled to some extent if The Abbott Government’s political messaging and communication were better and things were explained to people in a better manner.

With repeated negative opinion polls, it was clear that The Coalition MPs will lose their seats in 2016 Federal election and Labor Party would form the Government. The most recent Opinion Poll, just 2 weeks before the Leadership Spill on 14th September, showed a swing of voting intentions against the government. This would have led to the loss 36 seats for The Coalition and an electoral defeat, if an election were held at the time of this Opinion poll.

There were repeated political missteps, so-called unpopular “Captain’s Calls” including Knighthood to Prince Philip, “Foot in Mouth” comments, lack of efficient interactions with back bench of The Coalition and micro-management of the Government by Prime Minister’s Office, which all added to the political woes for Mr Abbott’s leadership.

Many MPs and ministers did not get on well with the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin. This was a matter of concern for many. Things could have been managed, but they were not, unfortunately.

MPs and ministers were unsatisfied with Treasurer, Joe Hockey’s performance too.

Desperation and frustration among MPs was at all time high. Circumstances forced them to think long and hard and make a very hard decision.

These very adverse political scenario had already culminated in an earlier Leadership spill in February which Mr Abbott won. Mind you, there was no challenger to Mr Abbott then. Mr Abbott promised to change the quality and direction of his leadership, which would improve the prospects of the Government in 6 months time from the February leadership spill. MPs expected that this “Near death Experience” by Mr Abbott will be a catalyst for significant changes.

Seven months down the track, unfortunately, neither the Opinion polls improved nor the quality and direction of his leadership. MPs and ministers came to a realisation that the only thing which will fix their political woes is to change the leader.

This wasn’t an easy decision, but there was no other option.

I am sure that anti-Abbott MPs worked tirelessly and clandestinely over weeks to solidify the numbers for the challenger, Mr Malcolm Turnbull.

Once this was certain, and Opinion polls started telling that there would be 10% slide in The Coalition’s votes in an upcoming by-election in Western Australia, The Turnbull camp acted speedily and resolutely. Deputy leader, Julie Bishop informed Mr Abbott at about 2 PM on 14th September that he did not have the majority support among ministers and MPs. A few hours later, Mr Malcolm Turnbull tendered his resignation as the Communication Minister in The Abbott Government and asked Mr Abbott for the leadership spill.

It led to the leadership spill (Ballot) at about 9.30 PM same evening, and Mr Turnbull defeated Mr Abbott 54 to 44 votes in his favour. Camps led by key ministers, Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne and Scott Morrison played significant roles in this outcome.

Mr Turnbull was sworn in as the 29th Prime Minister of Australia on 15th September. Julie Bishop continues as the Deputy leader of Liberal Party and the Foreign Affairs Minister. Mr Scott Morrison is the new treasurer. Outgoing treasurer, Joe Hockey decided to not take a ministerial position and is set to retire from Politics soon.

With the leadership change, Opinion polls have given an immediate 5% boost in the Primary vote, which is 44% for the Coalition Vs 35%, a loss of 4%, for the Opposition. The Coalition is ahead of the Opposition after a long time. The Coalition leads Labor 51-49% on a two-party basis now vs 46-54% against The Coalition only 2 weeks ago.

Will these number improve further is something only time will tell, but this is very likely because Mr Turnbull and new Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, are much better communicators and have been very successful in their roles in The Abbott Government.

With this leadership change in The Coalition, one more thing is certain to change. The Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and Australian Labor Party (ALP) will have to perform in a much better manner, if they want to compete and beat The Turnbull Government in 2016 election. The almost certain victory for ALP is anything but certain now. The Game is now really on.

As far as people in my circle of friends and commentators and I are concerned, everyone wants a Government, which can lead the nation, manage the economy, formulate and execute appropriate policies, and communicate with the voters effectively and efficiently. They also want The Opposition to compete effectively and efficiently, relying on good policies and proposals, not scare tactics and negativity. People don’t want to be taken up for mugs.

This is vital because only this will allow Australians to understand policies from The Government and The Opposition, enabling them to make an informed decision about who to vote for in 2016.

