Monique Ryan vs Josh Frydenberg's how to vote cards in Kooyong

How to vote cards are a window into candidate leanings and possible political deals.

Monique Ryan, the community independent candidate for Kooyong, has published the How to Vote instructions below.

• The order of candidates shown is the order on the ballot that voters will use
• Monique Ryan asks people to vote 1 for her
• Then voters select other candidates according to THEIR choice (values alignment, policies etc.)
• This is the best for democracy.

Josh Frydenberg is the incumbent Liberal member of parliament for Kooyong.

His How to Vote is below, with annotations.

Frydenberg has directed preferences to the following candidates:

• 2. Liberal Democrats (right wing)
• 3. Derryn Hinch (Justice) - centrist
• 4. UAP (Clive Palmer, right wing)
• 5. Australian Values Party (right wing)
• 6. Dummy candidate for Frydenberg (fake independent)
• 7. Animal justice
• 8. One Nation (Pauline Hanson, right wing)

Ahead of the following progressive candidate and community independent Monique Ryan:

• 9. Peter Lynch (Labor, progressive)
• 10. Piers Mitcham (Greens, progressive)
• 11 Monique Ryan (Independent)

This indicates possible preference deals between the Liberals, Justice, Liberal Democrats, UAP, AVP and possibly One Nation.

Frydenberg's preferences will not be distributed but they do indicate his political leanings to the right.

When voting:

Make sure you number EVERY square 1 to 11 to ensure your vote is valid.

There will be two ballot papers - House of Reps (green, 11 candidates) and Senate (big, white).

Patricia Karvelas interview with Josh Frydenberg on Radio National 29 Apr 2022

Text [from Twitter thread here]

Recording: http://ab.co/3F2CH1Q Kooyong content starts at 1:10:15

Poster of Frydenberg in Brunswick

Frydenberg with coal in parliament

Notes on his dubious statements and some outright lies follow.

JF:  "I am facing .. somebody who is no more than a slogan, or a board or a banner."

• derogatory, dismissive, disrespectful
• Dr Monique Ryan ran the neurology department at the Royal Children’s Hospital until recently.

PK: "Why undermine her and use this kind of language?"

JF:  "just because you may have had a professional occupation doesn't mean you will bring to the table detailed policies that will enhance the parliament or the local seat"

• Non answer

PK: "Monique Ryan said the party with the most ambitious climate change policy and the toughest integrity commission she would make a deal with [if minority govt].  Isn't the onus on you to create those conditions?"

JF: Non answer, diversion 

PK: "Do you see yourself as as moderate?" 

JF: "I see myself as having progressive views, moderate views on number of issues ..."

"I supported Same Sex Marriage." 

• Lie = he voted against it theyvoteforyou.org.au  
• Josh Frydenberg voted consistently against same-sex marriage equality

JF: "I was one of the strongest advocates for net zero by 2050 ... We have a detailed costed plan to get there"

• Lie. Morrison's "plan" is a pamphlet with no details and many questionable assumptions. 

PK: "Why are you preferencing One Nation over this independent if you are a moderate?"

JK: 'Well because firstly my preferences aren't going to make any difference in the seat because .." [interrupted]

PK: "But the symbolism matters"

JF: "Well no, it doesn't. Because in my seat its going to come down to me and the independent because the Labor party and the Greens, you can barely find a sign for them, are in bed with the so-called independent."

• Lie. There is no conspiracy.

PK: "So if you are progressive/moderate what do you make of embattled Liberal candidate Katherine Deves?"

JF: "Historical analogies with the Holocaust are largely inappropriate. Her [Deves'] comments are inappropriate and unacceptable."

• Morrison endorses her

In summary, Frydenberg: 

• Won't use Monique Ryan's name (disrespectful) 
• Says Dr Ryan is a "fake independent" (a lie)
• Alleges conspiracy between others against him
• Doesn't provide any compelling example of being an effective "moderate"

Build bike paths in Kooyong not car parks

The recent announcement by Josh Frydenberg (Age 3/3/22) to abandon his ill-considered $65 million funding for railway station car parks in Kooyong is welcome. 

