By Adele Horin

October 7 2006

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/10/06/1159641528381.html

YOU would think a bunch of community legal centres that dispense advice to the down-and-outs might lie beneath the Federal Government’s radar. It has a war on terrorism to wage, a war on drugs, on the unions and on the Labor Party to execute.

But no, the redoubtable Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, found time from his musings on torture to kick the boot into these barefoot lawyers who earn half the going salary of their private sector counterparts. Their alleged crime is to dare to dissent from the Government on aspects of family law and anti-terrorism laws and its Achilles heel, industrial relations.

Their punishment, he indicated, is likely to mean future funding contracts will prohibit the centres from engaging in advocacy, community education, or law reform.

The Government withdrew its usual funding of the centres’ annual conference because the tenor of it caused displeasure. "Centres must focus on serving clients, not running private political agendas," Ruddock has said.

There are 180 legal centres, dispensing advice on an array of topics from credit and debt to environmental law, and thanks to a lot of volunteers, they cost the Government only $22 million a year.

But the power of a few pamphlets, an annual conference that featured the ACTU’s Sharan Burrow, and a single centre’s "industrial relations" data base made Ruddock see red – indeed reds under the bed. Fortuitously for the Government, the Office of the Employment Advocate has also decided it will no longer fund the legal centres to give advice to clients – mainly non-unionists – on industrial relations issues. It can handle all matters, from workers and bosses, in-house from now on.

Bit by bit the Government is snuffling out the last flares of opposition, wherever it spots them, however feeble. Having won four elections, control of the Senate, the devoted support of the Murdoch press and talkback radio, the Government is still not content. It has planted hard-right warriors Keith Windschuttle, Janet Albrechtsen, and Ron Brunton on the ABC board to change its culture. It has undermined the independence of academics with its broad-brush sedition and anti-terrorism laws that have caused researchers to abandon studies on terrorism lest they be spied upon or detained.

And now the Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, is planning to take over school curriculum. She does not like what children are being taught, claiming "ideologues" have "hijacked" the syllabus. It is not just the wrong history that is being taught, as the Prime Minister regularly asserts; it goes well beyond that.

The Government, it seems, will not stop until all Australians are singing from the same song sheet. Unswerving approval of the IR changes, welfare-to-work, "staying the course in Iraq", detention without trial, and a white armband view of Australian history is not called ideological; it’s called correct.

The Howard Government is in fact ideologically combative to a startling degree, forcing dissenters to toe the line through fear, funding partnerships and confidentiality clauses in contracts.

A blanket of silence has fallen across Australia since the Government came into office in 1996, flexing its muscles against dissenters.

It quickly de-funded several groups representing poor and disempowered Australians – the Australian Federation of Pensioners and Superannuants, National Shelter, the Association of Civilian Widows and other women’s groups, and the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition. In its stead it gave money to groups that have never caused a ripple, a rotating and occasional "youth round table", for instance, which to its credit once called for the restoration of a permanent body that might have some teeth.

By 2002 a survey of peak groups in social welfare, aged, disability, and migrant issues, found half had lost significant funding and 20 per cent had lost all funding. Their role as advocates was a major reason for the clamp-down.

A 2004 report by The Australia Institute showed non-government organisations had become more fearful of "biting the hand that feeds" them. Ninety per cent of the 290 surveyed believed their funding could be at risk if they criticised the Government. As the UNSW academic, Joan Staples, reminds us in a recent paper, the attitude to feisty non-government organisations was once different.

A House of Representatives committee brought down a report in 1991 that said an important role of the these groups was "to disagree with government policy where this is necessary in order to represent the interests of their constituents". Howard, instead, sees them as single-issue groups and elites, with no role as advocates, or in policy formation. The Business Council of Australia, and such, are exceptions.

He has shut the big charities up with multimillion-dollar Job Network contracts, and praises those that fill the gaps created by the withdrawal of government services. As long as they feed the hungry and house the poor but refrain from comment or advocacy, they are in the fold.

Academics, likewise, are increasingly tied up doing contracted research for government departments, sworn to secrecy, even as their findings languish for months or years on a minister’s desk.

It is only in the letters pages of some newspapers and on the internet that forthright dissenters can be found. The liberal MP Petro Georgiou has emerged as an unlikely hero because his viewpoint on asylum seekers and multiculturalism is so rarely expressed by any public figure, Kim Beazley included.