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/ Australia

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

*This article was first published in http://www.MyInd.net, a USA-based News & Opinion website

by

Expectations from Prime Minister Modi

Dr Yadu SinghSydney, 14th November, 2014

Expectations from the Modi Govt

Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, is visiting Australia between 15th and 18th Nov, 2014. After attending G20 summit in Brisbane on 15th and 16th November, he will start his state visit. Indian community is excited with this visit. This is the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister after PM Rajiv Gandhi visited Australia in 1986. PM Modi will interact with the community in Sydney and Melbourne, in addition to addressing a Joint session of Australian Parliament.

Prime Minister Modi’s image is that of a decisive and a “can do” leader. Indians, not just in India but around the world, are optimistic that things will change for the better and the Indian economy will grow rapidly.

When I wrote a post in June, 2014, I mentioned many things which people expected. Many of those things have either been delivered or getting delivered. Prime Ministerial visit to Australia is one of them. Nuclear trade deal has already been signed when Prime Minister Tony Abbott visited India in September. Australian citizens getting the facility of Visa on arrival in India is another one which is in the process of getting implemented. Serious work is in progress in regards to Black money, stashed in overseas Banks. Supreme Court’s activism is playing an important role in it. Investigations and prosecutions are likely to commence soon. Based on my interactions with many Indians in Australia, there are a few more things that people expect the new government to deliver.

Genuine dual citizenship: This has been discussed and debated for long. There is an almost universal demand that overseas Indians be given a right to hold genuine dual citizenship with voting and property rights, if the country of their citizenship has no issue with this and if there are no security issues with granting dual citizenship to any particular overseas Indian. If USA, UK, Australia and most of developed and democratic countries as well as some countries in the region see no issues in granting dual citizenship to their citizens, then people argue that there is no rational basis for India to deny dual citizenship to Indians. PM Modi has the political capital to deliver this long-standing demand. A petition and campaign for Dual citizenship is running on Change.org (http://tinyurl.com/kxtlosw) and Social media presently (http://tinyurl.com/m4b4luu).

Effective anti-corruption body: A group of 10-15 people from civil society including eminent jurists and overseas Indians (if possible) as well as politicians should be asked to review the Lokpal Act, passed by the Lok Sabha earlier, and suggest steps to rectify weaknesses to make it an effective corruption fighting body. Such body should have sufficient resources to discharge its functions. Unlike previous Govts, this whole process to fine-tune this should not take more than one year from the time NDA Govt took office.

The PM’s global Overseas Indians Advisory body: The PM should revamp his Global Advisory Body, constituted by the previous Govt. People in it should be those who have significant presence, influence and interactions among Indians in their countries. The practice of Indian diplomats recommending their sycophants to become members of this body should be done away with.

Country specific Overseas Indian Advisory body: Countries with significant overseas Indian populations (Australia is certainly one such country) should have an advisory body of not more than 10 people, which can be used for consultations and other advisory purposes, not only by the local GOI authorities/agencies, but also the relevant authorities/agencies in India. Its term should be for not more than 2 years.

Annual consultation between High Commission and Community: Previous High Commissioner of India in Australia, and current External Affairs Secretary, Smt Sujatha Singh, started a novel, and productive, mechanism to meet the community representatives in Canberra on a yearly basis. Representatives from all over Australia would assemble on a weekend to discuss and suggest things to Indian diplomats. Current High Commissioner, Biren Nanda, did not continue this practice. The communication from High Commission and community has been limited and confined to a small group of people, who are close to HCI. Previous practice of community consultation needs to be reactivated.

Annual dialogue between Indian and Australian leaders: Indian Australians will like to see formal and regular annual meetings between PMs, Foreign Affairs Ministers and Defence Ministers, with venues alternating between India and Australia.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA): The pace of the discussions and negotiations should be accelerated so that FTA can be concluded by the end of 2015. This will accelerate bilateral trade which has come down to about $15 billion from previous high of $21 billion. This is important as Australia already has FTAs with Japan, South Korea and China.

Bilateral and multi-lateral defence exercises between India and Australia: India and Australia should work actively to enhance their defence & strategic relations bilaterally and multilaterally in the pattern agreed prior to the 2007 Rudd Govt in Australia.