These very expensive "car parks for votes" would have increased traffic congestion and pollution in local streets.

This allocation of funds, which has become known as Carpark Rorts, has been criticised by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) for not being effective or merit-based,

Many local residents oppose these car parks for the following reasons:

• Increased traffic congestion to and around the carparks - up to 800 additional cars per day - with increased pollution from carbon emissions
• Reduced safety due to increased traffic in suburban streets
• Limited parking spaces for locals - most spaces would be occupied all day
• No provision in draft plans for bicycle parking - one car parking space can provide parking for ten bicycles
• Use of council land some distance from the railway stations, instead of using existing railway station carparks

To date, no federal funds have been allocated for building safe cycling infrastructure.

The $65 million would be much better spent building the Hawthorn to Box Hill Trail strategic cycling corridor to provide safe, healthy, car-free, climate-friendly pedestrian and bike transport through the Kooyong electorate. 

Every trip on a bike is one less car on the roads.

Liddiard St car park (proposed)

Wattle Valley Road car park (proposed)

Protest signs in Liddiard St

Protest sign in Liddiard St

Protest flyer

Site of proposed car park in Liddiard St

Protest sign in Wattle Valley Road

Existing car park off Wattle Valley Road

Existing Canterbury Station car park

Location of proposed Liddiard St car park

Location of  proposed Wattle Valley Rd car park

Josh Frydenberg please strengthen Australia's environment laws that protect our wildlife and precious places

Dear Josh,

The current independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) released its interim report in July 2020, with the final report due in October. 

The interim report found that Australia’s environment is in an unsustainable state of decline and recommends a full suite of reforms to turn this around, including national environmental standards to protect wildlife and ecosystems, an independent watchdog to enforce the law and proper community participation in and oversight of the decisions governments make.

But the Morrison Government is this week rushing a bill before Parliament that would hand environmental protections over to the states before the independent review is finished and without strong assurance safeguards in place. 

The Morrison Government has also rejected calls for an independent watchdog, despite a recent Auditor-General report outlining ongoing, systemic failures by the Environment Department to enforce the laws and manage conflicts of interest.

Any amendments to the EPBC Act brought to Parliament to facilitate bilateral approval agreements with State Governments should be treated with scepticism. Without vital safeguards in place, the Government’s bill represents a hasty and thoughtless devolvement of Commonwealth powers and responsibilities to states and local governments that are often the proponents of regulated projects. 

Right now, there's been no consideration of its contents and implications, and the process is rushed and hasty - it’s time to slow down and get it right.

I ask you and your Senate colleagues to: 

• Oppose attempts to rush through amendments to the EPBC Act that could make our environment laws even weaker;
• Ensure the Morrison Gov’ts bill is given the full and proper scrutiny it requires, including whether it contains sufficient safeguards to ensure environment laws will be transparently and rigorously enforced; and 
• Support important reforms to fix our failed environment laws including strong national environmental standards to protect wildlife and ecosystems, an independent watchdog to enforce the law and proper community participation in and oversight of the decisions governments make.

In a country still reeling from the ecological catastrophe of the 2019-20 bushfires, we need national leadership to safeguard the ecosystems that support us, build resilience in the face of climate change, support communities to recover and protect our globally important wildlife.

You have the power to ensure our precious wildlife and forests don’t go the way of the Tasmanian Tiger. We need your leadership now.

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Campbell

(address supplied)

Political attacks are compromising COVID-19 public health response measures in Victoria

Australia has been relatively successful so far in minimising COVID-19 infections and deaths compared with many other countries. Here are comparative stats to date:

Source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/

New Zealand has succeeded in eliminating COVID-19 community transmission at this point in time.

Australia was initially successful in suppressing, but not eliminating, the virus.  However, a significant outbreak occurred in Victoria around 24 June 2020, with daily cases still over 400 as at 8 July 2020. 

