Household Dogs Protect Against Asthma, Infection

Research Shows How Household Dogs Protect Against Asthma, Infection

Study Points to Changes in Gut Microbes

  December 16, 2013

 Children’s risk for developing allergies and asthma is  

 reduced when they are exposed in early infancy to a 

 dog in the household, and now researchers have 

 discovered a reason why.

 Exposure of mice to dust from houses where canine 

 pets are permitted both indoors and outdoors can 

 reshape the community of microbes that live in the 

 mouse gut — collectively known as the gastrointestinal microbiome — and also diminish immune system reactivity to common allergens, according to a new study by researchers led by Susan Lynch, PhD, associate professor with the Division of Gastroenterology at UC San Francisco, and Nicholas Lukacs, PhD, professor with the Department of Pathology at the University of Michigan.The scientists also identified a specific bacterial species within the gut that is critical to protecting the airways against both allergens and viral respiratory infection.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), is published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and involves a multi-disciplinary group of researchers from UCSF, the University of Michigan, Henry Ford Health System and Georgia Regents University.

Dust Protects the Lungs' Airways

The results were obtained in studies of mice challenged with allergens after earlier exposure to dust from homes with dogs, but the results also are likely to explain the reduced allergy risk among children raised with dogs from birth, according to the study leaders.

In their study, the scientists exposed mice to cockroach or protein allergens. They discovered that asthma-associated inflammatory responses in the lungs were greatly reduced in mice previously exposed to dog-associated dust, in comparison to mice that were exposed to dust from homes without pets or mice not exposed to any dust.

Among the bacterial species in the gut microbiome of these protected mice, the researchers homed in on one, Lactobacillus johnsonii. When they fed it alone to mice, they found it could prevent airway inflammation due to allergens or even respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. Severe RSV infection in infancy is associated with elevated asthma risk.

The researchers showed in this experiment that protection of the lungs’ airways was associated with reduced numbers and activity of asthma-associated immune cells.

The level of protection with this single species was less than that obtained with the full complement of dust microbes from dog owners’ homes, indicating that other, environmentally sourced bacterial species probably are necessary for full airway protection, Lynch said.

This result suggests that Lactobacillus johnsonii or other species of “good” bacteria might one day be used to reshape the gut microbiome in ways that can prevent the development of asthma or allergies, or perhaps even to treat existing cases, she said.

Gut Microbiome's Affect on Immune System

Lynch’s own work and research by several others in the field has led her to become convinced that “the composition and function of the gut microbiome strongly influence immune reactions and present a novel avenue for development of therapeutics for both allergic asthma and a range of other diseases.”

The current study demonstrates that changes in the gut microbiome can have wide-reaching effects on immune function beyond the gut, at sites elsewhere in the body, Lynch said.

The team had previously demonstrated that the presence of a dog that roams both inside and outside was associated with a significantly more diverse house dust microbiome that was enriched for species found in the gastrointestinal tract of humans.

After teaming up with Lukacs, an expert on immune responses in lung disease, Lynch said, “We set out to investigate whether being exposed to a distinct house dust microbiome associated with indoor/outdoor dogs mediated a protective effect through manipulation of the gut microbiome and, by extension, the host immune response.”

“The results of our study indicate that this is likely to be one mechanism through which the environment influences immune responses in early life, and it is something we are currently examining using human samples in a large multi-institutional collaborative study funded by the NIAID.” “Gut microbiome manipulation represents a promising new therapeutic strategy to protect individuals against both pulmonary infection and allergic airway disease,” Lynch said.

University of California San Francisco

Smelling a rat - a study that suggested GM food may cause cancer has been retracted.

Smelling a rat

GM maize, health and the Seralini affair

The Economist - December 7, 2013

GENETICALLY modified maize causes cancer: that was the gist of one of the most controversial studies in recent mem­ory, published in September 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology. Well, actually, GM maize doesn't cancer and, on November 28th, the journal re­tracted the paper. This followed criticism that the rats used in the experiment were prone to cancer anyway; that the experimental pro­tocol used could not distinguish between tumours which might have been caused by gm food from those that were spontaneous (the experiment had been set up to investigate a different question and thus included too few ani­mals); and the authors offered no mechanism by which gm food could cause cancer. While it may be too much to say that gm foods have been proven to be safe for human consumption, no other study has found health risks in mammals from eating them.

