Author: Neville

Libs reignite culture wars over Anzac Day teaching

DateApril 23, 2013 47 reading now

Comments 283
Read later

Mark Kenny, Josephine Tovey

Zoom in on this story. Explore all there is to know.
Coalition
Tony Abbott
Anzac Day
Christopher Pyne
.

inShare.
Pin It
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

Christopher Pyne
History wars: Christopher Pyne reopens debate. Photo: Andrew Meares

Retired top soldier Peter Cosgrove has emerged as the man most likely to replace Australia’s first female governor-general under a future Coalition government intent on putting the Anzac tradition above indigenous history.

General Cosgrove’s name has emerged from a phantom political row over Australia’s next head of state after Opposition Leader Tony Abbott first demanded the government not appoint a successor to Quentin Bryce, before then ruling out a recall to public service of former prime minister John Howard.

The vice-regal stoush came as opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne appeared to re-open the so-called ”history wars” which raged during the Howard years, by attacking the school curriculum for putting Aboriginal and multicultural commemoration days on the same level as Anzac Day.

The national curriculum would be reviewed under a Coalition government, he said. ”The Coalition believes that, on balance, Australia’s history is a cause for celebration,” he said.

Advertisement

”It is because of our history that we are a confident and positive nation. We must not allow a confidence-sapping ‘black armband’ view of our history to take hold.

”That history, while inclusive of indigenous history, must highlight the pivotal role of the political and legal institutions from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.”

In the new curriculum Anzac Day is studied in year 3 as one of a number of days of national significance. The Gallipoli campaign is studied in year 9.

Mr Pyne criticised the fact that Anzac Day is ”locked in with NAIDOC Week, Reconciliation Day and Harmony Day” in the national curriculum.

Mr Pyne’s sentiment was similar to that expressed by former prime minister John Howard, who last year accused the government of purging British history from the curriculum.

Anne Martin, co-chairwoman of the national NAIDOC committee, said she was disappointed by Mr Pyne’s comments regarding the ”black armband” view of history. ”I thought we had moved beyond all that,” she said. She said she hoped there would be widespread, open consultation before any changes to the curriculum.

A government insider described Mr Pyne’s comments as nonsense. ”You can’t grow up in this country and not know about the Anzacs. To suggest it is not being taught properly is just nonsense,” the source said.

But Australia’s military tradition looks set for another boost in any event if the Coalition is elected. Mr Abbott dismissed the suggestion of appointing his former boss to be governor-general with Coalition insiders admitting General Cosgrove probably was favourite.

”I have enormous respect for John Howard,” Mr Abbott said in Perth on Tuesday. ”But he served almost 12 years in a very difficult and demanding job and I think he’s really enjoying his retirement.”

Mr Abbott, who is favoured to become the next prime minister, refused to be drawn on the existence of a Coalition shortlist of candidates for the five-year post.

”I’m on the record as saying that I think former military personnel and former judges, by and large, make the best vice-regal appointments,” he said.

The exchange over a replacement for Ms Bryce, whose term has already been extended by six months to avoid a clash with the election in September, deepened on Monday after a stern letter from Mr Abbott to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in which he argued strongly against any appointment being made before the poll.

As reported on Monday, Mr Abbott criticised recent high-level appointments to public service positions. ”There is no way that a decent, honest government, would be making appointments now, to take effect in a year’s time,” he said.

”There’s no way that a government facing an election should be attempting to manipulate our country from beyond the political grave.”

A Liberal source said that despite its lead in opinion polls, the opposition did not want to be seen to be ”getting ahead of itself” by discussing personnel decisions, while acknowledging that the name of General Cosgrove, 65, who was chief of defence forces from 2002 to 2005, headed the list.

But a government spokesman said there were no plans to name a replacement for Ms Bryce.

”In relation to the office of the governor-general, the Prime Minister recommended to the Queen that the current Governor-General’s term be extended beyond the election period to avoid questions of her re-appointment becoming subject to partisan debate.”

A poll released on Tuesday shows that Labor’s vote has stabilised but the government remains a long way behind the opposition.

The government’s primary vote sits at 32 per cent, while the opposition dropped two points to 46 per cent, according to a Newspoll conducted at the weekend and published in The Australian.

Support for the Greens fell one point to 10 per cent.

The Coalition still commands a massive two-party preferred lead of 55 to 45 per cent, the same level as a fortnight ago, and would win the September 14 election in a landslide if the numbers are repeated.