Reasons for this second outbreak include:

• Private security guards spreading COVID-19 from quarantined returned travellers to the community (an Inquiry is in place to investigate this)
• Outbreaks in some meat processing facilities.
• Outbreaks in aged care facilities - apparently partly due to lowly paid casual workers getting infected and moving between facilities.  Aged care is a federal government responsibility.

Significant interventions to reduce community transitions include:

• Lockdown of several suburbs with high community transmission
• Lockdown some community housing hotspots for 2 weeks
• Stage 3 Lockdown of Greater Melbourne and Mitchell council areas
• Stage 4 Lockdown of Greater Melbourne and Geelong Council areas and Stage 3 Lockdown of the rest of Victoria (current situation)

See Victoria's restriction levels for more information 

Premier Dan Andrews and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, along with selected government ministers and other senior public servants, provide daily updates on cases, deaths and public health measures.

Questions are asked by media representatives at these updates. Some choose to abuse this privilege by repeatedly asking the same question (e.g. about the failure to contain the virus in hotel quarantine) and they do this in an aggressive manner.  The main offender is Rachel Baxendale of the Murdoch owned Australian newspaper.

Wall of shame

These questions align with ongoing criticism of public health response measures (including lockdowns) and personal attacks on both Dan Andrews and Brett Sutton by current and former Liberal MPs. Here are the offenders:

• Scott Morrison (Prime Minister)
• Tim Smith (State MP, Kew)
• Georgie Crozer (State, Southern Metropolitan Region)
• Michael O'Brien (State, Opposition leader)
• Jeff Kennett (Former Premier)
• Tim Wilson (Federal, Goldstein)
• Josh Frydenberg (Federal Treasurer, Kooyong)
• Peter Dutton (Federal, QLD)
• Gladys Berejiklian (NSW Premier)
• David Davis (State, Southern Metropolitan Region)
• Katie Allen (Federal, Prahran)
• Sarah Henderson (Federal, Victorian Senator)
• Tony Abbott (ex Prime Minister)
• Greg Hunt (Federal, Flinders)
• Allan Tudge (Federal, Aston)
• Bridget Mackenzie (Federal, Victorian Senator)
• David Southwick (State, Caulfield)
• David Sharma (Federal, Wentworth)
• Edward O'Donohue (State, Eastern Victoria)
• David Van (Senator, Victoria)

Reactionary commentators also attacking Dan Andrews and public health response measures include:

• Andrew Bolt (Heraldsun, Murdoch owned)
• Ray Hadley (2GB radio in Sydney. owned by Nine Entertainment Co.)
• Alan Jones (Skynews, Murdoch owned)
• Rachel Baxendale (Heraldsun, Murdoch owned)
• Sophie Elsworth (Newscorp, Murdoch owned)
• Adam Creighton (Economics editor, The Australian, Murdoch owned)
• Rita Panahi (Opinion writer, Heraldsun, Murdoch owned)
• Alex White (news.com.au, Murdoch owned)
• Sophie Smith (independent sports journalist)
• Philip Coorey (Australian Financial Review)
• Chris Uhlmann (Nine News)
• Peta Credlin (Sky news, Murdoch owned)
• Joe Hildebrand (Daily Telegraph, Murdoch owned)
• Leigh Sales (7:30 Report, ABC). 

I am an emergency services volunteer. We don't start reviewing mistakes halfway through a job, we don't challenge the leadership, we get on with the job.  Afterwards there is a formal debrief. 

This "holding to account" nonsense by some journalists and self-serving members of parliament is a coordinated campaign to attack Dan Andrew's leadership for political gain.

In doing so they give out mixed messages that undermine public health response measures and the leadership required to deal with the incredibly infectious and sometimes lethal COVID-19 pandemic.

I call on the people named above to stop their coordinated campaign to tear down Dan Andrews that is putting Australians in harm's way. 

I also call on Scott Morrison to put a stop to this too.

Open letter to Josh Frydenberg - SAVE ARENA stop the $1 billion cut

TO: Josh Frydenberg
Minister for Environment and Energy,

I’m writing to you today with a very important message about ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. That's the Agency you want to cut $1 billion in funding from.