The article was by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, in France, and his colleagues. It described what happened to rats fed with NK6O3 maize, a variety made by US firm Mon­santo and which was resistant to the herbicide glyphosate thanks to a genetic modification of the maize DNA. Monsanto also discovered glyphosate's herbicidal proper­ties, selling it under the trade name "Roundup". Because the crop is resistant to glyphosate, farmers can spray their fields with it, killing weeds but leaving the maize unscathed.

In Dr Seralini's experiment, rats fed with the modified maize were reckoned more likely to develop tumours than those which had not been. Females were espe­cially badly affected: their death rates were two or three times as high as those of con­trol groups. (Rats fed with diluted glypho­sate also suffered health damage.)

The article was explosive. Jean-Marc Ayrault, France's prime minister, said that if its results were confirmed his govern­ment would press for a Europe-wide ban on NK6O3 maize. Russia suspended im­ports of the crop. Kenya banned all gm crops. The article came out two months be­fore a referendum in California that would have required the labelling of all gm foods. It played a role in the vote, though in the event the proposition was defeated.

The paper had all the more impact be­cause it contradicted previous studies on GM foods. Research published in 2007 by Japan's Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology on genetically modified soyabeans, for example, report­ed "no apparent adverse effect in rats" from the beans (or from glyphosate). That finding was confirmed by a review of all the available evidence by a team at the University of Nottingham, in England, published in 2012.

But Dr Seralini's paper was also explo­sive for reasons unrelated to its content. It stirred up controversy before it was even published because the authors insisted that journalists who were given advance copies could not seek independent com­ment on the paper's contents when writing their articles, and would face a large fine if they did so. This was an unusual and widely criticised requirement, which had the ef­fect of ensuring that third-party criticism of the paper did not appear during the im­portant early days when a huge amount of public attention was focused on the find­ings. That may help explain the panicky re­actions in France, Kenya and Russia.

Though the paper has been retracted, that is unlikely to be end of the matter. The journal's publisher said there was "no evi­dence of fraud or intentional misrepresen­tation of the data", which are the usual jus­tifications for retraction. Scientific opinion runs strongly against the conclusion that GM foods are harmful - but not universally so. A group called the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility backed Dr Seralini. And anti-GM activists are unabashed: in Au­gust, a group in the Philippines destroyed a field study of Golden Riceh had been geneti­cally modified to carry beta-carotene, a chemical precursor of vitamin a. Deficien­cies of this vitamin contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of chil­dren every year and make many more blind. Neither the prospect of public-health benefits in poor countries, nor the absence of scientific evidence of damage to health is dulling the edge of the environ­mental campaign against all gm foods.

Great Coastal Living Opportunity - block for sale at Peppermint Grove Beach

Ever wanted to live in a sea-side subdividision, mid-way between two much larger urban centres? We have a vacant block for sale - Lot 61 Hayfield Drive - where we live at Peppermint Grove Beach roughly equidistant between Bunbury and Busselton. This lot is set high at the back of the primary Peppie Beach sand dune and has excellent views inland over the wetlands and tuart forest - better views than from our home of 31 years!
Peppermint Grove Beach is a wonderful place to live which explains why we've lived here since 1982 and intend to only move out in a box! It enjoys beautify beaches, 10 minutes drive to Capel, a friendly and supportive community, with an active community association that holds social functions and does a great job of representing landowners and residents to local government.
Access to the lot is via a fully-formed battle-axe roadway jointly owned with our next door neighbour. The position of this roadway means that the view from the lot can never be built out.
The lot is 1100sq m in size and the area on which a house can be built is about 850sq m.
We purchased this block just before the GFC and our attempts to build a house on it have been frustrated by the builder we chose.To date, we've brought in 250 tonnes of quality yellow sand for the sand pad, but some more levelling and a small retaining wall are still required.
The lot is an ideal shape for a passive solar designed home as it will readily accommodate a north-facing home.
Purchased for $369,000 in 2008, we will consider offers around $300,000.
Please phone Bernie and Carolina on 9727 2474 or 0408 944 242

Colin Barnett Should Learn The Lessons of Past Premiers

WA’s premier Colin Barnett is being justifiably criticised for a number of poor decisions or practices that have occurred since his re-election in March. But no one would be surprised by his actions and behaviour if they first understood that the premier has not learned the lessons derived from his predecessors' periods in charge of the state.

I don’t want this article to be a boring history lesson but, bear with me, I hope it will be instructive.

