Nexus - 0110 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

LITY GAME... Ilty Study” for the MFP, reportedly costing $5 million spent so far, was released at the ity of about 100,000 people was the most seographically scattered “hub and spoke” ier). The report, coupled to previous publicity anxiety about a “Japanese enclave...” and more practical, than the Kinhill and other reports. The fundamental assumptions and priorities driving the project - the proposal for a corporate-owned city under “charter”, governed by a hierarchy of appointed committees including corporate and foreign- Government representatives and thesite itself - are all issues forchallenge, but there are many interesting ideas in the Adelaide proposal. The most interesting by-products of all this are the emerging challenge to the assumptions and processes underlying the MFP and a range of papers that are definitely NOT part of the official “feasibility study” - from confidential teports by the NSW Police Department on the influence of gangster syndicates in the Japanese construction industry, to “A Paranoid View of Japan” written anonymously by a reputedly highly-placed civil servant, and various cautionary essays by academics familiar with Japanese culture, economics, commercial structures and social issues. A Couchman Show at Port Adelaide on June 27 presented an audience of about 200 people, unanimously opposed to foreign ownership/control of Australia; angry that local pollution problems have been ignored by the same State Government which now declares Gilman’s serious problems are “solvable”, and obviously fed up with Government-corporate deals providing privileges under the cloak of “commercial confidentiality” andMr.Bannon’s infamous Indenture Acts (which sidestep existing planning and environment regulations). Theimpetus of presentGovernment policy and adroit Public Relations makes it doubtful how much “public discussion” may affect the MEP development... but dissent is certain. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has declared it will: (a) Set up a “new broadly based group” representing Federal and State Governments, business, and education groups to “supervise the next phase of the project”. (b) Undertake that the project “will not go ahead unless the Governments are satisfied the MFP is economically sound and socially acceptable to Australians”. (©) Enter ‘widespreadcommunity consultation”, (d) Include “‘a greater international focus to ensure the project is truly international”. Government Ministers havesaid itis important that “nationaleconomic opportunities, already identified during the Feasibility Study process are not lost”. 4/7/90 - ref: peg-emack on Pegasus Conference mfp.techcity July 1990 Ci Nexus *10 THE FEASIBILITY GAME... es nig rene “Feasibillty Study” for the MFP, reportedly costing . . on of the approximate $5 million spent so far, was released at the eo” end of 1989. It proposed a single city of about 100,000 people was the most a “commercially viable” (rather than geographically scattered “hub and spoke” « MFP centres that bad been discussed earlier). The report, coupled to previous publicity a of a possible Disneyland city, spurred public anxiety about a “Japanese enclave...” In March 1990, DITAC and the Federal and more practical, than the Kinhill and other Government 'rejected' the Kinhill Report, ‘eports. The fundamental assumptions and admitted that lack of public discussion andthe _priorities driving the project - the proposal for vague nature of proposals had created “an a corporate-owned city under “charter”, unfortunateenvironment”andannouncedthere © governed by a hierarchy of appointed ” would be “full public discussion” before the committeesincluding corporate and foreign- ® project proceeded. There were reports that the Government representatives and thesite itself Canberra told me *, Japanese were upset by public response and —~ are allissues forchallenge, butthere are many that R.G was a member °e, mightpulloutoftheMFP,reducinginvestment interesting ideas in the Adelaide proposal. The of ASIO. SOHERE WEHAVE °e, _ intoAustaliainto the bargain. A publicmeeting most interesting by-products of all this are the TWO “EX” ASIOSNOOPS, THAT e in Melboume organised by the Rainbow emerging challenge to the assumptions and WE KNOW ABOUT, INVOLVED * Alliance attracted 1000 people - a measure of processes underlying the MFP and a range of IN THIS VENTURE. © publicconcem.ACouchnanprogramonABC, papers that are definitely NOT part of the 5 F : .