Author: Neville

Blues, greens and tribulations

Date January 1, 2013 Read later

Damien Murphy

inShare.
Pin It
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

Heritage

Conflict … Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Photo: Peter Solness

CONSERVATIONISTS were just beginning to flex their electoral muscle when cabinet agreed to nominate NSW rainforests for World Heritage listing.

It was a half-hearted measure. Brisbane did not want heritage listing anywhere near its huge swathe of tropical rainforests.

So the Lamington National Park rainforests in south-east Queensland were not mentioned, even though they were a part of the rainforests associated with the Mount Warning volcano system in northern NSW.

On June 17, 1985, cabinet agreed to a recommendation by the Wran government that 204,819 hectares, taking in the Tweed Range, Barrington Tops National Park, the New England Group, Washpool National Park, Mount Warning National Park and the Iluka Nature Reserve, be nominated for World Heritage listing.

Advertisement

But in late 1983 and September 1984 the Queensland premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, had sent in police and graders against greenies and hippies trying to save Cape Tribulation in far-north Queensland from roadworks. They claimed the works would tear a hole through the rainforest and the runoff from annual rainfall would damage abutting fringe coral reefs.

The Bjelke-Petersen government claimed the road was needed to give the Wudjal Wudjal Aboriginal community on the banks of the Bloomfield River faster and year-round access to Cairns, allow police to stop marijuana cultivation and prevent women being taken off Cape York beaches for the white slave trade.

The local National Party MP Martin Tenni’s slim 2 per cent margin was also considered a factor in Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s decision to call in police to rid Cape Tribulation of the southern greenies.

On September 8, 1984, the federal environment minister, Barry Cohen, submitted to cabinet that pressure on the Commonwealth to protect the Cape Tribulation area from the Queensland government was unlikely to weaken.

”The Queensland premier in a letter dated 28 June 1984 stated that ‘irrespective of the international significance of the Greater Daintree area the Queensland government opposes its nomination or any further nomination of any further areas of Queensland for inclusion on the World Heritage List’,” Mr Cohen said.

He canvassed direct intervention and said, although Queensland would consider it ”extremely provocative”, it also could result in widespread calls for the government to stop logging in the area. He said the legal outcome was uncertain and the legal costs likely to be unacceptable.

Mr Cohen offered cabinet five options, but opted to discuss the funding of conservation projects with Mr Bjelke-Petersen and not to proceed with unilaterally seeking World Heritage listing.

Mr Hawke did just that in 1987, making it one of the cornerstones of his federal election campaign against John Howard.

Queensland resistance also weakened. Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s foolish ”Joh for Canberra” campaign in the 1987 federal election turned him into a national joke and wiley far-north Queensland businessmen realised ecological tourism was a money-spinner.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/blues-greens-and-tribulations-20121231-2c2i0.html#ixzz2Gg0mSGrg

TO THE GENERATOR READERS

A very happy New Year to all

During the 5 years I have been posting the Generator, I have covered many of the subjects
and issues that are dear to our hearts, I hope these items are being distributed by those of
you who are in other groups.

I note some of my pustings are appearing on the WEB under my name. This is very gratifying
to me, List posting can be frustrating, because of lack of feedback.
I note the new WordPress Site has provision for comments. Comments would be most welcome.

We have a big year ahead of us with the upcoming election, so you can expect plenty of items
from me as they become available.

Best Regards

Neville Gillmore.

Street lights burning $40m in council rates

VIKKI CAMPION URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTER
The Daily Telegraph
December 31, 201212:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email

18 comments

Street lights are costing councils millions more as electricity prices soar. Picture: Stewart Allen Source: PerthNow

STREET lighting bills have soared as much as 12 per cent in the past year as electricity costs soar – hitting the public purse as much as households.

The cost of lighting public areas is one of the most expensive necessities, with bills costing councils as much as $5 million each a year.

Just 14 major Sydney councils were together charged nearly $40 million for the year to June 2012.