I first got involved in the political process in the mid-1980s when I joined the Liberal Party. At that time, Brian Burke was WA’s premier and the corruption of the WA Inc years was still well hidden. The opposition leader was Barry MacKinnon, someone who I developed much respect for as he attempted in the face of a media largely under Burke’s influence to expose the millions of dollars lost in the state government’s business dealings (and worse!). Barry achieved a 6.5% swing against the ALP at the 1989 election and the Liberal Party received a majority of votes – 52.38% - but lost the election thanks to the ALP gerrymander orchestrated by my former friend…… well, I’ll leave that story to another time.

In spite of MacKinnon’s hard work and majority vote at the 1989 election, he was replaced by Richard Court as leader of the opposition in 1992, a year before he won the 1993 election and became premier. I was really upset at MacKinnon’s dumping s leader. Even the media nicknamed Court ‘the wimp’ in the belief that he wasn’t a strong enough character to lead the state as premier.

I’m pleased to say that I subsequently found Court to be an excellent premier, making tough but sensible decisions to rid the state of the WA Inc legacy. Many of his first term decisions were potentially unpopular with electors: increased taxes, for example, to cover debt left behind by Burke. In recent years, my opinion of Court has gone higher, thanks to his personal interest in MPs like myself who lost their seats in less than honorable ways, but that’s also another story.

In 1996, Court was re-elected with an absolute majority in the lower house of Parliament. As yet another demonstration of his positive, constructive way of doing business as premier, he included the National Party as a member of the coalition government, even though their support wasn’t needed to give him government for a second term. As an aside, Hendy Cowan’s valedictory speech in 2002 showed a complete lack of respect and common courtesy for the former premier, but that’s another story too…!

This is where my story really starts. For the first six years of Richard Court’s eight years as premier, my personal view is that he governed well. No serious controversies; no poor decisions; no wastage of public money. But from 1999 onwards, things changed. In the final two years of his reign, Court stood idly by and allowed a series of bad decisions to be made:

·         * No action was taken against Doug Shave who was the minister responsible for fixing the mortgage brokers’ scandal which saw thousands of Perth investors (mainly retirees) lose most or all of their money in dodgy financial dealings

·         * He displayed poor leadership in the face of the Liberals for Forest campaign to stop logging of old growth forests

·         * There was no community consultation on the design of the Bell Tower, a building that made Court something of a laughing stock when the design ended up being copied from an existing building in Dubai

·         * The community consultation on the design of the Convention Centre, variously described as looking like a squashed cockroach or a thong (a flip-flop to overseas readers), was inadequate.

·         * He rejected the advice of a committee Court had himself set up on deregulation of the dairy industry, whose chair Barry House made sensible and reasonable findings and recommendations.

After two years of poor decisions such as these, Court lost the 2001 election to the ALP, handing Geoff Gallop the premiership.

Why was Court such a good premier for his first six years and such a bad one for the remaining two years? The answer, I believe, lies in the quality of the advice he received from his principal policy advisors. From 1993 to 1999, Ian Fletcher was Court’s chief sounding board. Most people including myself had never heard of Fletcher nor met him, yet it was clear that Fletcher told Court what he needed to hear. When Fletcher retired in 1999 to take a well–earned break, his replacements – nice people though they were – gave Court information which they believe he wanted to hear. Deidre Willmott and Dean Smith – both were and are competent, capable individuals who also happen to be nice people but, as history shows, both had political ambitions and my guess is they were not prepared to strenuously stand up to Richard Court to tell him what he needed to know in case it affected their future political careers.

Now let’s examine the ALP government from 2001 to 2008. Dr Geoff Gallop was an effective premier who went on to win the 2005 election before handing over to Alan Carpenter. While Gallop was premier, he had a strong team of advisors around him – Ross Field, Keiran Murphy, for example – and I’m sure they gave him the advice he needed to know. When Carpenter took over in 2006, one of the first decisions he took was to appoint Norm Marlborough, a close friend of now disgraced former premier Brian Burke, as a minister while also allowing ministers to interact with Burke, something that had been banned by Gallop. Very quickly, the manure hit the fan, with the Corruption and Crime Commission's subsequent inquiry into the Smith’s Beach land development proposal highlighting Carpenter’s poor judgment and costing several people their power, prestige or credibility.