ARENA is a critical force in driving renewable energy research and development in Australia. It has funded projects that developed the most efficient solar PV [1] and solar thermal technology in the world [2].

ARENA is crucial if Australia is to continue to lead in renewable energy research and innovation. If protected, projects funded by ARENA grants will create thousands of jobs [3], and help Australia transition to a renewable future.

Your government talks up innovation, but slashing ARENA's grants funding will cut the legs out from underneath a key industry that would otherwise be set to boom.

As your constituent, I am asking you to lead on innovation and make the right decision for Australia's energy future. Don't send Australia back to the Dark Ages. Don't cut ARENA.

Also, gas is just another fossil fuel and must not be used as a "transition to renewable energy".  The transition should be directly to renewable energy.

The same applies to coal seam gas - there should be a permanent ban on exploration and production of CSG in Victoria.

Regarding your previous comments on nuclear energy, could you please confirm that this dangerous and expensive energy source will  not be used in Australia?

[1] Milestone in solar cell efficiency by UNSW engineers, UNSW Newsroom, 17 May 2016, http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/milestone-solar-cell-efficiency-unsw-engineers

[2] ANU team cracks solar thermal efficiency of 97% -- a world record, Renew Economy, 22 August 2016, http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/anu-team-cracks-solar-thermal-efficiency-of-97-a-world-record-34199

[3] Queensland solar projects that could create 2,600 jobs at risk in federal cuts, The Guardian, 24 August 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/25/queensland-solar-projects-that-could-create-2600-jobs-at-risk-in-federal-cuts

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell
Surrey Hills, Victoria, 3127, Australia

External links

• SAVE ARENA: Tell the government to stop the $1 billion cut, email campaign 
• Malcolm Turnbull Just Made ‘Mr Coal’ His Environment Minister - New Matilda  

Getting clean energy, cutting pollution and protecting reefs, rivers, forest and wildlife onto the Kooyong 2016 election agenda

The long running federal election campaign is coming to an end.  Most of the action has been in marginal seats in New South Wales and Queensland where cash gets splashed and promises are made.

A safe Liberal seat like Kooyong becomes a bit of backwater.  However, this election the Australian Conservation Foundation and The Wilderness Society have mobilised community volunteers to door knock through the electorate and ask people to pledge they will vote for a candidate who commits to:

• Supporting clean energy
• Cutting pollution
• Protecting reefs, rivers, forest and wildlife onto the Kooyong 2016 election agenda

Party candidates in Kooyong were asked to make the same pledge. Margaret D'Arcy (Labor) and Helen McLeod (Greens) both did, but Josh Frydenberg (Liberal, incumbent) did not.

Pledges and leaflets

Over 1000 people in the electorate did make the pledge.

I did some door knocking on Saturday 25 July in August with about a dozen other volunteers. I had many good conversations with voters and over 100 pledges.  One person said they couldn't pledge as they voted Liberal. When I told him that the pledge was apolitical he said he would and asked me why Josh wouldn't.  I said he would have to ask Josh about that.

I handed out copies of the scorecard (which is not a how to vote card) at the early voting (pre poll) centre in Riversdale Road.

Josh was there with his "blue army" of around 8 helpers in blue shirts.

Helen McLeod, Margaret D'Arcy and Angelina Zubic (independent) were there too.

Josh said he wasn't happy about the leaflet, even though I clarified it (and the pledge) was produced by ACF and TWS.  He said he wasn't happy with the "pledge truck" that has been around in Kooyong, so the Liberals have responded with their truck (attacking the Greens, but no mention of Liberal except in unreadable fine print).

However, Josh did say he was interested in helping get the Hawthorn to Box Hill bike trail built so I will catch up with him after the election - he is likely to be elected - to discuss how we can make some progress.

It will be interesting to see how community-based door knocking and the pledge in Kooyong will affect the outcome.  A good comparison will be Goldstein, which has a similar strong Greens vote but there was no activity with the pledge.