Hindi teachings in Australian Universities: To increase India’s soft power and increase the numbers of India-literate Australians, India should consider seriously funding such teaching courses in at least one University each in Sydney and Melbourne. Discussions should be had between relevant authorities to explore equal sharing of cost between Australia and India.

Facilitations of Australian Universities and TAFE to have campuses in India: Many Australian institutions are ranked quite highly in various world Universities ranking systems. Collaborations in this field should be actively facilitated and encouraged, following a pragmatic and win-win module. Indian regulations to facilitate this should be considered.

Recognition of TAFE diploma in India: Many Indian students come to Australia to train in TAFE institutes. Many then move on to Universities to complete degrees. In addition to the diplomas not being recognised to the extent that the students wanting to pursue this study in Australia do not even get the education loans, Association of Indian Universities (the peak body responsible for recognising foreign degrees) does not recognise even Bachelor degrees that may have resulted from a credit transfer after a diploma resulting in the degree component being lesser than 3 year duration. (Diploma to Degree). This is a unique feature of Australian Qualification framework and so should be understood by Educational authorities. Quite a good numbers of Indians in Australia have earned their degrees through this pathway. TAFE institutes are a unique institution and it will be beneficial for India to consider recognizing diplomas from TAFE.

Bilateral Internship positions for Australians and Indians: Institutes and Universities of repute in both countries should be encouraged to develop mechanisms to have short term (3-6 months) placements for students and researchers to enhance collaboration in science and research.

Indian media’s bureau/representatives in Australia: During 2009-10, Indian media reported issues involving Indian students in an exaggerated way, erroneously attributing racism in literally every incident. They did not interact with local long-term Indians. It was harder for media to have a grasp of the ground realities. It will be helpful if key media outlets consider basing their representatives in Australia to cover Oceania. With increasing trade related activities between Australia and India and with increased number of Indians here, there could be sufficient justification for such decisions. Indian Govt can encourage media houses to take up this matter. A good beginning could be of a posting a full time Press Trust of India (PTI) reporter in Australia.

Indian Consulate in Brisbane: Queensland is an important state for Indian investment. Indian business houses like the Adani group have an important and a significant presence in this state. It is important to have an Indian Consulate in Brisbane.

India House or Indian Cultural Centre in major capital cities: There are more than 500,000 people of Indian heritage in Australia, with a big concentration in Sydney and Melbourne. People believe that there should be Indian cultural centers in Australia, at least in Sydney and Melbourne. While some funding will be raised locally, a significant part of the funds should come from Indian Govt. Govt of India (GOI) Funds, if any, allocated for something of this nature to be established in the Indian Consulate premises in Sydney CBD should be reviewed and re-allocated for a center of this nature in areas like Parramatta or Blacktown, where the Indian community has a substantial presence. Sydney CBD is not a practical or appropriate site for an Indian Cultural Centre.

Overseas Indians’ property in India: Many overseas Indians are seeing that their properties are illegally occupied and face threats to their safety when they visit India. Court cases go on for extended periods of time. Indian Penal Code and relevant laws should be amended to tackle this menace.

Interactions between GOI agencies and Indian Australian community: It is often felt that GOI authorities in Australia do not interact with people sufficiently, thus leading to a communication gap. It is a common experience that there is a significant gap between what we expect and what is delivered. It is also felt that GOI officials often get embroiled in local community politics and play “favoritism” games depending on who they like or dislike. It is quite irrational and subjective. Steps should be implemented to improve the situation.

Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs visit to Australia: With approx. 500,000 people of Indian heritage in Australia, a biennial visit of Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs (The Hon Sushma Swaraj) or her deputy, The Hon Gen (Retd) V K Singh or External Affairs Secretary, should be included in the official GOI travel calendar. This will help facilitate interactions with the community and facilitate Overseas Indians’ investment in India.

Streamlined grievance redressal mechanism for Overseas Indians: Overseas Indian Affairs ministry has often not been very helpful and help has often not come in a timely fashion due to excessive bureaucratic influences. This should be reviewed and streamlined.

Exchanges between Academicians and civil Society leaders: We need regular bilateral exchange visits of academics, journalists, leaders and civil society leaders. This will help improve relations between the two countries. The scope and numbers should be increased.

In summary, it will be of mutual benefit to the community in Australia and India if the Indian government is proactive in considering the interests and welfare of the Indian community down under.

