The onward march to fascism in Australasia

Australian bill sees whistleblowing on intel ops punishable by up to 10 years in jail

Australia’s attorney general has proposed a new bill which would see potential whistleblowers facing up to 10 years in prison for leaks on special intelligence operations.

RT,

16 July, 2014

Publishing Snowden-like revelations could cost dear in Australia after attorney general George Brandis presented to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security a new bill expanding powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO).

Australia’s attorney general George Brandis is known for labeling former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a “traitor” after a secret document reported by the Guardian Australia and obtained from Snowden last year revealed the Australian spy agency had been ready to share data on its citizens with its partners from the so-called 5-Eyes alliance (Australia, Britain, Canada New Zealand and the US).

The bill supposes the creation of a new offence for “any person” found guilty of disclosing “special intelligence operations” information, which would be five years behind bars.

“The five-year offence would seem to be able to apply even if the person had no idea about the special intelligence operation and they happened to release information which coincidentally was part of or related to the special intelligence operation,” leading Australian criminal law barrister Shane Prince commented to the Telegraph.

So a person could be put on trial for disclosing information on a “special intelligence operation” he never knew about – and would never get to know what the special intelligence operation was about during the trial, because it is an intelligence operation, that is – a secret one.

“I can’t see anything that would protect journalists,” said Green senator Scott Ludlam.

If the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation,” this person would be liable for a ‘liberal’ 10-year prison term, reported the Guardian.

On the contrary, the officers conducting those “special intelligence operations,” would become immune from liability or prosecution – because they need to be engaged in activities that would otherwise be considered unlawful.

Acting and retired intelligence officers and contractors would be put under a constant threat of newly created offences to prevent any unauthorized document disclosures. The amendments equal private contractors to intelligence operatives to make them subject to prosecution with a penalty of up to three years.

AFP Photo / Axel Heimken

Evidence of copying, transcribing, retaining or recording intelligence material is not required for these new penalties.

Instead of the previous two years in prison penalty for disclosing confidential information to a third party, the new penalty would be increased to 10 years.

The new clause covering security personnel “appears to be a clear attempt to stamp down on whistleblowers to avoid an Australian Ed Snowden,” commented Electronic Frontiers Australia chief executive Jon Lawrence.

“The fact that they’re making that illegal doesn’t necessarily stop a whistleblower though I think in the general context of what is a pretty extreme crackdown on whistleblowers generally,” Lawrence said.

The proposed legislation has been dubbed “troubling” by Australia’s leading criminal barrister and spokesman for Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns, who said that this “unprecedented clause” that would capture any media organization that reports on intelligence activities, be it WikiLeaks, the Guardian or the NYT.

“I thought the Snowden clause [in the bill] was bad enough but this takes the Snowden clause and makes it a Snowden/Assange/Guardian/New York Times clause,” Barns told The Guardian.

All the ASIO would need to do to prosecute journalists would be secretly declaring any case a “secret intelligence operation”, with an approval of the security director-general or deputy director-general required, said Barns who used to advise WikiLeaks and work on terrorism cases.

“Their own boss says, ‘I think we better call this a special intelligence operation, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, sir,’ close it down. The more you talk about it the more outrageous it becomes,” Barns said.

As for making intelligence officers immune from prosecution, Barns is positive that society would regard officers participating in operations that imply violation of law as abuses of power.

“In Australia we lack that fundamental human rights protection and therefore Brandis can get away with inserting a clause into a bill which you wouldn’t be able to do in the UK or in the US,” Barns said, stressing “It’s the sort of clause you’d expect to see in Russia or in China and in other authoritarian states but you don’t expect to see it in a democracy”.

Australia’s whistleblower legislation is already very tight, leaving only a narrow window for disclosure of intelligence information in public interest, argued the Guardian. The penalties proposed for such activities by the new legislation would ‘fill’ the existing gap and close the window altogether.

“When things go awry total secrecy is not desirable. When something is seriously awry whistleblowers play a vital role in the provision of good governance,” said the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks.

Australian MPs are set to debate the amendments presented by George Brandis in September.

The police give themselves different standards and it seems the pundits agree.

Fuck you, Chris Trotter!