Kooyong is still among the top 25 green electorates in the country and the vote is growing:

• 1998: 4%
• 2001: 11.24%
• 2004: 12.54%
• 2007: 11.82%
• 2010: 18.48% 
• 2013:  16.58%

Josh Frydenberg responded to this environmental focus by distributing a leaflet to the entire electorate spruiking his environmental credentials.  

But Josh didn't mention his support for coal seam gas (CSG, fracking), new coal mines such and Shenhua (Liverpool Plains, NSW) and Adani (Carmichael, QLD) and increased coal exports to India. 

It is very clear that we need to transition of coal and other fossil fuels over the next 10 years to 100% renewable energy if we are to have any chance of retaining a safe climate.  

The Liberal-National minority government are stuck in denial of climate change; their "Direct Action" policies are ineffective and emissions have risen since Tony Abbott scrapped the effective carbon tax - this was his greatest blunder and an act of sheer vandalism.

The Labor party's climate and energy policies, while better than the LNP, are still nowhere near good enough. 

The Greens still have the strongest environmental policies, and they are the only ones to mention forest protecting during this election campaign.  If the Greens win Batman (possible) and Higgins (not so likely) in Victoria and a couple of others elsewhere they may have the numbers to form government with Labor.  Labor has churlishly ruled this out, but would they really force us to go to another general election? 

It will be interesting to see what the voters of Kooyong and across Australia do.

Why we need a Royal Commission into Australian banks and financial services

Calls for a Royal Commission into Australian Banks and financial services have so far fallen on deaf ears.

The reasons why a royal commission is urgently needed include:

• Entrenched ongoing fraudulent (possibly criminal) financial advice provided by the Commonwealth bank that has resulted in the losses of tens of millions of investors money.
• Banks rigging interest rates. Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and National Australia Bank are all under official investigation by ASIC and have been served with official notices.
• The Australian Senate inquiry demanded a royal commission into Commonwealth Bank and ASIC
• The failure of "self regulated" banks and other financial services companies to deal with corrupt and illegal activities within their businesses.

Predictably, some major Australian banks oppose a Royal Commission into their conduct.  What have they got to hide?

Labor now supports a Greens move for a Royal Commission into financial services.  Some Coalition politicians such as Warren Entsch also support this.

Prime Minister Turnbull has dismissed calls for the Royal Commission, describing it as a "thought bubble".  Ministers Josh Frydenberg and Peter Dutton have also parroted the "thought bubble" dismissal.  

It is quite clear that Turnbull, Frydenberg and Dutton are putting a massive cover-up of corporate banking fraud ahead of the public interest.  Perhaps the large political donations that banks all make to the Liberal and National parties influence this curious response?

I don't think that the Commonwealth bank losing tens of millions of retirees and other investor money due to illegal and fraudulent practices is a "thought bubble".  Nor is collusion between banks to manipulate interest rates. 

I think it essential that the financial sector in Australia abides by laws and is held accountable and penalised for illegal activities if and when they occur.

External links

• Commonwealth Bank compensation scheme for victims of financial planning scandal 'a joke', Senate inquiry hears - ABC News
• Bank hearings to pry into interest rate rigging afr.com
• Senate inquiry demands royal commission into Commonwealth Bank, ASIC - ABC News
• Labor takes aim at big banks, promising royal commission if elected - ABC News
• NAB, ANZ bosses say calls for royal commission in banking a 'serious distraction' - ABC News
• Pressure on Turnbull over banks as three more Nats MPs speak out on royal commission. Sydney Morning Herald. 
• 'Captain's call': Lib MP lashes Malcolm Turnbull and ministers for opposing bank inquiry 

Please reverse government cuts to CSIRO climate science

Open letter to:

Josh Frydenberg, Member for Kooyong, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia

Greg Hunt, Member for Flinders, Minister for the Environment

Please reverse your government's announced cuts to CSIRO climate science.

Hectares of burnt cushion plant. Photo: Rob Blakers

More government funding is required to better understand the effects of climate change, not less.