 

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/14th November, 2014

dryadusingh@gmail.com

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

au.linkedin.com/in/dryadusingh/

 

by

Australia concludes Nuclear trade deal with India!

Australian FlagSydney, 21st Aug, 2014Indian Flag flying

From various news sources, it is clear that Australia has concluded Civil nuclear deal with India recently. Uranium trade between Australia and India is likely to start soon. It appears that the deal has been concluded relatively quickly after India elected its new Govt led by Mr Narendra Modi. The agreement is likely to be signed by India and Australia during Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s visit to India in the first week of September.

Let me also point out that it was Prime Minister John Howard who announced in 2007 that Australian Govt will reverse the ban to sell Uranium to India. It changed when Kevin Rudd became the Prime Minister a few months later and reversed it. Finally, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was the one who campaigned successfully to get ALP reverse its policy to ban Uranium sale to India in Dec 2011, followed by an agreement between Australia and India to start the negotiations on the nitty gritty of the supply agreement in 2012.

I wrote about this matter a few years ago. http://tinyurl.com/7bytnbo & http://tinyurl.com/6s7d7dx

Australia-India relations are on an upswing, after having suffered a few years ago.

I and many from Indian Australian Community are very happy with the improved Australia-India relations.

Congratulations are due to Australian Govt led by Mr Tony Abbott and Indian Govt led by Mr Narendra Modi. Foreign Minister of Australia, Julie Bishop, and Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Smt Sushma Swaraj, have also played a big role.

India is currently third in the list of countries which use nuclear energy. There are 21 nuclear reactors in India which are producing electricity but India needs to increase such electricity production, knowing electricity shortage. Currently, nuclear energy constitutes only 4% of total electricity production.

Australia has 1/3rd of the total Uranium of the world. This agreement is going to make Uranium supply to India much easier.

As usual, and in a totally predictable manner, Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, did not like it at all, and used some arguments, which are irrelevant and dated. NPT issue is not relevant in India’s case after India was given an exemption by Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2008. Also, unlike India’s neighbours, India has never been involved in nuclear proliferation.

India is going through the discussions for Civil nuclear trade with Japan currently. Once concluded, India should be able to accelerate nuclear energy production.

Since 2005 onwards, India has already entered into civil nuclear agreements with the US, Mangolia, Namibia, Argentina, the UK, Canada, Kazakhstan and South Korea, France and Russia.  

Indian Australian community has a desire to see speedy growth in Australia India relations in all dimensions and aspects.

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

au.linkedin.com/in/dryadusingh/

by

Plans to repeal Section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act dumped!

Tony Abbott

Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, announced today that he has dumped plans to repeal Section 18C of Racial Discrimination Act.

He said that he wants to work with communities as part of “Team Australia”.

This is very sensible and very welcome!

Of the 4100 submissions in regards to Sec 18C, 76% were against the repeal or any tempering of Section 18C.

Ethnic communities were overwhelmingly against the repeal. These included Chinese, Arabic, Jewish, Indians and many others.

ALP leaders, especially NSW Leader of Opposition,  John Robertson, and most Liberal Party leaders, especially Premiers of NSW (Mike Baird) and Victoria (Denis Napthine), Craig Lundy (Reid MP), Matt Kean (Hornsby MP), Geoff Lee (Parramatta MP) and Alex Hawke (Mitchell MP) were opposed to the proposal to repeal Sec 18C.

NSW Community Relations Commission (CRC) too took a stand against this repeal proposal. CRC chief, Vic Alhadeff, took a prominent leadership role in opposing this repeal proposal.

From our side, my friends and I ran a campaign via Social media and Blog post.

My post (http://tinyurl.com/pqfv8ct) was forwarded to more than 15000 people of Indian Australian Community, with overwhelming support to oppose the repeal. I encouraged my fellow community members to forward the Blog post to their network and send their submissions to the Attorney General, Senator George Brandis.