Pursuit ends over alleged illegal spying

The Green Party says it has reached the end of the line with its pursuit of the Government's spy agency over illegal spying following a report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

Radio NZ,

17 July, 2014

The IPCA has found police were justified in not prosecuting any officers from the Government Communications Security Bureau for an illegal spying operation.

In September 2012, the Greens asked police to investigate whether any GCSB agents had committed a criminal offence, after it was revealed the agency's surveillance operation against internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, had been carried out illegally.

The report by the then Secretary of the Cabinet Rebecca Kitteridge, which was released in March 2013, found 56 possible operations in total, involving 88 individuals, where the GCSB may have spied on New Zealanders illegally.

Greens co-leader, Russel Norman, subsequently wrote to the Commissioner of Police asking that his complaint be widened to cover all cases of possible illegal spying in the past decade.

Last September, he laid a complaint with the IPCA, claiming police had been negligent in not pursuing charges against GCSB agents, in relation to the Kim Dotcom operation.

That operation was illegal because under the law, the agency was not allowed to spy on permanent residents, which Mr Dotcom was.

When police announced they wouldn't be laying any charges, they said it was because, while the spy agency staff did technically break the law, they didn't have criminal intent.

That has now been backed by the IPCA, which found police were justified in relying upon an absence of criminal intent in their decision not to prosecute.

No avenues left

Green Party co-leader, Russel Norman, said he is disappointed with the IPCA's findings. He said in practice there is now a double standard in New Zealand's legal system.

"Individual citizens who breach the Crimes Act can and will be prosecuted but when John Key's spies breach the Crimes Act, even the same section of the Crimes Act, they won't be prosecuted."

Mr Norman said there were now no avenues left to pursue the matter.

"We've kind of been through the system now you know. We originally put the letter to the police saying you should prosecute those who broke the law - the police said no we're not going to and the IPCA backed up the police so basically the system is impenetrable to justice."

In relation to the other cases identified by Rebecca Kitteridge, the IPCA found that because those cases involved metadata, and the law at the time around the interception of metadata was unclear, the police decision not to investigate was justified.

No accountability - Labour

The Labour Party says the lPCA's decision means no-one will be held responsible for the illegal spying operation, carried out on Kim Dotcom by the GCSB.

Labour's Grant Robertson says the decision will do nothing to restore public trust in the agency.

"Once again we don't have the level of accountability for the actions of the GCSB that New Zealanders want and that's been the problem throughout this process. The GCSB was involved in illegal spying. I'm not convinced the changes to the law have helped that - in facto the powers have expanded."

Police say matter closed

Police say they now consider the matter of whether or not they should have laid criminal charges against GCSB agents to be closed following the IPCA report.

They say they intend to make no further comment.

Postscript

Dotcom considering suing GCSB

Internet businessman Kim Dotcom is considering suing the Government's spy agency over illegal surveillance

Shame on Australia for allowing this to happen. Repealing the carbon tax (symbolicly ) will give Aussies $500 a year in the pocket but will cost the Earth

Judging by the number of Australians visiting this site it seems seems they could give a fuck!

Australia’s carbon tax has been axed as repeal bills clear the Senate

TONY Abbott’s great big election promise to dump what he called the great big carbon tax was finally delivered this morning after a Government ordeal of frustration and embarrassment.

News.com,

17 July, 2014

Mr Abbott did not wait long to share the news, releasing a statement titled “The Carbon Tax is gone!”.

“This is great news for Australian families and for our nation’s small businesses,” he said.

“At the election, the Coalition made a pledge: to scrap the carbon tax, stop the boats, get the Budget under control and build the roads of the 21st century. All these commitments were designed to help families.

“We are honouring our commitments to you and building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.”

He said it would save the average family $550 a year and the first benefits would be seen in coming power bills.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Abbott had “embarrassed Australians” and that “history will judge Tony Abbott harshly for refusing to believe that action is needed on climate change.”

At a press conference Mr Shorten also said Labor would take an emissions trading scheme to the next election but would not back the Coalition’s Direct Action Scheme.

Mr Abbott hit back at this stance, saying: “Surely it’s time to accept Australian people don’t want a carbon tax”.