Julia Gillard slipped two points to 35 per cent in the preferred prime minister stakes, five points behind Tony Abbott, who was steady at 40 per cent.

Follow the National Times on Twitter

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/libs-reignite-culture-wars-over-anzac-day-teaching-20130422-2iaro.html#ixzz2RGsXa1qJ

This faith in the markets is misplaced: only governments can save our living planet

The European emissions trading system died last week. Why? Because of the lobbying power of big business
Share 168

inShare.3
Email

George Monbiot

George Monbiot

The Guardian, Monday 22 April 2013 20.30 BST

Jump to comments (192)

Hazelwood Power Station in Latrobe Valley
‘Why were too many permits issued? Because of the lobbying power of big business. Why did MEPs refuse to withdraw them? Because of the lobbying power of big business.’ Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters

In other ages, states sought to seize as much power as they could. Today, the self-hating state renounces its powers. Governments anathematise governance. They declare their role redundant and illegitimate. They launch furious assaults on their own branches, seeking wherever possible to lop them off.

This self-mutilation is a response to the fact that power has shifted. States now operate at the behest of others. Deregulation, privatisation, the shrinking of the scope, scale and spending of the state: these are now seen as the only legitimate policies. The corporations and billionaires to whom governments defer will have it no other way.

Just as taxation tends to redistribute wealth, regulation tends to redistribute power. A democratic state controls and contains powerful interests on behalf of the powerless. This is why billionaires and corporations hate regulation, and – through their newspapers, thinktanks and astroturf campaigns – mobilise people against it. State power is tyranny, state power is freedom.

But the interchangeable middle managers who call themselves ministers cannot wholly dismiss the wishes of the electorate. They must show that they are doing something to protect what people value. They resolve the contradiction between the demands of the electorate and the demands of big business by shifting their responsibilities to something they call “the market”. This term is often used as a euphemism for corporations and the very rich.

To justify the policy of marketisation, they invest the market with magical capabilities. It can reach the parts that the ordinary scope of government can’t reach; it can achieve political miracles. I don’t believe that market mechanisms are always wrong. I do believe that they fail to solve the problem of power. In fact they tend to compound it.

Last week the European emissions trading system died. It was supposed to create a market for carbon, whose escalating price would force companies to abandon fossil fuels and replace them with less polluting alternatives. In principle it was as good a mechanism as any other. What it did not offer was a magical alternative to political intervention.

The scheme collapsed on Tuesday after the European parliament voted against an emergency withdrawal of some of the carbon permits whose over-supply had swamped the market. Why were too many permits issued? Because of the lobbying power of big business. Why did MEPs refuse to withdraw them? Because of the lobbying power of big business.

If a market is to serve a wider social goal than simply maximising corporate profits it must operate within a tight regulatory framework. Pricing mechanisms do not magic away the need for regulation – if anything, they enhance it. To make them work, politicians still have to confront and overcome powerful interests. They still need to govern and decide. Yet everywhere markets are invoked as an alternative to dirigiste and decisive government.

To make a significant impact, the price of carbon needs to be in the region of €30 or €40 per tonne. It needs to be incapable of falling far, and likely to rise. At the time of writing the price is €2.8 per tonne, and it’s going nowhere. The Economist reports that this puts European carbon permits “below the level of junk bonds”.

In an important respect the scheme has been worse than useless. New airports and roads and power stations have been justified with the claim they they will not raise emissions, as the greenhouse gases they produce will be absorbed by cuts made elsewhere. The one lasting impact of the European carbon market has been to rationalise polluting projects which might not otherwise have been built.

But even as this scheme collapses, governments are launching new ones, creating markets that are far less appropriate – even in theory – than the trade in carbon. Last month, the UK’s Ecosystem Markets Task Force, a body set up by the government but largely composed of company executives, published its final report. It invokes the magic of the markets to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of democratic governance.

Not everything it proposes is dangerous and wrong. Creating incentives to reforest the hills from which our rivers flow, or for farmers to use anaerobic digesters to process waste makes sense: as long as it redeploys rather than augments farm subsidies. But in other respects an attempt to reconcile the protection of the living planet with commerce simply turns the biosphere into another corporate asset.

For instance, the taskforce revives the old myth that nature is best served by harvesting timber. As long ago as 1995, a paper by the biologists Clive Hambler and Martin Speight showed that of the woodland insect species listed as threatened in Britain, 65% are threatened by the removal of old and dead wood, while just 2% are threatened by a reduction in this management. But the taskforce maintains that bringing “unmanaged woodlands into active, sustainable management for wood fuel … is a win-win for business and nature.” Just as the myth was at last being laid to rest, it has been revived by the need to make nature and markets appear compatible.