My Blog post was also published in many Australian newspapers. Hills News, Penrith City Gazette and Blacktown Sun were the most prominent among them.

http://www.hillsnews.com.au/story/2246552/dr-yadu-singh-why-section-18c-of-racial-discrimination-act-should-not-be-repealed/

http://www.theindiantelegraph.com.au/the-growing-presence-of-a-leader-dr-yadu-singh-takes-the-fight-where-it-matters/

http://www.veooz.com/news/2H8dFMX.html

http://www.penrithcitygazette.com.au/story/2246552/dr-yadu-singh-why-section-18c-of-racial-discrimination-act-should-not-be-repealed/

http://www.blacktownsun.com.au/story/2246552/dr-yadu-singh-why-section-18c-of-racial-discrimination-act-should-not-be-repealed/

I am pleased that repeal proposal has been dumped.

Prime Minister deserves a thank you and people who campaigned against the repeal deserve a special “thank you and well done”.

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/5th Aug, 2014

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

 

 

in favour

 

by

India should not be used by anyone as a launch pad for sea voyage to Australia!

Sydney, 29th July, 2014

Boat people Boat people2 Indian Flag

I am perturbed with some commentary whereby some people including Senator Sarah Hanson-Young are casting indirect aspersion on how India treats refugees. (http://tinyurl.com/k239hsr) Points are being made that India is not a signatory county to UN Refugees Convention. Some of them have mentioned even terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and A-Sham) in the same paragraph. ISIS executes people in cold-blood, and is hurting and subjugating people from religions other than their Sunni sect of Islam. This, even indirect aspersion, is inappropriate and offensive. India is not ISIS and can not even be remotely equated with it.

India is a vibrant and the biggest democracy of the world. It has rule of law with free judiciary and totally free media. It has refugees from Sri Lanka, Burma, Bangladesh, China and many other countries. It has a proud and long history of welcoming persecuted people from all corners of the world. Parsis (Zoroastrians) left Persia because they were persecuted. Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans exiles have lived in India for several decades without any persecution or troubles. India treats refugees humanly and with care. India may not be a signatory to UN Refugees convention, but its treatment of those who claim refuge is exemplary. UNHCR (United Nation’s High Commission for Refugees) itself has said this about  India many times. India lets UNHCR do the assessment about people’s refugee status, which is fair,  appropriate and prudent.

Raising concerns about India’s credentials as a caring society is objectionable.

Coming to the current issue of 157 boat people (all likely to be Sri Lankan Tamils) who were intercepted by Australian Navy just outside its Maritime zone about a month ago, it is clear that the Boat has come from Indian Shores. From all the information, it is clear that they are all Sri Lankan Tamils, who were in a refugee camp near Pondicherry, South India. India is affected in multiple ways and is a concerned party. Its shores were used as the launching pad for this boat to Australia. India needs to know who these people are and how did they use Indian shores for launching  the voyage to Australia.

It is a security issue for India. India has an ongoing issue with Pakistan, from where terrorists enter Indian territories to perpetrate terrorist attacks in India. I am not saying that the boat in question is carrying terrorists, but not being concerned and alarmed with this type of voyage will render India a hypocrite. India has a right to figure out who these people are and what is the exact composition of these people.

Australia and India are friendly countries, and have strategic relations. I am pleased that Australian Minister for Immigration & Border Control, Scott Morrison, visited India recently and had a discussion with Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Smt Sushma Swaraj. He was able to get an undertaking from Indian Govt that it will take back these people if they are Indian citizens and residents. That is a huge achievement for Australia.

India will not, and should not, allow its territories to be used as the launch pad for things which are against any other nation. In this case, it is the stated policy of Australia that they do not want to entertain illegal maritime arrivals. Current Federal Govt took the policy of “Stop the boats” to people during 2013 election and received a mandate. Previous Govt led by Julia Gillard/Kevin Rudd too had this policy. Offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals has been the policy of Govts of both political persuasions.

Australia can not afford to have the repetition of 5000 people arriving every month, claiming refugee status. We do not have the money to afford their accommodation, food, health and education. Our national Budget is in deficit and our economy is in stress. We have to look after our elderly, homeless and less fortunate people first. We have to look after our disadvantaged people first.

Australia should accept its fair share of refugees, but there is no way it can afford an unlimited number of people who want to come to our shores with refugee claim. Australia is a caring and generous society, but there is a limit to it.

I am concerned that some people decide to come to Australia from countries where they were not facing persecution. India is definitely one such country. There is no persecution programme for anyone in India. Indians generally, free Indian  media and independent judiciary will not let this happen either.