When asked whether he would rule out ever bringing in a carbon tax, Mr Abbott said that he not do anything that would harm Australia’s economy.

Negotiations with the Palmer United Party and other crossbench senators finally paid off for the Prime Minister with Labor’s price on carbon emissions dismantled.

The Senate voted 39-32 to scrap Labor’s carbon pricing scheme after securing the support of PUP senators and other crossbenchers.

Subdued applause from government senators greeted the result as the Abbott government finally delivered on its key election promise.

The vote followed days of protracted negotiations with Clive Palmer, who embarrassed the government last week by pulling his crucial support for the repeal at the last minute.

The three PUP senators and the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir gave the government four of the six crossbench votes it needed to abolish the tax.

Family First’s Bob Day and Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm - who also joined the cross bench on July 1 - rounded out the majority needed.

Another crossbencher, the DLP’s John Madigan, voted for the repeal.

Independent Nick Xenophon was not in the chamber for the vote. Labor and the Australian Greens opposed the repeal but didn’t have the numbers to save the scheme introduced by the Gillard government in 2012.

Mr Abbott says the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been given the funding and powers to ensure savings are passed on to consumers.

The Liberal Party has produced an advertisement promising “cheaper electricity, lower costs for small business and more jobs”.

Political editor Malcolm Farr tells us what to expect now the carbon tax has been repealed.

The repeal comes seven years to the day that another Liberal prime minister, John Howard, revealed a plan for an emissions trading scheme.

Greens leader Christine Milne made a last-minute plea to the crossbench telling them it was a “critical moment” for the nation. A vote to repeal was a vote for failure to address global warming, she warned.

“Australia will be relegated to a pariah and a backwater.”

Despite the threat of after-hours detention, senators did not rush to pass the amendment with debate going for hours yesterday.

“After about 40 hours of debate in relation to these measures in this place we still don’t have a resolution,” government Senate Leader Eric Abetz railed in question time yesterday.

The cabinet minister left to handle the filibuster was Mathias Cormann, who eventually stopped answering the onslaught of questions from irate opposition senators.

Labor dragged out the final debate stages with questions about the Palmer United Party’s amendment to ensure price cuts from the carbon tax repeal are passed fully onto consumers and businesses. The Greens took a similar line of questioning and quizzed the finance minister about the government’s promised $550 saving for households from the repeal of the carbon tax.

“We can go round and round in circles,” Senator Cormann said, invoking ire from his opponents.

The bills and amendments were also held up by backroom talks on a list of other bills to be brought on for debate before the Senate rises for a five-week break.

But the carbon pricing demolition — the third attempt to introduce the bill to the Senate since November — was the most satisfying outcome for the Government.

Soon big companies will stop paying a penalty on carbon emissions, currently just over $25 a tonne, ending Australia’s most controversial policy implementation since the 2003 decision to join the Iraq invasion.

The carbon price element will be removed from household electricity expenses, and power company bills will itemise the savings. New laws demand savings be passed on to customers or a utility would have to pay a fine equal to 250 per cent of the reduction.

Politically, the repeal allows Prime Minister Abbott to boast he has completed two of his three major election pledges — to “axe the tax” and to “stop the boats”. The third was to repair the Budget.

However, Mr Abbott could have problems fulfilling his full election vow, which was to axe the carbon price and lower electricity bills.

There are other factors pushing up power prices such as infrastructure investment and falling demand.

The Government might be duly embarrassed as electricity costs still go up despite the absence of the carbon price. Its promise that average households will be better off by $550 a year from a variety of savings could be wrecked.

The Government also has found to its distress over the past week that it cannot take the Palmer United Party and Clive Palmer for granted.

NZ Greens call for carbon tax

Too little too late. Only the complete collapse of industrial civilisation might have made a difference. But with 30+positive feedbacks it's too late.

But what the heck – why not do something positive?

However, something has to be wrong if right-winger Matthew Hooten agrees with it

Matthew Hooton @MatthewHootonNZ · 16h

Embarrassing for all concerned, but on first glance I think I support @NZGreens #climatechange policy over @NZNationalParty or @nzlabour

Greens propose carbon tax, tax cut package

The Green Party wants to introduce a carbon tax to replace the troubled Emissions Trading Scheme.