This is an example of what happens in a market-based system: any clash between generating profit and protecting the natural world is resolved in favour of business, often with the help of junk science. Only those components of the ecosystem that can be commodified and sold are defended. Nature is worthy of protection when it is profitable to business. The moment it ceases to be so, it loses its social value and can be trashed. As prices fluctuate or crash, so do the fortunes of the ecosystems they are supposed to protect. As financial markets move in, with the help of the environmental bonds and securitisations the taskforce champions, the defence of nature becomes ever more volatile and uncertain. The living planet is reduced to a subsidiary of the human economy.

When governments pretend they no longer need to govern, when they pretend that a world regulated by bankers, corporations and the profit motive is a better world than one regulated by voters and their representatives, nothing is safe. All systems of government are flawed. But few are as flawed as those controlled by private money.

Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com

Fast train plans show CSG danger

Saturday, April 20, 2013

By John Rainford

A coal mine near Wollongong.

The first coalmine in the Illawarra began operating at Mount Keira in August 1849. As the industry developed, the Illawarra Mercury of 1857 confidently asserted: “Our Black Diamonds will promote commerce and add to our social industry.”

Mining coal by hand was dangerous work anywhere it was carried out, but miners in the Illawarra had to contend with “firedamp” — a mixture of gases leaching from the coalface that were prone to explode.

The first great disaster occurred at the Bulli Colliery on March 23, 1887, when 81 lives were lost in an explosion. It was followed by the worst industrial disaster in Australia’s history when 96 men and boys perished in an explosion at the Mount Kembla mine in July 1902.

The Illawarra coalmines are “gassy” and it was the militant miners, battling mineowners whose primary purpose was profit, who fought to make them safe. But it was never easy. At Bulli Colliery in November 1965 a spark ignited Illawarra bottom gas (a combination of methane and carbon dioxide) that incinerated four miners.

So when the federal Labor government recently announced that its much-hyped high speed rail (HSR) network would bypass Wollongong because the 37 kilometres of tunnels necessary for the project were “basically unconstructable”, it came as no great surprise to those familiar with the region’s history.

As the HSR report noted, the tunnels would have to pass through coal seams that “present the risk of explosive methane gas during construction and operation of the railway”. Sealing off the tunnels from methane gas is, it seems, impossible.

A spokesman for federal minister Anthony Albanese was quoted in the Illawarra Mercury on April 13 saying: “A lot of work was put into whether or not it was possible but, based on current technology, a tunnel to Wollongong is unconstructable. It was given serious consideration but it is impossible to construct a tunnel, given the methane from the coal seam gas.”

Yet this is the same area that the NSW government wants to open up for CSG mining.

CSG extraction using directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing results in fugitive methane gas emissions. After water is removed from coal seams, the methane becomes mobile and can migrate to the surface where it can be ignited by sparks.

If the danger of gas explosions rules out Wollongong from the fast train route, CSG mining in the same area is also ruled out on the same public safety grounds. The scientific case against HSR tunnels on the Illawarra escarpment makes out the scientific case for a total prohibition of CSG mining in the area.

Federal Minister for the Environment Tony Burke need look no further than the HSR report to institute the ban immediately. Or will yesterday’s Pig Iron Bob give way to today’s CSG Tony?

From GLW issue 962

Fight over holiday lets goes to court

DateApril 23, 2013 124 reading now

Comments 21
Read later

Julie Power, James Robertson

Zoom in on this story. Explore all there is to know.
Terrigal
Byron Shire
.

inShare.
Pin It
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

Ads by Google

Byron Bay Accommodation

ByronLuxuryBeachHouses.com.au/Relax

Relaxing Luxury Beach House Holiday Book Now Your Byron Holiday Today!

Rhonda Bennic
Shocked: Rhonda Bennic, at her rental property at Terrigal. Photo: Marco Del Grande

Neighbours of a six-bedroom holiday rental in Terrigal are asking the NSW Land and Environment Court on Tuesday to stop the owner from renting out her property.

Should the case succeed, the lawyer representing the owner of the holiday home warns it will cast doubt on the legality of the temporary rental properties run by thousands of people for weekends and school holidays across NSW.

It is a similar story up and down the coast where councils are developing their own regulations governing the short-term market.

The owner of the Terrigal holiday home, Rhonda Bennic, said if the court finds against her, it will ruin her. ”It was a total shock to me, and the outcome could not just affect me and ruin me, but if an order was made, it’s going to realistically affect tourism on the central coast,” she said.