About the people in the Boat, who have now been brought to Curtin Detention Centre, I am not sure that they faced any persecution in India. Based on the prevalent governance and political system, it is unlikely they faced any persecution in India. They were living in the area ie Tamil Nadu, which is the homeland of Tamils in India.

This fact alone makes it likely that they are economic refugees, not genuine refugees.

If there is any Indian national in this group of people, then they should be sent back to India without any delay, because their claim for refugee status will be bogus, preposterous and baseless.

Australia has all the rights to refuse to accept economic refugees. Australia has all the sovereign rights to control flow of illegal maritime arrivals. Australia in fact has an undeniable responsibility to look after its disadvantaged people before allocating billions on people who are not Australia’s primary responsibility.

I see no problem in Australia working with India to figure out who these people are, where they have come from and why have they come to our shores in this manner.

Australia has full rights to send them to the country from where they have come from if they are not genuine refugees.

Australia has a well-stated and bipartisan policy of offshore processing and not settling illegal maritime arrivals in Australia. Australia does not encourage illegal maritime arrivals. It has been working with nations in the region to stop the illegal maritime arrivals. This is the first boat which has been allowed to land on our shores in over 7 months, presumably to allow sufficient time to Indian officials to process information and cross-check it.

Australia is within its rights to work with nations in our region to achieve the stated policy goals. I am in full support of these goals. I know many others, in fact a majority of Australians, are in support of these goals.

Finally, India should not allow anyone, under any circumstance, to use its shores or territories as a launch pad for voyage as “illegal maritime arrival” to Australia or any other country!

Dr Yadu Singh

dryadusingh@gmail.com

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

 

 

 

 

by

Why Western Sydney needs an Airport at Badgerys Creek?

Image

(Pic courtesy Daily Telegraph Newspaper)

Does Sydney need a second airport, and if yes, where?

This debate has been going on for decades. It is about time that Govt starts a real action.

Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) will not be able to provide new slots for any airline beyond 2027, while number of passengers will keep growing. 87 million passengers are expected to use KSA by 2035, and these numbers will double by 2060. The capacity deficit in landing slots beyond 2027 will adversely impact NSW/Australian economy. $60 billion is the cost by 2060 due to capacity constraints at KSA.

Capacity constraints can be ameliorated to some extent if landing/taking off curfew at KSA between 11PM to 6AM can be relaxed or removed. This is not practical because this curfew is part of an Act, and it will not be allowed by people living near KSA.

This is thus clear that Sydney needs a second airport. There is no further capacity at 900 ha KSA to build new runways or extend its operation.

Badgerys Creek, a 1700 ha land in South West Sydney, can be a good site for second airport. The land is owned by Commonwealth, and has been meant to be used for 2nd airport. It was acquired wayback in 1986-91. Wilton near Campbelltown is not as good a site as Badgerys Creek is, because it will require much bigger cost in building an airport and the associated infrastructure. Badgerys Creek can be built and be in operation in 10 years, while Wilton will take 17 years.

Badgerys Creek is therefore the only realistic site at present for Sydney’s second airport.

Studies have shown that an airport in Western Sydney will generate 28000 jobs by 2050, and add billions to the economy. It will supercharge the economy in Western Sydney.

Western Sydney has higher unemployment rates, and there are pockets where upto 30% are unemployed.

It is expected that here will be 500,000 job deficit in Western Sydney by 2050.

Western Sydney needs major infrastructure projects to turbo-charge economy and create jobs.

An airport in Badgerys Creek is definitely one such infrastructure. An airport alone somewhere in the middle of paddock in Western Sydney will not be enough. The region needs road and rail network, linking it with South West Rail link and possibly NW Rail Link. Roads in the region will need to upgraded and linked with M4, M5 and M7. It will cost money, which needs to come from Federal and State funding. That is where it becomes necessary for Commonwealth and NSW Govt to work co-operatively for the sake of Western Sydney region and its residents.

Western Sydney can’t be ignored because its people are not second class, and it is the engine-head of NSW economy. Recent survey has suggested its economic growth to be far superior to North Sydney and Sydney CBD. Some area within Western Sydney had economic growth rate above 6%, while CBD grew by about 1% only.