TV3,

2 June, 2014

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman admits that putting a price on carbon emissions will raise some costs for consumers, but he says that these will be outweighed by a series of new tax cuts funded by the scheme.

The new policy was announced today as one of a suite of measures in a "climate action plan" aimed at getting New Zealand to carbon neutrality by 2050.

It sets the price of CO2-equivalent emissions at $25 per tonne for all sectors except agriculture.

The dairy industry would also be included in the policy – unlike under the Emissions Trading Scheme – but its emissions would be priced lower, at $12.50 per tonne. Forestry will be credited at $12.50 per tonne.

Households would be better off, dairy farms 'adversely affected' - report

An independent analysis carried out by Business and Economic Research Ltd (BERL) forecast that the carbon tax would likely return an initial revenue stream of $1.1 billion.

The Greens plan to pass this revenue back to the public as a "Climate Tax Cut" in the form of a new income tax-free threshold of $2000, and a 1 percent cut in the company tax rate.

The BERL report found that the average household's finances would likely improve by around 0.6 percent if the policy were implemented, however the report only took into consideration the three groups of goods and services most likely to be directly affected by the tax: dairy, electricity, and fuel.

It predicted a household's annual costs in these areas would increase by $101, but this would be offset by an annual increase in after-tax income of $420 thanks to the cuts.

"We can reduce our emissions without hurting household budgets. Households will be on average $319 better off every year under the Green Party policy,” says Dr Norman.

But the report also found that dairy farms would be adversely affected by the policy.

It forecast that the carbon tax would add around 2 percent to the working expenses of the average dairy farm – and after taking into account the company tax rate reduction, it found the policy would reduce the post-tax profits of the average dairy farm by 12.5 percent.

The report said, however, that this was not enough to put dairy farms at a loss.

"At the currently projected pay-out for milk solids, even dairy farms in the lowest decile would remain well above breakeven in the face of an emissions levy."

Federated Farmers chief executive Conor English says he opposes the inclusion of the farming sector in the scheme.

"They shouldn't be trying to tax farmers. It's not going to change the weather, and it is going to put farmers under financial pressure," he says.

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser, meanwhile, says the Greens' policy goes further than he expected.

"It's much more extreme than I had thought. And this relentless attack on New Zealand dairying, I just can't get it because this is 24 percent of our export income," he says.

National doing 'virtually nothing' on emissions – Norman

Dr Norman says climate change is "the most challenging issue of our time", but that under the current Government's policies, New Zealand's net emissions will continue to increase.

"On a per person basis, New Zealand now produces twice the amount of greenhouse gases as China, and eight times that of India. We are the fifth highest per-person emitters in the developed world," he says.

"National's policies mean New Zealand's net emissions are set to go up by 50 percent in the next 10 years, putting us on track to be the worst performing developed country under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

3 News

Green Party launches carbon tax plans

Climate change is expected to become a pivotal election issue, following a carbon tax policy announced today.

Newstaklk ZB,

2 June, 2014

The Green Party, if elected to form a government, wants to scrap the emissions trading scheme and impose a carbon tax on all sectors, excluding agriculture.

Forest and Bird advocacy manager Kevin Hackwell says we're currently paying the polluters by giving them huge subsidies to carry on polluting, and this needs to stop.

"This is one of the issues facing the world at the moment.

"It's particularly important for biodiversity here in New Zealand.

"We've already seen the impacts of it, we need to deal with it, so having a debate about that policy is an important thing for this election."

Greens carbon policy

The Greens are billing their new carbon policy as the biggest tax cut kiwis will be offered this election.

Co-leader Russel Norman’s announced a plan to scrap the emissions trading scheme and replace it with a carbon tax on industry.

He says every dollar raised will be redistributed, by making the first $2000 of income tax-free for individuals, and cutting the company tax rate by one percent.

"Why can't we cut income tax rates and cut the company tax rate by introducing a charge on pollution instead of subsidising pollution?"

Forest and Bird welcomes scheme

An alternative to the emissions trading scheme is being welcomed by Forest and Bird.