Climate change impacts that are now apparent, many of which are exceeding worst case scientific estimates, include:

• Dramatic increase in very severe bushfires and the extension of the bushfire season
• Bushfires occurring in regions not adapted to burning such as Tasmania's Central Plateau, where rare plants in World Heritage areas have been destroyed.
• Heat waves resulting in increased deaths due to heat stress
• Sea level rises now impacting many coastal regions and communities around Australia
• Acidification and warming of the oceans leading to coral loss on the Great Barrier Reef
• Increased frequency and severity of tropical and sub tropical storms (such cyclones and twisters)

All these impacts require ongoing scientific measurement and modelling, not less.

Climate scientists believe Australia's obligations under the Paris climate commitments will be directly undermined by the CSIRO cutting 350 jobs.

Australian and international climate scientists in Melbourne have warned the cuts would cripple CSIRO climate research.

Please reverse your government's cuts to the CSIRO Climate Science team Oceans and Atmosphere, and Land and Water divisions.

Regards, Peter Campbell

Links

• PM - CSIRO climate scientists speak out about job cuts, ABC 08/02/2016 
• Experts Say CSIRO Climate Science Job Cuts Will Put Australian's Health At Risk, Gizmodo
• CSIRO job cuts impact Paris promises, BOM, Skynews
• 'Jaw-dropping' CSIRO job cuts to 'gut' climate science unit, Renew Economy 

Tony Abbott, please keep your promise and retain the RET

Open letter to Josh Frydenburg, Kooyong.

Josh, 

Late last year Prime Minister Abbott broke an election promise when he called for devastating cuts to the Renewable Energy Target. 

This week the Abbott government has used national media channels to deliver veiled threats: take our offer to slash the Target to around 31,000 GWh, or we'll walk. 

I ask that you represent my views in the Australian parliament and your Party Room on retaining the RET in its current form. 

Solar energy is a clean renewable solution for the future. You are attacking on solar energy if you reduce the RET, and breaking a clear election promise. 

Please keep the Renewable Energy Target strong. The Renewable Energy Target is one of the most successful pieces of nation building legislation in past years. 

Not only has the Target helped more than 5 million Australians go solar, it also benefits the entire country - increasing investment, growth, jobs and regional development. 

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Campbell

[home address supplied]

====================

You can send an email like this to your local MP, asking them to retain the RET and stop attacking renewable energy, from [here] 

Letter to Josh Frydenberg: Please drop your proposed mandatory data retention regime

Josh,

I ask you to drop your proposed mandatory data retention regime.

Police and intelligence agencies already have broad powers to request information about the communications of specified individuals be retained to support their investigations.

What you are seeking now is for that information to be retained for two years for ALL Australians, even if you're not being investigated.

You  want the following information retained:

Phone calls: detailed records of phone calls you make and receive, including the two numbers. If a mobile phone is involved, that will include the location of that phone, resulting in a detailed record of your location and movements being collected. See this example to understand just how revealing this information can be.
Email: detailed records of who you're sending emails to and receiving them from.

George Brandis provided confusing and conflicting information about whether details of web browsing are to be included.

You do want to retain a record of the address assigned to connections  when you access the Internet (originating IP address). This information will allow the police and ASIO to identify who has visited specific websites that are of interest to them. It will also allow copyright owners (via subpoena) to identify people they believe are infringing their copyright, by downloading or file-sharing.

Even without web browsing information included, a mandatory, society-wide data retention regime represents a massive invasion of the privacy of all Australians. It also subverts the principle of presumption of innocence by treating us all as potential suspects.

There will be substantial costs associated with implementing such a regime. One estimate is that it will add $100 per year to each internet bill.

The massive databases of highly sensitive (and valuable to organised criminals) information will also be highly prone to hacking and misuse, posing genuine threats to the safety of many Australians.

There are already more than sufficient powers available to Australia's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have information retained about communications involving 'persons of interest'. There is no justification for this information to be retained on the rest of society.