Advertisement

Her next-door neighbours John and Rosemary Dobrohotoff argue that the suburban street where they live with their two small children is zoned residential, and short-term letting is prohibited.

Their lawyer Samar Singh-Panwar of Conditsis & Associates Lawyers in Gosford said two issues were behind the complaint.

”The reality for my clients is the noise issue and the fact that (the house) is being used for bucks parties and teenage parties on a regular basis. This use is in breach of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act,” he said. ”And if she [Ms Bennic] wants to use it for those purposes, as a short-term rental, she needs approval.”

The dispute between the neighbours started over a series of noise complaints when Ms Bennic’s house, which sleeps 12 adults, was rented without her knowledge for bucks parties and teenage parties.

Since the complaints, she has asked renters to agree to a code of conduct which includes a promise not to use the premises for parties or as a venue. The code was written by stayz.com.au where she lets her house. This has cost her significant business, she said.

She said many of the noise complaints relate to previous owners, who ran a bed and breakfast on the premises.

Gosford City Council has been developing a draft town plan which could regulate short-term rentals, but it has not been enacted.

She said a decision would make things ”black or white (and) not the grey shades I am in.”

The issue is difficult for coastal councils, where short-term lets are an economic boon. Shoalhaven changed its zoning laws to allow short-term rentals, protecting itself from a legal challenge.

But short-term renters bring not only complaints, but concerns that communities can become hollowed out by tourism. Notwithstanding a construction boom, the last two censuses have found Byron Bay’s population is decreasing. And councils find short-term lets place a strain on services.

”Eight backpackers are hitting facilities harder than a family of four,” said Byron Shire mayor Simon Richardson.

The council says short-term rentals are illegal and often takes action against owners whose rentals generate complaints. Owners usually close their short-term rentals before a court ruling.

”We’re very slowly and expensively weeding out bad operators,” said Cr Richardson, who will be watching the decision with interest.

Instead of regulating the more than 700 short-term stays in and around Byron, it is trying to find a middle-ground solution. The council is considering a precinct approach, which would allow only a low proportion of residential houses to be rented out.

Declaration: Stayz.com.au is owned by Fairfax Media, publisher of this website.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fight-over-holiday-lets-goes-to-court-20130422-2iara.html#ixzz2RFiXKSrN

Potential uranium port sparks fears for Barrier Reef

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke, ABCUpdated April 22, 2013, 9:41 pm

tweet1

Email
Print

The United Nations’ world heritage advisory body has expressed serious concerns with the Queensland Government’s potential plans to export uranium across the Great Barrier Reef.

Queensland Mines Minister Andrew Cripps says once the uranium industry becomes commercially viable, a case would have to be made to have a licensed port off the east coast, and he has not ruled out Townsville.

“In the event that we are making commercially viable volumes of uranium that are being produced that result in the demand for more uranium to be exported, a case would have to be made for the costs of licensing a new port in Queensland,” he said.

Adelaide and Darwin are the only licensed uranium ports now.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says he would consider an application for an east coast port.

“It wouldn’t just be considered – there would have to be full assessments of it,” he said.

“It’s one where there’s no way I could imagine a delegate dealing with it – it would be one that would be dealt with personally by any minister.”

Tim Badman from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which advises the UN’s world heritage committee, has told the ABC this would be a “new threat to the Great Barrier Reef” and a “surprising activity to find in any natural world heritage site”.

Russell Reichelt from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority agrees it would be a concern.

“I think shipping of any toxic cargo would be of concern,” he said.

“But really we would have to see a proposal and we would have to consider that.

“It would be considered first under national environment law by the federal minister. So I would be waiting to see what is proposed.”

The Ben Lomond Uranium mine is located 50 kilometres west of Townsville.

It is currently dormant, but with the Queensland Government lifting its 30-year ban on uranium mining the company Mega Uranium, which owns the mine, is undertaking studies on how best to extract.

That has some residents, including David Sewell, concerned.

Mr Sewell lived near the mine when it last operated and he recalls a spill in 1981 when an overflow from the mine’s tailings dam leaked what was described as “unacceptable levels of radioactivity” into a tributary that feeds into the region’s largest river.

“Toxic waste that flowed into one of the creeks that feed into the Burdekin,” he said.

“Now that particular creek was only 40 kilometres upstream from where the town drew its water supply.”