As an election promise, the Green Party's proposed abandoning the emissions trading scheme in favour of a carbon tax policy.

Forest and Bird advocacy manager Kevin Hackwell says the Green Party is right to be campaigning for an end to subsidies for major greenhouse gas polluters.

"The climate change policy in New Zealand is not working.

"our emissions trading scheme isn't working so we should have a debate about how we deal with climate change."

Lucy Lawless applauds policy

The Greens are harnessing starpower to push their new carbon tax policy - flying actress Lucy Lawless to the Hutt Valley from Auckland for their AGM today.

The Xena: Warrior Princess star is a passionate climate activist, but not a Green Party member.

However, she applauded the policy - which would see dairy farmers made to pay their share, alongside most other big emitters - with the money going to tax cuts for individuals and companies.

Lucy Lawless says she'd like to see National and Labour come up with innovative ideas to tackle carbon emissions.

Proposal faces criticism

Criticism is being fired at the Green Party's move to impose a carbon tax policy, with the farming sector calling it a political stunt.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has announced its plan to scrap the emissions trading scheme, and bring in a carbon tax.

All sectors – except agriculture – will be made to pay $25 per tonne of CO2 emissions, while dairy emissions will cost just half that.

Straterra CEO Chris Baker says it makes no sense to get rid of such a sophisticated scheme.

"While we accept the carbon price is low, it's available and able to be increased in terms of its impact on the economy as international conditions dictate and allow."

Federated Farmers vice president William Rolleston says while it does recognise New Zealand farms are the most carbon efficient in the world, it's foolish to penalise the dairy sector.

He says dairy farmers are also the most carbon efficient, so in this case, he wonders whether politics has trumped science.

Mr Rolleston says beef and sheep farmers have been excluded, and so should dairy farmers.

"The logic is that New Zealand farmers are the most efficient protein producers in the world and penalising them would only drive emissions offshore.

"That applies to sheep and beef as well as dairy."

Greens' carbon tax proposal

Big carbon emitters will be made to pay a fairer share, and households will end up with more cash in hand – under a carbon tax, promised by the Green Party.

But farmers are set to get off lightly, in the policy announced by co-leader Russel Norman at the Greens’ AGM this afternoon.

It includes scrapping the emissions trading scheme, and instead charging non-agricultural emitters 25 dollars per tonne of carbon.

Dairy farmers will pay just half that – and sheep, beef and other farmers are excluded, pending advice from a proposed Climate Commission.

The revenue would go back to earners, with their first $2000 of income tax-free, and a one percent tax cut for businesses.

As expected, Greens co-leader Russel Norman's announced the party will scrap the emissions trading scheme and instead, bring in the tax - if it helps form the next Government.

All sectors - except agriculture - will be made to pay $25 per tonne of CO2 emissions, while dairy emissions will cost just half that, at $12.50.

Forestry will get a credit of $12.50 per tonne of CO2.

Other agricultural areas, including sheep and beer farming, won't be included at all - pending advice from a Climate Commission the Greens also plans to establish.

It would advise the government on carbon prices, carbon budgets and "complementary measures" to make New Zealand carbon-neutral by 2050.

All of the revenue from the carbon tax will be returned - with individuals getting a "climate tax cut", with their first $2000 of income tax-free.

The Greens say households will be an average of $319 better off a year.

There'll also be a one percent tax cut for businesses.

Retrograde policies of the Australian Right

With or without Tony Abbott things have never looked bleaker – the time to act was yesterday

Australian climate outlook remains bleak with Tony Abbott out for revenge

Australian elections on 14 September threaten a rollback of years of climate change progress. The time to act is now

the Guardian,

26 February, 2013

In Australia, decades of hard-fought conservation gains are at risk of being wiped out after 14 September. That's when the incumbent Labor government faces oblivion at the federal election, at the hands of the conservative Liberal Party.

For environment groups and climate campaigners, things have never looked bleaker.

This is despite the introduction of a carbon price, billions of dollars for clean energy projects, a landmark extension of marine national parks, and recent news that carbon emissions from the world's largest per- capita emitter have actually reduced.

Unfortunately, conservation and climate change have not been a national priority since the controversial introduction of the carbon price. In Australia, the Labor minority government, supported by the Greens , passed historic carbon-pricing legislation that charged polluters for their emissions.