Blacktown had the biggest bill of $5.2 million, an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year, followed by Sydney City which paid $4.7 million to light up the city and Sutherland at $4 million.

Their bills combined with Bankstown, Hornsby, Penrith, Fairfield, Liverpool, Parramatta, Randwick, Warringah, Waverley and Manly meant Sydney councils copped a combined charge of $39 million to power street lights last financial year, rising an average 6 per cent year on year since before the carbon tax was introduced.

Mayors fear that next year’s charges will be higher as they struggle to roll out energy-efficient lighting, at a time when rate rises are capped at 3.5 per cent.

“Councils are going backwards every year because the inflation creep has been going beyond the rate increase,” Blacktown councillor and former mayor Alan Pendleton said. “We are fortunate that we are a growth council and that gives us some capacity but councils just have to cut their asset renewal to keep up with requirements – or else they have to cut services.”

A Sydney City Council spokesman said it was trying to combat its 5 per cent increase in energy costs with environmentally friendly LED lights in a $7 million roll-out.

“They will save 45 per cent energy costs from the lamps that were replaced,” a spokesman said.

Most councils do not own their poles and wires and are stuck with the lamps that Ausgrid provides.

Warringah mayor Michael Regan said his council had the smallest increase – of 2 per cent on the $1.5 million power bill – because it was able to broker a bulk-buying power deal. “We hired a broker to do an electricity deal,” Mr Regan said.

“We tied up our community centres, street lighting, the whole kit and caboodle into one electricity bill and we are paying a ridiculously small amount as a result.

“The deal we got was excellent but we don’t own the poles. We have to buy from Ausgrid and they only give us access to certain lights.

“If we want to switch over … it’s at our cost.”

An Ausgrid spokesman said the company owned most of the poles, wires and maintained the lights on behalf of the councils.

“We are trialling LED lights in eight locations to determine the maintenance costs, to ensure it would be efficient and to work out what the energy cost reductions would be,” he said.

“If we were able to roll this out, this would help councils reduce energy costs.”

Talks stall as US fiscal cliff looms

Date December 31, 2012 – 8:53AM 211 reading now
Read later

inShare.
Pin It
Email article
Print

.

.

With hours remaining, US fiscal deal uncertain

The chances of a deal to prevent the US economy from tumbling over a “fiscal cliff” remain uncertain.
Autoplay OnOff
Video feedback
Video settings

Last minute talks have stalled between top US political leaders aimed at averting a fiscal calamity due to hit within hours, as Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for a lack of progress.

Top Democrats and Republicans worked for a compromise before a punishing package of government spending cuts and tax hikes come into force on January 1 that could roil global markets and send the US economy back into recession.

Senate Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell warned that, despite through-the-night talks, negotiators were still a long way from success, as they raced against the ebbing 2012 calendar in search of a compromise.

US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell … admits there is a long way to go. Photo: Reuters

McConnell said he had got no response to a “good faith offer” to Senate Democrats, and called on his old friend and sparring partner Vice-President Joe Biden to join the fray in the hope of breaking the stalemate.

Advertisement

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid agreed talks were at a standstill, raising the prospect that Americans will ring in the New Year with no deal to avert a budget disaster known as the “fiscal cliff”.

Reid said Democrats were unwilling to brook talk of social security cuts.

“This morning, we have been trying to come up with some counteroffer to my friend’s proposal,” Reid told the Senate. “We have been unable to do that.”

Earlier, Democratic President Barack Obama, accused Republicans of causing the mess, saying they had refused to move on what he said were genuine offers of compromise from Democrats.

“Now the pressure’s on Congress to produce,” Obama said, in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press that was recorded on Saturday, a day after he expressed modest optimism that a deal could be reached.

Obama said it had been “very hard” for top Republican leaders to accept that “taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.”

But Republicans were irked by Obama’s tone and matched his accusations. The ugly mood could suggest that hopes for a consensus are fading – or be the kind of political-base pleasing rhetoric that sometimes heralds a compromise.