Until now the legal centres, which include the Welfare Rights Network, have tried to reflect the views of their clients, bringing problems with welfare reform, family law, and industrial relations to the Government’s and public’s attention.

They are out of tune with the times, and discord won’t be tolerated.

The Seven network is lobbying the federal government to retain solar energy rebates. The intention is to present the petition on air to the environment minister. Sign the petition

Eastern Suburbs residents were Sydney’s biggest water wasters, with Woollahra households using an average 328,000 litres in 2005/2006 – above the average of 237,000 litres and even more than the city’s pre-water restriction average of 300,000 litres in 2002/03, reported The Daily Telegraph (21/10/2006, p.1).

Woollhara’s shame revealed: Sydney Water figures also showed Woollahra residents received 242 water restriction fines between July 2005 and June this year, the largest number issued. Hunters Hill was the second worst water waster in 2005/06, with an average of 302,000 litres used per household, followed by Mosman with 299,000 litres.

South Coast town most economical: The best performers were Kiama households, which used only 170,000 litres. Sydney City was rated fifth, using 195,000 litres. Sydney’s water storage levels were currently at 41 per cent, up from 39.1 per cent when level three mandatory water restrictions began in June 2005.

The Daily Telegraph, 21/10/2006, p. 1

Source: Erisk Net  

Some questions about the Prime Minister, posed by political correspondent Dennis Shanahan in The Australian (21 October 2006, p.3): Has Mr Howard just discovered the environment as an issue? Is he a newcomer to nuclear power because it’s clean and green? Is he linking drought, water shortages and climate change for pure political expediency? Does he refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change because he’s a fuddy-duddy who doesn’t believe in climate change? Or are we watching Howard’s latter-day greening?

The gentleman’s not for turning: The answer to all of the above, writes Shanahan, is no. What we are watching is not the greening of Howard but the browning of the greenhouse emissions debate.

It’s about solutions: Howard is now running a debate in Australia and internationally that accepts that the greenhouse effect or climate change is under way, but is looking at solutions with an economic and industry base.

Debate is changing: The nature of the world reaction to greenhouse is changing and is about to change even more dramatically with the release of Britain’s Stern review on the economics of climate change in a week or so.

Macfarlane on song: For Australia’s Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has been quietly supporting nuclear power in Australia for years and sees it as part of the answer to greenhouse emissions, the debate has turned.

Ideology not enough: “People in the street accept that greenhouse emissions and climate change are a problem, but they also expect practical solutions to the problem,” Macfarlane said. “People don’t accept ideological answers any more. That’s why they are prepared to discuss the possibility of nuclear power in Australia.”

Aust "leading the way"? Macfarlane argued that there was a browning of the emissions debate and industry, and economists were trying to find answers. “The rest of the world is now coming to us because we are leading the way in private and public partnerships in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.”

Questionmarks growing about Kyoto: Howard and Macfarlane have steadfastly ruled out the prospect of carbon taxes in Australia to establish a European-style emissions trading system, which is supported in principle by the state Labor governments. But again the argument over the benefits of a Kyoto-backed emissions trading system has shifted with the the patchy start to the EU emissions trading scheme which has provided large profits for power generators but has had no net effect on greenhouse emissions.

EU falling behind targets: Last week a market analysis of the first phase of the EU’s system found that the EU was highly unlikely to meet its Kyoto Protocol emissions targets. According to global consultancy Cap Gemini the 15 EU countries in the scheme are “300 million metric tonnes of CO2 away from meeting their Kyoto Protocol objective, with the notable exception of the UK”.

Not a great record: CO2 and greenhouse gases emissions, moreover, were increasing. In 2005, energy accounted for about 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, while electricity accounted for 38 per cent of CO2 emissions, the report said. “The combined EU-15 emissions were only 0.9 per cent below 1990 levels."

The Australian, 21/10/2006, p. 3

Source: Erisk Net  

Along with other environmental changes Dooleys Lidcombe Catholic Club has made, it is expected to save 213 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year with a plan to use a machine which turns food waste into pulp which is then converted into methane and sold to electricity suppliers, reported The Daily Telegraph (20/10/2006, p.17).

Changes make economic sense: "Overall we consider the environmental benefits of these changes far outweigh the costs," Dooley’s general manager Greg Kearins said.

Crunch time for clubs: With drought crippling the states, clubs are under pressure to conserve energy – with the hospitality industry one of the biggest consumers of water and energy. Clubs NSW introduced the scheme 12 months ago but so far only 17 members have joined.