Largely as a result of Carpenter’s poor decision to allow Burke back into the fold, the 2008 election was won by an about-to-retire but newly reappointed opposition leader in the form of Colin Barnett.  It wasn’t a clear-cut win, with Barnett having to form government with the support Nationals MPs, a couple of whom had wanted to form a coalition with the ALP. As well, Barnett needed the support of independent MP Liz Constable and soon he also enjoyed the support of other independents such as John Bowler and Adele Carles. Barnett’s dependence on people such as these and the narrow tightrope he had to walk as premier in a hung parliament forced him to listen to advice that he needed to hear. The end result was four years of what was generally considered to be good government.

All this changed in 2013 immediately after the state election. Barnett was returned with a strong majority. No more hung parliament; no need to rely on independents; no kowtowing to the Nationals who really didn’t do well at the election.

Suddenly, the weight was lifted and Barnett could do things he’d been prevented from doing in the previous term as premier. Foremost among these newly found freedoms was his desire to leave a legacy that people would remember him by – Elizabeth Quay, a new football stadium, a new light rail link to Perth airport, a new light rail line from Girrawheen. Spend, spend, spend! It wouldn’t matter what the bill came to because, as I believe, Barnett will retire before the next election, hand over to his treasurer Troy Buswell (lots of potential stories there for another day!), retire to a life of leisure on his Toodyay hobby farm and watch from afar as the ALP win the 2017 election and spend the next one or two terms of government grappling with a large state debt, reduced GST income and a subdued mining-based state economy.

So, with Barnett’s power almost beyond challenge, he does not need to listen to what his advisors say. Instead, knowing that this is his chance to leave a legacy that will be remembered fondly in decades to come, he simply puts up with the political damage arising from proposed reductions in solar feed-in tariffs (now reversed), additional school fees for the children of 457 visa holders (now watered down), the sacking of 500 teaching and support staff from the Education Department (he’ll probably get away with this policy decision) and forced local government amalgamations (but let’s see what the Liberal Party back bench MPs have to say about this decision).

Barnett’s not a fool of course. The reason why he’s backed down on a couple of decisions made as part of the August 2013 budget is because even he recognises there are more important issues to take account of. The September Federal election was one such issue which caused the solar feed-in tariff to be changed; genuine hardship that would be felt by people who couldn’t afford large increases in state government charges will be another strong influence on his thinking.

But the bottom line is that, like Richard Court in 1999 and Alan Carpenter in 2006, Colin Barnett appears to have decided to ignore his advisors and make decisions on the basis of his personal understanding of issues or his desire to push "the grand scheme" that he wants put in place before he retires. Clearly, in spite of many positive personal characteristics, Barnett does not have the wisdom of Solomon. Without being willing to have strong and unafraid policy advisors around him and with no desire to act upon fearless advice even if it's given to him, Barnett is consigning the Liberal Party to an election loss in 2017. By then, of course, he’ll be gone from WA’s political scene so he won’t mind if the Liberals become Her Majesty’s opposition for one or two terms. He’ll have achieved his goals and will retire happy.

Scientific Dishonesty on Climate Change by the Australian Antarctic Division

The Australian Antarctic Division of the federal government's Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has engaged in what I can only describe as scientific dishonesty on the anthropogenic climate change issue. In a media statement headed "Key Antarctic species under threat from ocean acidification", lead Division researcher Dr So Kawaguchi claims that his new research 'indicates serious challenges facing Antarctic krill - the primary food source for whales, seals and penguins - due to acidification in the Southern Ocean.' He states that 'A substantial decline in krill numbers would have disastrous implications not only for the health of the ocean environment but also on the future survival of the mammals and sea birds that rely on them.'

Fortunately for the world at large and for the Antarctic in particular, these claims are so grossly excessive as to be misleadingly dishonest. There are two reasons for saying this.

First, as stated near the bottom of the media release, the research is a prediction of what the world will be like in 'the year 2300 if CO₂ emissions continue to be released at the current rate'. That's 287 years from now and Dr Kawaguchi would have to be the greatest fortune teller or crystal ball gazer the world has ever known to be confident in stating what the world will be like three centuries from now.

Second, and this is a far more serious accusation, the basis of Dr Kawaguchi's research is deeply flawed. To understand why, you must click on the 'Data Centre website' and, once there, you must click on the link under the 'Experimental set-up' heading to find out what levels of CO2 the researchers used to assess the impact on krill. Only then do you discover that 'For eight batches of eggs, the embryos were incubated at: 380 μatm (control), 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, and 2000 micro-atm pCO2.'