NSW economy needs Western Sydney!

Recent surveys have found that majority of people in Western Sydney support an airport in Western Sydney. Many councils including Liverpool Council and Holroyd Council are sympathetic to Badgerys Creek Airport.

NSW ALP and its leader, John Robertson, and federal ALP Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, are in support. Deputy PM, Warren Truss, Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and PM, Tony Abbott, are in support for the second airport. There appears to be a bipartisan support federally. Mulgoa MP, Mrs Tanya Davies, is in support. Penrith Council Mayor is sympathetic. Many federal MPs like Craig Lundy and Alex Hawke are supporting it, but others like Fiona Scott, Chris Bowen and Ed Husic are apparently opposed to it.

People living in Western Sydney will need to lobby their State and Federal MPs, and local Councils to get them behind an airport in Western Sydney.

Initially, NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell was against such airport, and was in favour of extension/upgrade of Canberra airport  for this purpose, but this proposition is not being favoured by anyone, because of distance and $8-10 billion cost in providing a high-speed rail between Canberra and Sydney.

It is about time that leaders from all persuasions and all tiers of Govt start working co-operatively for the interest of Western Sydney region and its residents!

I see merit in the demands of Western Sydney Airport Alliance, asking for a definitive announcement of Badgerys Creek Airport soon (if we want aeroplanes to start Flying from Badgerys Creek Airport by 2027), establishing a dedicated “Western Sydney Airport Authority” and starting community awareness/consultation about technical aspects of the airport, not the site per se.

Badgerys Creek is practically and realistically the only site for an airport in Western Sydney.

To avoid any political implication for any Party, let there be a bipartisan announcement from leaders which should include Prime Minister, NSW Premier, Leader of Federal Opposition, and Leader of NSW Opposition.

Dr Yadu Singh/5th March, 2014

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

 

by

Australian Uranium to India:Why Australia should sell it to India?

Last year, the then PM, Kevin Rudd and several ministers including the then Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard visited India. India is an important country for Australia on multiple counts. It is a rising global power which is also an important trading partner of Australia. Indian students’ issues aside, both countries enjoy friendly relations with one another. 

We, Indian Australians, have a keen interest in seeing good relations between these two countries.

Both countries must consider the interests of one another while doing business with one another. There are too many things which bind us together. These are our democracies, rule of law, multi-cultural societies, love of Cricket and memberships of the Commonwealth to name a few.

Previous Australian Gov led by PM John Howard did many things to move Australia and India closer. He declared that he would sell Uranium to India as India had impeccable records of nuclear non-proliferation. Other important step in this direction was a decision to initiate a quadrilateral strategic dialogue involving USA, Australia, India and Japan. Yet another was the naval exercises called Malabar exercises involving  Navies from India, USA, Australia, Japan and Singapore. After winning the Gov in 2007, Kevin Rudd led ALP Gov reversed the decision to sell Uranium to India and other steps too became non-operative from one or the other reason. Unhappy with Australia’s policies, India did not participate in Kakadu Naval exercises where even Pakistani Navy showed up.  Basically, Australia-India relations have moved backward since 2007. They moved back a few degrees more after the students’ issues last year. A serious work is required to rectify this situation.

Indian economy is growing and will keep growing for years to come. GFC [Global Financial Crisis] did not affect India as much as it did others. India is on a roll. The only thing which holds India down is the fact that it has a problem in regards to its energy supply. It needs more and more energy for its growth. It  needs as much energy as it can get its hands on. Indian economy’s growth is essential not only for India but it is also essential for the health of the world economy.

India has been exploring all sources of energy supply as its local supply is far shorter than what it needs. India has to import petroleum from the Arab countries and is debating about the gas supply from Iran. Iranian Gas is however problematic as it has to transit via Pakistani territory which is a problem in itself. Pakistani Govt authorities will never be able to guarantee a secure transit due to its weakness and the presence of the “non-state actors” there who are anti-India. In addition, India cannot rule out a war between India and Pakistan which will create problems in the transit of the gas.