__ © cuttohalfanhourbecausethe MFPCorporation _ Official “feasibility study” - from confidential The lastcurious piece ofinformation ¢ —.. the: the NSW Police D: rs relating to this is that the oushdorMFPs * originally refused to participate, also Teports by ie = pence on the 8 P demonstrated public concem (the author was _ influence of gangster syndicates in the Japanese appears to stem from the Japanese e advised in June by DITAC that the the construction industry, to “A Paranoid View of Government and MITI, whilst the ® Governmentnowfavoureda"hubandspokes” Japan” written anonymously by a reputedly Japanese corporate sector are only “luke » developmentof several MFPs; thatthe Kinhill _highly-placed civil servant, and various warm” on the project. It would appear ° reporthad “lead them down a garden path” and cautionary essays by academics familiar with that the MFP is not a financially viable wasted an enormous effort; and that the © Japanese culture, economics, commercial project! J thought this was the “reason” ® Government would not enter commitments __ structures and social issues. i i i i Adelaide on ‘or the MFP in the first place! © with Japan until after a process of public A Couchman Show at Port f esr NY ®* discussion extending to the end of 1990, June 27 presented an audience of about 200 eoeseeeveeeeeeeeeeovec® 4 i probably with a““Commission” going around _—-people, unanimously opposed to foreign the States to take submissions). ownership/control of Australia; angry that local MFP NEWSLETTER However, StateGovemmments wererequired pollution problems have been ignored by the to submit specific proposals for the MFP in same State Government which now declares c} May 1990 for the Australian MFP Steering Gilman’sseriousproblemsare “solvable”, and eR Committee to select a site, which it would obviously fed up with Government-corporate 8 recommend to the Joint Japanese Australian deals providing privileges under the cloak of s Committee by mid July. The Australian MFP “commercial confidentiality” andMr.Bannon’s P or more 1 nfo Committee selected Queensland’sGoldCoast infamous Indenture Acts (which sidestep on MFP 1 s proposal subjectto the Qld Governmentsecuring existing Planning and environment regulations). sin all the land within a week; when Queensland Theimpetus of presentGovernment policy Send $20 for a complete rejected that, withmuchpublicprotest bylocal and adroit Public Relations makes it doubrful landholders, the MFP Committee howmuch “public discussion” may affect the discreet little birdie in set of newsletters and announced Adelaide as the selected site, | MFP development... but dissent is certain. subscription to: The Qld Gov't announced it would go ahead Meanwhile, the Federal Government 63 Reed Street with its own form of MFP anyway, although has declared it will: Albert D, possibly not in the site it had proposed. (a) Set up a “new broadly based group” ark VIC 3206 The Adelaide proposal entails building a representing Federal and State Governments, Ph (03) 690 5963 series of villages atGilman,nearPortAdelaide, business, and education groups to “supervise on 3500 hectares of heavily polluted Jand the next phase of the project”. bordered by mangrove reserves and other (b) Undertake that the project “will not go environmentally sensitive features. Itenvisages ahead unless the Governments are satisfied the a‘World University” centre at Gilman, as part MFP is economically sound and socially wishes to ofanerworkco-ordinating existing Universities, acceptable to Australians”. colleges, and research centres... making “all (©) Enter “widespreadcommunity consultation”, acknowledge Adelaide” an “MFP”. (d) Include “‘a greater international focus to 8 PEGASUS NETWORKS Those technologies are proposed to focus ensure the project is truly international”. on computer software, commun-ications (a Government Ministers havesaid itis important for th eir COMMUNICALIONS computermail anddatabasesystemisproposed that “nationaleconomic opportunities, already service in providing much Of to grid the Adelaide education centres, and _ identified during the Feasibility Study process the material for this article. connectworld wide), marketable environmental re not lost”. More info? ph. (066) 856 789 fixesandenvironmental management training. 4/7/90 - ref: peg-emack on Pegasus IN The Adelaide proposals are more specific, Conference mfp.techcity July 1990 6 Nexus *10 MFP NEWSLETTER one Send $20 for a complete set of newsletters and subscription to: 63 Reed Street wishes to For more info on MFP's... Albert Park VIC 3206 Ph (03) 690 5963