What this means is as follows:
* the researchers bubbled air through jars containing krill eggs and
* the level of CO2 in the air was increased from today's CO2 levels of 380 parts per million or milligrams per litre to a maximum of 2000 ppm - five times today's level of CO2.

The actual results are not yet publicly available so we have to accept Dr Kawaguchi's claim that the krill eggs did not develop well at these elevated levels of CO2. But how realistic are these projected levels of 1000 to 2000 ppm of CO2 in a future global atmosphere? Well, in my view, not realistic at all. They represent the extreme worst case scenario and the researchers make no attempt to estimate the most likely or the best case scenarios - just the worst possible case.

In 1955, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 315 ppm. Today, 60 years later, they stand at about 390 ppm. This gives a per century increase of about 130 ppm. So let's assume no changes to the rate of increase of global CO2 emissions so that CO2 levels by 2100 will be 520 ppm; by 2200 they will be 650 ppm; and by 2300 they will reach 780 ppm. But at what CO2 level has Dr Kawaguchi started his experiment? At 1000 ppm, a level not likely to occur based on current CO2 increases until after 2400. And his 2000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 levels won't occur until the year 3100 or thereabouts - over 1000 years from now! To not state these exaggerated CO2 levels in the media release is poor science and, in my view, dishonest.

In my discussions with anthropogenic climate change skeptics (most of whom are geologists, by the way), I have been repeatedly told that the federal government's funding of climate change alarmists is so overwhelming that to be even a mild skeptic is to place funding for your research and hence your job at risk. Dr Kawaguchi appears to have acknowledged this threat to his research future and has grossly exaggerated the level of CO2 likely in the atmosphere 300 years from now, presumably in order to curry favour with his employers and their funding sources, thereby encouraging further research dollars into the future.

Of course, Dr Kawaguchi's defense may well be that there are positive feedback loops within the atmosphere and biosphere that may cause global CO2 levels to spiral upwards much faster than the present rate of about 130 ppm per century - by the release of CO2 currently trapped as carbon-rich organic matter within the northern hemisphere's tunda, for example. While such a scenario is possible, the media release makes no attempt to explain the science on which he based his 1000 to 2000 ppm CO2 levels in this  experiment nor did it explain the likelihood of these CO2 levels being reached by the year 2300.

This research is based on poor science and the results have been used for alarmist political purposes. The media release should be withdrawn, the results of the experiment should be made publicly available and the justification for using such high global CO2 levels needs to be explained.

Voluntary Euthanasia

For 20 years, I was a member of the Liberal Party, attempting to suggest new policy ideas or change existing policies. One issue that was always close to my heart was (and still is) voluntary euthanasia and, in the lead-up to the September 14 federal election, I can advise that I have joined a new political party - the VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA PARTY. With Australians living longer, many of us will face difficult times in our old age, not through a lack of finances - we baby boomers are the wealthiest cohort of Australians ever - but through the pain and suffering that we may experience as modern medicine keeps us alive while we battle diseases that would have killed us quickly a couple of generations ago.

If you believe in Australians being given a choice as to how and when they end their lives, please consider joining the Voluntary Euthanasia Party or at least voting for their candidates in the Senate.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Party was created to provide the choice and dignity that current legislation is denying the most vulnerable Australians. The party hopes to provide a clear political outlet for the overwhelming public support for voluntary euthanasia. Over four in five Australians are in favour of new legislation and we wish to allow that sentiment to be clearly demonstrated at the ballot box. The Voluntary Euthanasia Party aims to ensure dignity in the final years of life, by raising the profile of this issue in order to engender the necessary political will for change. 

 Party Policy

Like 85% of all Australians, we support the provision of medical procedures for the painless, assisted death of patients of a terminal or incurable illness, who are enduring unbearable suffering and who have expressed a desire for the procedures within appropriate legal safeguards. We believe that these patients deserve the right to make informed choices about the time and manner of their death through appropriate and humane medical assistance.

  Join The Party

This election we need to raise our voices and place voluntary euthanasia firmly on the election agenda. To achieve this, we are forming a political party to show politicians that Australians support voluntary euthanasia and we are willing to demonstrate this fact at the polls. Voluntary euthanasia has been off the radar at past elections as the major parties ignore the wishes of the vast majority of Australians. However, if enough of us raise our voices, tell our stories and show why this is important, we can change that. This is what our party stands to achieve. We will fight for these issues.

The Party's website address is  http://vep.org.au/ where you can join or make donations.