“Americans elected President Obama to lead, not cast blame,” said Republican House Speaker John Boehner, arguing Republicans sought a ‘balanced’ deficit deal while Obama insisted on higher taxes that would kill jobs.

“We’ve been reasonable and responsible. The president is the one who has never been able to get to ‘yes’.”

If no deal is reached, a package of tax cuts for all Americans that was first passed by former president George W Bush will expire on January 1.

All American workers will see their own pay cheque hit and the broader economy will be hit by massive automatic spending cuts across the government.

Experts expect the US economy could slide into recession if the standoff is prolonged, in a scenario that could cause turmoil in stock markets and hit prospects for global growth in 2013.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, speaking as his party bosses huddled with senior Democrats in search of a deal, predicted a short-term agreement would emerge, but would only postpone the budget battle by a few months.

“Hats off to the president. He stood his ground. He’s going to get tax rate increases,” Graham told Fox News Sunday.

“The sad news for the country is that we have accomplished little in terms of not becoming Greece or getting out of debt.”

AFP

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/talks-stall-as-us-fiscal-cliff-looms-20121231-2c1ya.html#ixzz2Ga38AVLN

Greens see the campaign light at the political crossroads

Date December 31, 2012 Category Opinion Read later

Nicholas Reece

Sensibly, the party is reclassifying its most contentious policies.

inShare.
Pin It
Email article
Print
Reprints & permissions

.

‘More idealistic voters will be tempted by the less-compromised alternatives.’ Photo: Natalie Grono

THE Greens party is at another crossroads. Will it reach its ambition of being the major left party in Australian politics, the new Australian Labor Party, or will it wither and follow the path of the old Australian Democrats?

On the face of it, the Greens move to discard or reclassify many of their most contentious policies is a sensible one. Leaving the merits of the policy positions to one side, the campaign benefits appear significant.

On campaign defence, it makes the Greens a smaller target to critics and helps avoid distracting attacks during a federal election year.

In recent state byelections and the ACT general election, the Greens have been subject to significant attack over plans to freeze funding for private schools, including Catholic schools.

Advertisement

In the NSW state election, a campaign was run against some of the more strident anti-Israel positions of the Greens.

For the media, these are easy stories to write. For the ALP and Liberals, it makes for easy campaigning on the ground.

While the Greens focused on the Senate, some elements of the ALP took an agnostic view of the party. But once they started to seriously contest and win lower-house seats, at the expense of the ALP, views within Labor hardened significantly. The media also found it easier to talk up the consequences of the Greens’ policies.

On campaign offence, the policy changes will help the Greens to focus their campaign on the issues they want the 2013 election to be about. The party website puts these issues up in lights: the environment, asylum seeker laws, a national dental scheme and gay marriage.

In recent times, the Greens have been trying to broaden their appeal and have identified rural voters and progressive business as new constituencies. Some of the jettisoned policies were major blockers to this strategy.

More fundamentally, the Greens have worked out what the major parties have known for at least two decades. People vote for values, policy details are a secondary consideration.

Policy is important in substantiating these values and is obviously important in the way it affects people’s lives after the election. But it is the values behind the candidates and parties, not their policies, that are the primary drivers of voter decision-making.

Dropping or repositioning the more contentious details of its policy platform allows the Greens to get a clearer run on values-based campaigning.

However, while the mainstream campaign playbook suggests the new policy stand will be helpful to their electoral efforts, it does carry some significant risks. This is because the Greens are not a mainstream party appealing to voters in the centre.

While it suits supporters and critics of the Greens to say otherwise, the new policy positions announced by the Greens are significant. The party has changed its position on support for a freeze on Commonwealth funding for private schools, an abolition of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, the introduction of death duties and a 50 per cent income tax rate for those earning over $1 million.

Sure these policies draw a lot of criticism. But the critics are never going to vote for the Greens.

Meanwhile, would-be Green voters will now find it harder to distinguish between the Greens and other parties of the left. More idealistic voters will be tempted by the less-compromised alternatives on offer.