I call on the Federal Government to drop its proposed mandatory, indiscriminate data retention regime, and to treat ordinary, law-abiding Australians as Citizens, Not Suspects.

Regards, Peter Campbell


Sign the Citizens Not Suspects petition, GetUp!

Open letter to Josh Frydenberg: Please retain or increase the RET

Josh,

You recently voted against Australia's carbon tax.

Please do not compromise Australia's Renewable Energy Target.

The RET is a very important and effective mechanism for transitioning Australia towards zero emissions clean energy.

The RET has only contributed 8% to electricity price increases from 2007/08 to the present.

The Carbon Tax only contributed 16%.

Over this same period distributor costs and charges have contributed 70% to electricity price increases

Investment in renewable energy has risen $5 billion per year.
Renewable energy capacity has almost doubled from 2001 to 2012.
86% of Australians think that Australia needs more renewable energy.
71% of Australians support the RET
90% of Australians want more electricity from solar
80% of Australians want more electricity from wind.

Overall the RET comprises only 3% of the total price of electricity bills.

Please support meaningful action on climate change and transitioning Australia to a new economy with clean energy and associated local industries and jobs.

For example, there are very significant opportunities for local manufacturing and services industry jobs around the Geelong region if more wind farms are built.

Regards, Peter Campbell
[address supplied]

=====================
Response from Josh Frydenburg 27/8/14

Dear Mr Campbell

Thank you for writing to me concerning the review into the Renewable Energy Target (RET).  I have noted your views. For your information the review has been established to allow the general public to make submissions to the Government.

As you are aware, the Government has released the Terms of Reference for a review into the RET, upholding a clear commitment to ensure the RET is working efficiently and effectively and to meet a legislative requirement for a review to be conducted in 2014.

An independent expert panel which brings together extensive policy, business and energy sector expertise will lead the review. The chair of the review, Mr Dick Warburton, has had an extensive career in business and industry, including time as a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia.  Mr Warburton was appointed by the former Climate Change Minister in the Labor Government, Senator Wong, to head its Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed review under the CPRS process.

The Terms of Reference include examining the economic, environmental and social impacts of the RET, in particular the impacts on electricity prices, energy markets, the renewable energy sector, the manufacturing sector and Australian households. The review will be mindful of sovereign risk issues in any proposals it may present to the Government. Unlike the pattern from the previous Government, the review will be open and transparent and engage in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, seeking submissions from the public and industry.  The review will be supported by a Secretariat based in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet involving specialists from the Departments of Environment, Industry, Treasury and the Clean Energy Regulator.

The Government will receive the report by the middle of the year and it will provide important input into the Government’s Energy White Paper.

Thank you once again for writing to me about this matter.

Yours sincerely

Josh Frydenberg
Federal Member for Kooyong | Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Parliament House Office | a: R1:44 Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 | p: 02 6277 4606 | f: 02 6277 8546
Electorate Office | a: 695 Burke Road, Camberwell VIC 3124 | p: 03 9882 3677  |  f: 03 9882 3773
Email: josh.frydenberg.mp@aph.gov.au  |  Website: www.joshfrydenberg.com.au

Open letter to Josh Frydenberg: Your attempt to delist Tasmanian forest is very wrong

Open letter

TO: Josh Frydenberg, MP for Kooyong.

I wish to draw to your attention that the Abbott government's attempt to withdraw the World Heritage nomination of Tasmanian forests is very wrong.

Tasmania world heritage area rally: the committee will hand down its decision late on Monday night. Photograph: Rob Blakers/AAP Image

The IUCN has found that, contrary to your government’s claim that the area was heavily degraded, that:

• 85% of the 74,000 hectares was natural forest 
• 45% is old-growth forest. 
• Just 4% could be described as heavily disturbed by logging, roads and other infrastructure. 

Eric Abetz and Tony Abbott have grossly misrepresented this situation and told outright lies about this forest nominated for protection.

I wish you to represent my views on this in the Australian Parliament. Could you please confirm to me when you do this and provide me the the Hansard reference?

Regards, Peter Campbell
Home address supplied