UNESCO is currently considering if it will place the reef on the “in danger” list.
It will meet in June, and says the potential export of uranium through the reef must now be considered in that response.

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke, ABCUpdated April 22, 2013, 9:41 pm

tweet1

Email
Print

The United Nations’ world heritage advisory body has expressed serious concerns with the Queensland Government’s potential plans to export uranium across the Great Barrier Reef.

Queensland Mines Minister Andrew Cripps says once the uranium industry becomes commercially viable, a case would have to be made to have a licensed port off the east coast, and he has not ruled out Townsville.

“In the event that we are making commercially viable volumes of uranium that are being produced that result in the demand for more uranium to be exported, a case would have to be made for the costs of licensing a new port in Queensland,” he said.

Adelaide and Darwin are the only licensed uranium ports now.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says he would consider an application for an east coast port.

“It wouldn’t just be considered – there would have to be full assessments of it,” he said.

“It’s one where there’s no way I could imagine a delegate dealing with it – it would be one that would be dealt with personally by any minister.”

Tim Badman from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which advises the UN’s world heritage committee, has told the ABC this would be a “new threat to the Great Barrier Reef” and a “surprising activity to find in any natural world heritage site”.

Russell Reichelt from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority agrees it would be a concern.

“I think shipping of any toxic cargo would be of concern,” he said.

“But really we would have to see a proposal and we would have to consider that.

“It would be considered first under national environment law by the federal minister. So I would be waiting to see what is proposed.”

The Ben Lomond Uranium mine is located 50 kilometres west of Townsville.

It is currently dormant, but with the Queensland Government lifting its 30-year ban on uranium mining the company Mega Uranium, which owns the mine, is undertaking studies on how best to extract.

That has some residents, including David Sewell, concerned.

Mr Sewell lived near the mine when it last operated and he recalls a spill in 1981 when an overflow from the mine’s tailings dam leaked what was described as “unacceptable levels of radioactivity” into a tributary that feeds into the region’s largest river.

“Toxic waste that flowed into one of the creeks that feed into the Burdekin,” he said.

“Now that particular creek was only 40 kilometres upstream from where the town drew its water supply.”

UNESCO is currently considering if it will place the reef on the “in danger” list.
It will meet in June, and says the potential export of uranium through the reef must now be considered in that response.

Actual viability of soil carbon sequestration for farmers studied

Wednesday, 23 January 2013 06:00

font size decrease font size increase font size

Rate this item

1
2
3
4
5

(3 votes)

soil carbonBy modeling the cost of these practices researchers estimate the profit loss for each additional tonne of CO2 stored on the model farm was $80.00 which is far more than the initial buying price of $23.00 per tonne under carbon tax legislation. Image: Jon WhittonNEW UWA research looking at the economic impacts of implementing soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration methods into farming practices, is showing that these impacts may prove impractical for farmers.

One of the study’s authors Assistant Professor Marit Kragt says while SOC sequestration has been talked about a lot in public debate, there was little evidence of the impacts it may have on farmers.

“The government is promising a bunch of money to the farmers if they undertake climate change mitigation action,” she says.

“That sounds like a great idea but how much would it actually cost farmers to take these measures?”

All soils contain carbon in organic and inorganic forms and the hope is that by altering practices the amount of carbon held by the soil can be increased.

The authors found that while altering certain practices can be used to increase carbon sequestration it is costly and farmers would require high levels of compensation to make it a viable option.

By modeling the cost of these practices researchers estimate the profit loss for each additional tonne of CO2 stored on the model farm was $80.00 which is far more than the initial buying price of $23.00 per tonne under carbon tax legislation.

A/Prof Kragt says there are also a number of other barriers for the implementation of many practices of carbon sequestration.

“There are a lot of opportunities to increase soil carbon but pretty much most of those are categorised as conservation practices and those conservation practices won’t be eligible for carbon credits under additionality”, A/Prof Kragt says.

Additionality is the requirement that any practices implemented create additional sequestration or reductions in emissions than would have occurred under a business as usual scenario.

She says there is a lot of uncertainty around mitigation efforts and the carbon tax legislation farmers will have to contend with.

“You have the policy uncertainty where you don’t really know how this policy is going to develop”, she says

“The other one is all the environmental uncertainty where you could implement all new management practices. [The] hope is to see carbon sequestration or emission reduction […by…] planting trees is all conditional on weather condition, soil condition and bushfires.”

Ms Kragt says the next part of this research will be based around the real experiences of the farmers who are starting to implement these practices to get a more detailed picture of what impacts they are already having.