Government corruption and the local government referendum

The following article appeared in the June 11 edition of ON LINE opinion - see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=15103 . It makes a good case for voting against the referendum to recognise local government in the Australian constitution.

 

Government corruption and the local government referendum

David Galloway
Posted Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Australians love to knock back a referendum. But if you're looking for a good reason to vote "no" in the September 14 referendum, you might want to consider this.

We're being asked to approve a change to section 96 of the Constitution, so the Commonwealth can provide direct financial assistance to local government authorities.

That sounds harmless enough, until you sit the amendment next to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997and realise that, together, they create the perfectpork barrel.
To understand why, it's helpful to know a little about the High Court's judgement in Williams v The Commonwealth. This judgement gave us a refresher in good governance by pointing out what every parliamentarian should know. There are three arms of government, and democracy depends on each doing its job properly. The Executive (in practice the PM, Ministers and senior bureaucrats) manages the business of government. Parliament makes laws and stops the Executive becoming too authoritarian, while Courts interpret and apply laws.

As part of this separation of powers, the High Court ruled that the constitution prevents the Executive from spending public money on whatever it likes. Instead, spending must be authorised by a constitutional head of power and approved by Parliament through law.

The Court had to think about this because Williams objected to the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments paying taxpayer's money to Scripture Union Queensland. And it turned out there was no law approving the payments, making them unlawful. As a journalist might put it; Howard, Rudd and Gillard had been caught illegally funnelling money to religious fundamentalists.

On closer examination, it emerged that successive Executives had been spending quite a lot of our money improperly for a very long time. What's more, the Coalition and Labor were equally culpable. This was a big problem, and fixing it would be difficult. So the Executive decided to do the irresponsible thing, it asked Parliament to pass the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No3) (The final Act can be found here) .

In a truly Orwellian twist, this amended the Financial Management and Accountability Act to ensure the Executive was not accountable for its financial management by giving it authority to:
(1) make, vary or administer any arrangement by which public money is paid out by the Commonwealth;
(2) grant financial assistance to any person whatsoever; and
(3) enter into whatever future programs it wished.
So long as expenditure falls under one of a broad range of existing descriptions or a new regulation, the Executive could pay out vast amounts of our money without Parliamentary supervision.

This was legislation no democratically elected Parliament should pass, but ours did. What's more, politicians of all colours; red, blue, green and independent share responsibility. If ever there was a time to run from the House, complain loudly about mismanagement or make a stand on principle this was it. But, despite some ineffectual protests from the opposition, there was just no one left to keep the bastards honest.

Normally reserved legal scholars have roundly condemned Parliament for agreeing to the Bill, so I won't revisit that issue. Suffice to say that, if actions speak louder than words, our elected representatives have told us they're not fit to wield the powers they already have. So why would we give them more?
Which brings us to the perfect pork barrel.

The risk of corruption, mismanagement and waste in government has increased sharply now the Executive can decide how to spend vast amounts of public money without effective Parliamentary scrutiny. But some restrictions do remain. One of these is section 96 of the Constitution, the same section we're being asked to change. S 96 prevents the Commonwealth from directly funding local authorities by requiring it to provide funding to the States. That doesn't mean Commonwealth money can't go to local authorities. Only that States generally administer and negotiate grants, which limits the ability of both to misuse funds. But even that control would vanish if the referendum succeeded, allowing the Executive to direct funding to local authorities on whatever terms it desired.

Should we believe that future Executives will all wield this power in the best interest of the nation? Or should we suspect it might be misused by self interested politicians to target marginal electorates and keep themselves in power? A financial gerrymander if you will.

Amending section 96 to "recognise local authorities" is an invitation to corruption and mismanagement because it will allow the Executive to determine on a street by street basis, if it wishes, what local authorities can and can't do. It will allow taxpayer's money to be misused to shore up marginal electorates, pay off political favours and generally pork barrel on a scale never before possible.

If that doesn't disturb you, keep in mind that NSW government corruption is largely the product of unchecked Executive power at state level. Do we really want to witness a similar spectacle at federal level?
It's in everyone's interests for the Executive to be held accountable. But if Parliament declines to do its job and if the Executive thinks it can treat the High Court with distain, then who's left? Certainly not the media, it's too busy with big issues like Tony's cycling or Julia's glasses.

All that's left is us, so vote "No".

David Galloway is a lawyer working in the corporate sector. He does pro bono work for a community legal service in Melbourne and has a strong interest in public interest law.