At that time, the five or so largest environment groups, supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, ran a public awareness campaign – "Say Yes" – to raise support for the carbon price.

Since then, the conservative opposition, led by climate change denying Tony Abbott and supported by extreme elements in the Murdoch-owned press, has waged a relentless campaign against the carbon price.

The fear is that Abbott's climate denialism, coupled with a desire to get even with groups who opposed him, will see environment groups targeted.

The Say Yes campaign was a $2m public awareness campaign. Born from the 2010 electoral stalemate, Say Yes sought to lock in support for the carbon price, both in parliament and in the community. According to its strategy paper, the campaign's goals were to "build and energise the necessary public support for national legislation on pollution and climate change in 2011".

Even though it was supported by high-profile Australian celebrities, with Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton appearing in ads, and public rallies in major cities, community support for the carbon price actually fell, declining from 46% support to 37%. Opposition to the carbon price also rose from 44% to 56%.

Most of the campaign was focused on mass-media and a few setpiece rallies. In 2012, a secret debrief report from the Say Yes campaign acknowledged that the campaign was only "speaking to ourselves" and "the politicians in Canberra".

A stark contrast to Australia is the USA. After the historic election of Barack Obama, environment groups there pinned their hopes to the introduction of cap-and-trade legislation – similar to emissions trading. Hopes of seeing real action on climate change died in the congress after Obama decided to prioritise healthcare reform, and the Tea Party emboldened climate change deniers.

Climate groups rebounded and found new purpose following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the planned construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The KXL pipe is to pump dirty crude oil from tar sands in Canada to be refined in Texas.

Opponents to the pipeline argued that it amounted to a 'carbon bomb'. Tar sands is one of the most polluting, energy intensive forms of oil to extract and refine. The pipes used to transport it are prone to leaking, and are almost impossible to clean up. A spill in the Kalamazoo river in Michigan, in July 2012, destroyed 60km of river and clean-up company Enbridge was embroiled in a scandal after they covered up, rather than cleaned up the oil.

The "No Keystone XL Pipeline" campaign galvansised the climate movement in the US. For months in 2011 and 2012, activists stared down Democratic pressure to shut-up, and engaged in civil disobedience in Washington and along the proposed track of the pipe.

At a time when the Tea Party and climate-denialist billionaires were on the march and in the process of buying the Republican primaries, the allied climate groups in the No KXL campaign brought together faith groups, farmers, indigenous groups, unions, Texan property-owners, students, pensioners and conservation charities.

Obama ended up blocking a key part of the pipeline before the election, in the face of tens of thousands of people conducting sit-ins and facing arrest.

Now, with the election over, the spectre of the KXL pipeline is back. Republicans and Big Oil are pressuring Obama to overturn his ban.

In response, the No KXL alliance has re-mobilised. The Sierra Club, the world's largest environment organisation, supported the first day of civil disobedience in its history; 30,000 people rallied on Valentine's Day in Washington.

Following the climate-fueled disaster of hurricane Sandy, these climate groups have made climate change a national priority.

They did so by deciding that their audience was not politicians and advisors in the West Wing or the Beltway, and that their message was not one of a bright, clean energy future. Instead, they took their campaign to communities around the US, to areas that were at risk of devastating oil spills. Their message was a warning against the consequences of runaway climate change and of a pipeline failure.

The tactics of the No KXL Pipeline campaign were the opposite of the Say Yes campaign. Perhaps they looked at Australia and realised that preaching to the choir and to politicians could not have a long-term impact.

The USA now has a revitalised climate movement. A new generation of activists, many of whom also campaigned alongside Obama 2012 organisers, continues their struggle to stop one of the most dangerous oil projects in the world.

In Australia, environment groups fearing the wrath of Tony Abbott, whose position on climate change matches the likes of Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum, must mobilise rather than remaining a small target.

The posture of this new breed of US climate activist is more assertive and aware of the great risks of doing nothing. And they have finally realised that to win, to have influence in the halls of power, you must have a willing, engaged constituency in the community – who are willing to take action.

You can't get that with TV ads and celebrity endorsements.