Here the demise of the Australian Democrats looms large. The Democrats adopted mainstream policies in an attempt to straddle a broader constituency. This caused huge divisions among party members and allowed their voter base to be lured back to the major parties or to the stronger positions being taken by the Greens at that time.

The Greens have stronger support in the environment movement than the Democrats ever did and this should make them more resilient. Nonetheless, the Greens have a narrow path to navigate and will now face more pressure from other parties of the far left.

At the same time, two other big short-term challenges loom.

The recent decline in the Green vote coincides with the retirement of Bob Brown. For all her policy smarts and political nous, Christine Milne does not inspire the same adoration among Green voters as Bob Brown did. Even for would-be Green voters the leader is a very important factor.

The second challenge is that most voters think there is a strong chance there could be a change of government at the 2013 election.

Cynicism with the major parties may be high, but when the leadership of the nation is at stake it will be hard for the Greens to cut through and voters will gravitate back to the major parties.

Nicholas Reece is a public policy fellow at Melbourne University’s Centre for Public Policy and a former senior adviser to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then premiers Steve Bracks and John Brumby.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-see-the-campaign-light-at-the-political-crossroads-20121230-2c1bz.html#ixzz2GZdsnXqB

Greens sacrifice the environment for votes

Catherine Cusack
The Sunday Telegraph
December 30, 201212:00AM

Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
Email
Share

THE Greens paradox that bedevils Australian politics is set to make 2013 another troubled year for our natural environment.

It’s a paradox that sees the Greens exclusively claim to champion the cause of the environment, while doing more damage to their own cause than any party in the history of federation.

If you strip away the ex-socialist workers’ party policy threads that infiltrated the Greens platform and look at what they want for the natural environment, it can make appealing reading.

The twist is in their tactics, which have wedged mainstream parties out of the environment space, turning issues that once enjoyed bipartisan support into war zones, and demolished the credibility of non-Greens politicians who also happen to care about the environment.

Greens’ tactics have been a disaster for the conservation movement in NSW. The Greens say they will not negotiate legislation “as a matter of principle”. So once a decision was made to oppose the O’Farrell government’s legislation to sell electricity generators, the Greens would not budge.

This forced the O’Farrell government to negotiate with the Shooters, who take the opposite view. They will negotiate anything and everything to further their cause. And knowing the desperation of the O’Farrell government to free $4 billion in infrastructure funding, they demanded hunting in national parks as their quid pro quo.

If the Greens were willing to negotiate, the opposite outcome could have been achieved. Instead of hunting they might have extracted new funding for environmental causes as the Australian Democrats did when they supported the Howard government’s sale of Telstra in exchange for a $1 billion Natural Heritage Fund.

There is only one reason why the Shooters Party, with a fraction of the popular vote, control the Upper House. It’s because ironically, the Greens have handed the keys of power to the Shooters Party.

There are 42 members of the NSW Legislative Council – 14 Liberal, five National (total 19); 14 Labor, five Greens, two Shooters and two Christian Democrats. If the Greens chose to cast their votes with the Coalition government, the combined 24 votes would be enough to pass legislation without referring to other minor parties.

The refusal of the Greens to compromise lets down their voters and puts their political self interest ahead of the natural environment.

By forcing the O’Farrell government into a corner, which has seen the Shooters Party extract duck hunting and hunting in national parks, the Greens have created issues to galvanise their support base.

By doing deals with Labor for preference votes the Greens have made fools of every Liberal and National Party candidate who believes in a moderate approach to the environment. Why? Because Greens preferences directed against Liberals who champion the environment have wiped out our credibility.

That’s the great Greens paradox of Australian politics today. Not only have the Greens empowered their enemies (the Shooters), they have forced the conservative side of politics into a belligerent attitude to “green” issues.

The Greens’ decision to put the Shooters Party in control of O’Farrell government legislation reveals a far more sinister agenda in which anything – including and especially the natural environment – is to be sacrificed on the altar of votes.

Catherine Cusack is a Liberal member of the NSW Legislative Council