India is therefore forced to explore the option of atomic energy. It has no choice. Thanks to the leadership of The Prime Minister, Mr ManMohan Singh and the then US President, Mr George Bush, India has an India-specific NSG [Nuclear Suppliers’ Group] exemption in 2009 which enabled it  to have bilateral nuclear energy deals with USA, Russia, France, Canada and some more countries. India needs a similar deal with Australia which will allow the Uranium sale to India. Australia has about 40% of world Uranium and sells it to China. NPT should not be an obstacle for Australia to sell Uranium to India after the NSG’s India specific exemption and with India’s impeccable record in nuclear non-proliferation. NSG exemption was a testimony to the fact that India has been a responsible country and has never been involved in nuclear proliferation, unlike others in our neighbourhood. Australia supported this exemption. NSG exemption permits nuclear trade by India without signing NPT.

We should remind ourselves about what the former Australian PM, Mr John Howard had said about such sale. He said that it would not be fair to sell Uranium to China and deny that to India. PM Howard was dead right.

When Kevin Rudd’s ALP Gov reversed Mr Howard’s decision, India was upset and disappointed. Indian Australians were upset too. People felt that it was an unfair decision. India had a difficulty to understand the logic behind this decision once India was given NSG exemption with an active support from Australia.  NPT issue is not relevant at all in regards to India as India has impeccable records in these matters. ALP’s policy, insisting on NPT signature by India, is wrong and ill-considered. Australian Foreign Minister Mr Stephen Smith’s press conference in New Delhi is worth going through. It is available through DFAT website. India has never been involved in nuclear proliferation unlike Pakistan and China. China is a NPT signatory but its record in these matters is not that great. Everybody knows the nexus between China and Pakistan. We should not forget how North Korea got its atomic bombs. Pakistan would not have supplied anything to North Korea without the consent of China. Manuals in Chinese language were found even in Lybia which tried to buy things from disgraced proliferators like AQ Khan of Pakistan.

Simply put, it makes no sense for Australian Uranium going to China but not to India. In fact, there is more justification for Uranium sale to India. It will be pragmatic and a smart move if ALP drops its objection to selling Uranium to a non-NPT signatory country like India because India has fault-free records in proliferation matters and this fact has been recognised by the world with the India specific NSG waiver.  ALP decision to not sell Uranium to India has been considered unfriendly by many quarters in India and Indian Australian community. It is a big stumbling block in good Australia-India relations.

I have urged the Australian PM and ALP to give India a “fair go” through emails and my Blog. I argued that it was what was expected from a friendly country. It is not fair to bind Australia with the NPT dogma and not see the whole issue in a realistic way. A friend has to see the problems of  his/her friends properly. Australia is a friend of India. It showed it by supporting the NSG exemption for India in Vienna last year. It shows it by supporting a permanent position for India in UNSC. It is about time that we see it once again by seeing Uranium trade between Australia and India. As we understand, it [ALP] would not have any political fallout from its decision to sell Uranium to India because the Coalition is already in favour of doing so. It should not be a problem to amend Atomic energy Act either, giving an India-specific exemption for Australian Uranium sale to India. I remain doubtful though whether ALP and specifically ALP Left will change its objection in this regard.

I urge my Australian Indian friends to lobby with their local MPs on this matter. We need to pool our energies in persuading the Australian Gov to sell Uranium to India.

Like Lowy Institute’s Rory Medcalf [Ex Australian High Commissioner to New delhi], I and thousands of my friends in Australia do believe strongly that Australia should sell Uranium to India. We find this refusal to sell Uranium to India  unfair and illogical. India needs new and cleaner sources of energy  and nuclear energy is at the top of its list. Nuclear energy will not only help India but it will help the whole world as it will reduce pollution and carbon emission.

A time has come when Australia sees the issues properly and does the right thing. That right thing is to sell Uranium to India.

PM Julia Gillard, if elected on 21st Aug, will get an opportunity to change this illogical policy and sell Uranium to India but will she do it is yet to be seen.

Tony Abbott, if he gets the mandate on 21st Aug, and his team including Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb have already reconfirmed their resolve to sell Uranium to India.

We want some significant movement for more meaningful and better Australia- India relations.

The question in our minds is whether ALP will do the right thing or whether it would be the coalition which will do it!

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/09-11-09 

singhyadu@gmail.com

www.twitter.com/dryadusingh